Ranting On...Tom Steyer and the California Senate Race

Tom Steyer's decision this past week to not run for the Senate did not come as a very large surprise to me, and quite frankly is probably for the best for the Democrats.  Because of the way that California conducts its primaries (we discussed this a bit here), having too many candidates running for the party is a terrible idea.  At this point it appears that Attorney General Kamala Harris, a rising star in the Democratic Party who is clearly destined for higher things (think Cory Booker and Joni Ernst) just needs a stepping stone to the national stage, which a Senate seat will do.  I do hope that she's challenged by one (read: only one) Democrat, and considering the large Latino population in the state of California, it would make sense for one of the leading Democratic Latinos looking at the office (likely Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Rep. Xavier Becerra, or Rep. Loretta Sanchez) to get into the race.  Any more Democrats risks potentially handing the seat to a Republican (through vote-splitting), but Harris vs. one of the leading Latino contenders seems both practically and pragmatically the right decision.

Steyer, after all, doesn't have elected experience like these other contenders, and could risk alienating a populace that has the third-highest unemployment rate in the country, as well as is in the Top 20 in terms of the worst poverty rates in the country.  Having a hedge fund billionaire come in, likely spend $100 million of his own money on the race, and then have to face off against a Republican who will inevitably try to paint Steyer as an out-of-touch one-percenter-this seems like easy pickings, and something we don't want to have to embrace.  But this doesn't mean that Steyer wouldn't have made a good senator, particularly on the issue of climate change.

Climate change, it should be noted, is not what one would call one of the sexier political issues, particularly when people are voting.  People vote on things like guns, god, and green (money, that is, but I wanted the alliteration), but they don't vote on the environment.  This leaves a passion gap for politicians, always looking to score their next election win, over topics that are not instant winners with the public.  This isn't always an issue, as, thanks to budgeting and committee work, all senators eventually get to certain issues, but it's worth noting that issues that have a particular senator pushing them tend to become part of the forefront faster, and get more meaningful legislation.

Pet issues in the past have fueled legislation in this country.  Sen. Tom Harkin's deaf brother was the impetus for his push for the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Sen. Ted Kennedy's decades-long championship for health insurance was one of the leading reasons why Obamacare became a thing.  If gay marriage ends up being the law of the land later this year, Sen. Rob Portman's gay son Will may have more to do with it than decades worth of protests ever could.  And we wouldn't be having a national conversation about rapes in the military, the burdens of student loans, and the morality of drone strikes if it weren't for Sens. Gillibrand, Warren, and Paul right now.  The issues that stick in the bonnet of individual senators are important, principally because this is a ridiculously small body if you think about it-only 100 people vote on every single piece of legislation, and as a result they gain enormous leeway over the conversation that happens on the floor of the body, which thus influences the news and the national dialogue.

The problem is that no senator has embraced climate change as their pet issue, certainly not in the ways illustrated above, and certainly not in the way that Tom Steyer would have.  Some senators spring to mind who have gone above-and-beyond.  Barbara Boxer is arguably the biggest advocate for environmental causes, as she spearheaded the bill to block drilling in ANWR, introducing NOPA, and making climate change a leading component of her time in office.  However, she's retiring (hence this opening), and no one else has emerged.  Sens. Jeff Merkley and Brian Schatz both speak frequently on the environment, but none have the celebrity or the dynamic speaking ability that someone like Paul or Warren can accomplish.  Sen. Bernie Sanders wears the nametag of a Socialist, so his ability to bridge across the aisle and to the rest of the nation seems limited.  And someone like Elizabeth Warren or Dianne Feinstein has the name recognition to promote environmental causes (and gain instant attention for doing so) and they are strong advocates, but they have so many other issues on their radar that environmentalism seems unlikely to make it to the forefront.

So until Merkley or Schatz emerges as a national player, the Democratic movement needs a candidate that is willing to push hard for legislation around climate change that is critically important, so while Steyer dropping out is probably best from a November 2016 stand-point, I truly hope that he makes a point of endorsing a candidate who will reflect his desires on this issue.  Kamala Harris, Antonio Villagairosa, or whomever is the nominee will have the instant celebrity as a senator from the country's largest state to make a major impact immediately upon election, and my hope is that the people of the Golden State agree.