Maybe California Wants to Live After All?

A reminder of Margaret Thatcher's axiom, "First you win the argument, then you win the vote."

“This is not complicated, it is Econ 101.”

—Gavin Newsom

A few days ago I reflected here and in my last Civitas column about the sensible “Abundance” liberals who have belatedly discovered that America’s economy is over-regulated (who knew?), culminating in how unlikely it was that real flesh-and-blood Democrats would take on their own interest groups—especially environmental fundamentalists:

To achieve the new economy of abundance they seek requires saying a firm "No!" to the entire apparatus of Democratic Party constituency groups, especially the environmentalists, who derive their power from the ability to use lawsuits and bureaucratic process to say no. . .

The progressive Abundanauts deserve one and maybe two cheers for pointing out the dead end of "everything bagel liberalism," but until some Democratic political leaders decide to take the risk of saying No to their activist base, it will be a flash in the pan.

Well, to my astonishment, one group Democrats has decided to do just this, and it has happened in the most unlikeliest place: California.

From the New York Times today:

California leaders on Monday rolled back a landmark law that was a national symbol of environmental protection before it came to be vilified as a primary reason for the state’s severe housing shortage and homelessness crisis.

For more than half a century, the law, the California Environmental Quality Act, has allowed environmentalists to slow suburban growth as well as given neighbors and disaffected parties a powerful tool to stop projects they disliked.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills, which were written by Democrats but had rare bipartisan support in California’s divided State Capitol, that will allow many development projects to avoid rigorous environmental review and, potentially, the delaying and cost-inflating lawsuits that have discouraged construction in the state.

Gov. Hairgel flexed his muscles big time, saying he would not sign the state’s budget unless CEQA was scaled back. This is a reform that Gov. Jerry Brown recommended a decade ago, but such was the stranglehold of environmentalists on the Democrats’ supermajority in the California legislature that the proposal never got anywhere.

The Wall Street Journal account of the story has this delicious nugget:

“We have seen this abuse over and over and over again,” the governor said. “We have fallen prey to a strategy of delay. As a result of that, we have too much demand chasing too little supply. This is not complicated, it is Econ 101.”

Of course, Econ 101 isn’t a strong suit of Democrats these days, and I am sure that the “rollback” of CEQA doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. Still, that California Democrats decided to take a modest whack at CEQA recalls Samuel Johnson’s line that “a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

The significance of this step is that it represents that the death grip environmentalists enjoy over Democrats is weakening. And they are not happy about it at all. Cue the usual green hysteria:

Discussions about changing the environmental law have repeatedly surfaced at the State Capitol over the past decade, only to be thwarted by opposition from environmentalists and local governments. This year was different. . .

Democrats have long been reluctant to weaken the law, known as CEQA, which they considered an environmental bedrock in a state that has prided itself on reducing pollution and protecting waterways. And environmentalists took them to task for the vote. . .

Environmentalists flooded a legislative hearing room on Monday, saying the sweeping changes could hurt sensitive ecosystems and make it too easy to build manufacturing sites that could cause more pollution. Some Democratic lawmakers expressed concern that the legislation could threaten habitat for certain species of butterflies, bears and bighorn sheep.

“Jeopardizing those whole ecosystems, I think, is a risk that we don’t want to take,” said State Senator Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat. . . Kim Delfino, a lobbyist for several environmental groups, said the law would allow the destruction of coastal habitats, forests, deserts and grasslands, and called it the “worst bill” for declining species that she had seen in 25 years of advocacy. “It blows a hole in our efforts to protect habitat,” she told lawmakers on Monday. “Make no mistake, this will be devastating.”

The Wall Street Journal’s account offers this:

Some environmentalists and other defenders of the longstanding law were furious, and warned that developers will now go unchecked. “Who needs Trump when we have a wolf in sheep clothing negotiating backroom deals while he and his oligarch donors score big,” one critic wrote on X.

It is easy to predict that none of parade of horribles that environmentalists use to frighten the children will come to pass.

One of Margaret Thatcher's favorite axioms comes into play here: "First you win the argument, then you win the vote." Converting your opponents is the first step to winning political victories. With a few smart progressives getting on the de-regulation bandwagon, the 50-year run of fundamentalist environmentalism may be over at last. As the Times notes:

California’s moves could inspire other Democratic-led states to weaken their environmental regulations to address their housing shortages. Massachusetts, New York, Minnesota and several other left-leaning states have laws much like CEQA.