Pragmatic Progressivism
I know, I am not coining a new term, but I think we need to look at a new alliance to bring solutions to California and beyond for 2026 and really 2028...
I had lunch today with some thoughtful political observers.
The conversation wound its way around to one I am having very often these days.
Democrats are frustrated.
They see the party splintering.
Advocacy groups are ascending, taking the party to a direction of constant warfare and no practical solutions. Revolution without logic. Emotion without a channel. The papering over differences with the common enemy of Trump and MAGA is one thing, but eventually divisions will have to be addressed.
California seems to want a blend of progressivism and pragmatism. The progressivism is a reaction to the failures of the system, which right now has presented no opportunities for challenges of realistic proportions. The energy is there. People are frustrated but settle for the same old because there is no viable alternative. But, they need something to move the ball forward versus mere “taking.”
We are seeing a redux of the Hiram Johnson and Theodore Roosevelt of old. We need something to change. We also need pragmatism to marry up with the progressivism driving the conversation. The progressivism we have is a lot of advocacy- complaints without solutions. Solutions cannot be “more spending, more taxes, more of the same, just a different name.” Solutions need to be reform with a path to a new, “new.”
The Republicans are an after thought in California, and might as well be left out of the conversation except for the fact they represent 40% of the population (roughly). 40%. But, they are heterogeneous too.
What is going on here is a need to figure out how to get that 40%, or a plurality of that portion of our electorate, into a coalition of those wanting to see change- a progressive, but with a pragmatic approach. It has been tried but not completed.
What does such a progressive pragmatic look like?
It is a way to harness the good of the Progressive cause and add an element of maturation of pragmatism.
Think public options for insurance. Think Prop 13 reform while adding in income tax cuts. Think private investments to assist in rebuilding devastated cities. Think catalyzing those dollars to “invest” instead of “loan” or “grant” to keep businesses in California. Think Healthcare with a Government Option using the UC system, moving a way from insurance to care delivery. Think utility reform where we stop underwriting private gain via public risk.
Use the Power of Government for good.
We have the tools to solve a lot of the problems, the issue is we need the true progressives, those who are willing to take on the entrenched interests, and offer pragmatic solutions versus mere redistribution a la Tom Steyer or Katie Porter. Re-distribution is part of the equation, but there has to be more than just “taking.” The “pie” has to be “expanded.”
As we look to 2026 and 2028, the question is whether the far left’s energy can be harnessed from beyond anger and find ways to channel that anger into pragmatic solutions.
Sure, those “in the seats” are vulnerable, but the “left” is not offering something people can “take to the bank.”
Anyone driving around Los Angeles is seeing the results of the thinking (i.e. Council District 1). Look at the changes in San Francisco as well since the new Mayor and DA were elected.
Is there any reason Spencer Pratt is surging other than the total dystopia we see every day in the city? His ad about Raman and Bass hits a chord. If LA is going to run the State, then is this the image the State wants for its government leaders? You know the question will be asked on a national stage with Gavin Newsom’s impending Presidential run.
We hear words like “abundance,” and other themes like affordability, but the reality is, how can we offer solutions to actually solve the problems needs to be more creative, more pragmatic, more substantive, but with an ear to the frustration people are feeling with those in Power. You have to challenge them. You have to show people you are all in.
The concentration of wealth is obvious, but transferring it to the Government is not necessarily the right answer either. Reliance on the philanthropic sector to take more of the projects the Government began shouldering over the past decade is another area we need to show leadership.
The funds exist, what is missing is the leadership. We have too many managers- people wedded to the old and not willing to see what the new can bring. They do not see the opportunity instead of the risk.
We need to simultaneously attack and build. The speed of the political cycle is speeding up at a rate where many of the old rules are being challenged. They will not be swept away, but they will be amended. You have to show “fight,” show you are willing to “take on the entrenched interests,” but offer those who are supported by that interest a “viable path to ensure their life does not change.”
Think Labor.
The laborers are the true constituency, but their leaders act to limit policies which can be bringing more jobs, lower cost of living, and meet the needs of their constituencies. Why? Sometimes the cause is more important than who the cause serves.
Advocacy- the true corruptor in politics.
Progressives without pragmatism are merely advocates, looking to perpetuate a problem not solve it for those who they should be serving.
Teddy Roosevelt took on the Trusts of his day. He famously broke them up. Some say the businesses like Standard Oil did better in pieces than as a single entity, but that is hindsight. His work to break the “trusts” was revolutionary. He ushered the word “Progressive” to describe his changes he pushed for. He was not perfect, but he did it. Trusts in the early 1900s were stagnating progress, innovation, and job growth. They were removed.
Fast forward 120 years.
Think about our education system in California. 40% of our budget goes there, every year. How much is that? Last year, it was 40% of $350 billion dollars. $140 billion. How big is $140 billion? It would place California’s education system in as larger than Verizon in terms of revenue.
Furthermore, think about the service it offers.
Every Californian is constitutionally guaranteed to be educated. They are not guaranteed the education is a quality one. The State Supreme Court ruled as such. Kamala Harris was the AG who won the case against those challenging a lower court decision upholding the civil rights requirement that all Californians are guaranteed a quality education. Per the court, there are no civil rights associated with those educated subpar versus those educated well. There is no requirement to make those who are a monopoly on the education, similarly to those like Standard Oil of the turn of the 20th Century, do anything different until a legal challenge or statutory challenge is lodged. Imagine a corporation not having to provide quality product to its customers but there is no other option? Imagine we, the citizens, are forced to pay to continue to provide the subpar quality because of a constitutional requirement. Moreover, imagine the fact our tax dollars which pay for the subpar education, are then used to lobby and elect the same people who are supposed to guarantee the education is quality?
Who is fighting that a quality education should be a civil right? Who is fighting to ensure those who are educated can be active participants in our society? Who is fighting to ensure we can create a thriving society through a constitutional guaranteed right to an education. It is like buying the oil, but there is no guarantee your car can run on it. If it ruins your engine, “oops, does not matter.”
Meanwhile, we are at the dawn of revolution and education is a huge part of it. AI is going to shift our workplace. It is going to make certain jobs obsolete and others more efficient. Our entire education will have to shift and education will be critical to surviving and thriving in a new AI driven environment. Education in the classical sense, moreover, will be a premium. How to think instead of regurgitation of information will be critical. Our workplace will have to create new work. Value add will shift. These are challenges which can usher in a whole new dynamic economy, a whole new society.
We cannot be bound by the Trusts of old, the interest groups which are controlling our State. We need to be embracing the innovation of the new. New means a new way of thinking. It means a progressive attitude with a pragmatic solution. It means getting things done, not more advocacy. It is challenging those who stand in the way of our progress.
We need to protect people, using Government to ensure all entities are governed, not just the chosen few.
Read those words again, ensure those entities are governed- all entities, including those in Government.
We need to ensure Government functions for all Californians, not selected interest groups which currently dominate our politics. Look at where we are now. Look at the Edison situation in the Los Angeles Times. Look at Dana Williamson. She fell because of patronage. Look at Ricardo Lara and his trips to Bermuda. Labor is there too. Look at the teacher’s strikes after LAUSD told people they could not continue to fund an infrastructure the same as it was when there were 40% more kids.
It is everywhere. We need reform. We need someone to step up and call it for what it is- someone to lead.
Look no further than our current Gubernatorial. The D’s were likened to the PRI of Mexico by Gustavo Arellano, a tribute to the former one party rule there only recently broken. The “mysterious rise” is not so mysterious- it was the Game there for decades.
Reform tried to take on PRI over the years in Mexico. Those reformers were assassinated, destroyed, and cast aside due to the risks they presented to those who were cosseted.
Change was needed.
Change was wanted.
Change was limited, similar to what we are seeing here.
People do not have the words, but they want it.
Maybe 2026 slips by. Maybe it is a watershed moment- one where the Machine limps along but the fatal cracks begin to emerge.
Maybe things speed up in 2028, a broader movement, leading to 2030’s election for Governor.
There has to be a new alignment between centrists, Republicans, and Democrats propelling him. There is room for a new coalition to form. Mahan tried, but he did not know how to punch, to get to the frustration Spencer Pratt is channeling so effectively in Los Angeles.
The Machine staggered with Swalwell before recovering.
Caruso scared them.
They survived the tapes and the scandals in City Hall then. It has not gotten stronger. Weakness abounds. The challenges are coming. If it is not the Centrists, it is far left and their Progressivism without pragmatism. Such a model is not where our State or Nation need to go.
It starts with the lessons we learned here in Altadena. It starts with bringing Government into the equation, but not relying on it. It starts with challenging those who stand in the way, making them answer as to why the changes will not work. It continues with changing the dialogue, bringing new alignments.
“Progressive Pragmatism-” remember those words.
Build wealth, not affordability.
These are the lessons of 2026. These are the trends we are seeing. It is time for a new Progressive to emerge.