Commentary: 90 minutes, 6 candidates, zero big moments — but some important differences

Two of the honorable candidates for the position of governor, cowboy and dilettante, apparently could not find the relationship of the first debate on Wednesday night, were seen wearing casually open dress shirts.

Mr. Middleground was sporting a scruffy beard, apparently unable to afford a razor amid California’s affordability crisis. A trademark look that always makes me think if this doesn’t work, you’ll choose to stay on a less expensive slip boat by the Bay.

The millionaire wore Nikes instead of dress shoes, a sartorial nod perhaps to his desire to be a foreign fighter. Or maybe his feet hurt.

The last two opponents were remarkably unremarkable.

Why did you start with fashion? Honestly, it might be the most interesting, and telling, bit of insight from this first (of three) opportunity for our next ruler to let us know who they are and what they’re made of. If the debate has shown anything, it’s that none of these people have any interest or political vision that excites our collective future.

Yes, there were a few arguments here and there about Tom Steyer’s money, Katie Porter’s anger, Matt Mahan’s technical affinities and Chad Bianco’s far-right worldview. But even those were predicted.

Still, among the yawns, there were a few answers worth noting, ones that might give us some insight into how different the Democratic candidates are (Despite all the hype, it seems unlikely that two Republicans will make it out of the primary, and even less likely that in a Democratic vs. Republican race, a Democrat will lose blue California.)

I’ll start with an amazing place where I agree with Steve Hilton, a Republican endorsed by President Trump.

Candidates were asked whether they would support a ban on social media for children under 16. This is a fast-moving idea that tech companies don’t like. Australia and Indonesia are already banned. Other countries, including France and Portugal, have them in the works. Florida banned children under 14 from opening social media accounts on their own last year.

And a Los Angeles judge last month struck down Meta and YouTube when it found that the platforms were damaging a young woman’s mental health with their addictive features.

Hilton pushed the question of the ban further, saying “you don’t understand.” He has long argued that it is not just social media that is the problem, but having children staring at a digital device for hours a day instead of interacting in the real world. It was one of the real answers of the night.

“We have to get to the root of the problem, and that is devices and screens,” he said. “I think every parent in their heart knows it’s wrong.”

While Steyer and Xavier Becerra, the former California attorney general, both said they would support such a ban, the remaining three either blocked it or said they would not. Porter rejected the under-16 ban, but said he “might consider a different ban,” without elaborating.

Mahan, who is backed by significant technology funding, and Bianco both said they believe requiring parental consent is the way to go (though Mahan has said he would ban the devices in schools).

As Becerra points out, “kids have died because of their use of social media,” so it’s an area where policy is important. And if the candidate doesn’t see the government’s role in managing the risks of social media, what will happen to artificial intelligence?

The candidates also differed on how they would deal with homelessness and the related problem of housing affordability, although the devil was often buried in the details.

At least for the Democrats. For Bianco, the difference was clear.

“We don’t deal with homeless people. So stop calling homeless people,” he said while pointing at the moderators. “It has nothing to do with homes. This is a mental illness caused by drugs and alcohol, mental illness.”

Yes, this is wrong. Last year, the UC San Francisco Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative released the results of a comprehensive study of the state’s homeless population. It found that for many people living on our streets, “the cost of housing was simply out of control.” It also found that a growing percentage of those elderly people – almost half of them were over 50 – were also homeless after hardships such as illness or job loss.

“It’s also families fleeing dating and domestic violence,” Porter said. “It’s doubled and tripled people. People living in their cars on our campuses. Homelessness comes in many different forms.”

Most of the Democratic candidates seem to understand this and embrace the idea of ​​putting more money into helping people stay in their homes after the crisis, instead of trying to rehouse them after they lose their place.

“How can I help you keep your home?” Becerra said. “Because it costs me a lot more money to get you off the streets, get you help in a shelter, than to keep you at home.”

But the issue of homelessness came up during the day among the candidates. Steyer said he and his wife have helped fund low-barrier homes, not just shelters, where people don’t need to be drug-free and where they can bring their pets — two issues that are common barriers to voluntarily moving people to the curb.

Mahan, the mayor of San José, who often praises his city’s success in getting people into housing, acknowledged that emergency and transitional housing is important, but also voiced support for forcing people to accept help. Last year, San José passed a law he supported that some say criminalizes homelessness — a person can be cited twice for refusing shelter, and a third refusal within 18 months can lead to jail time.

“When the shelter was there, we wanted people to come into the houses,” Mahan said, adding, “We have to be able to authorize treatment.”

It’s a controversial position, but also very popular. Gov. Gavin Newsom has supported mandated treatment, in a simple way, with his CARE Court (which is technically voluntary). And the movement to require people to accept asylum or face incarceration is growing on the right and even in the Democratic center.

But there is a fine and dangerous line with treatment and shelter requirements that are often pushed back and forth in favor of the argument for cleaner, safer streets. Whenever we start locking people up – whether it’s in mental institutions or immigration detention centers or prisons – we have to be careful that expediency is not a manipulation of ethics.

Of course, the debate would not be complete without the position of the members of the Democratic Alliance on our president, speaking of morality.

Steyer was happy that Trump came behind him on social media, which is a point of pride that he is the right person to fight MAGA. He also said that he would abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement if he could, which he cannot do.

Becerra highlighted his many cases as California attorney general during Trump’s first term, and vowed to keep fighting. Porter credits his time in Congress and his efforts to help Democrats in other races win.

Mahan took another approach, promising to fight if necessary, but adding, “We need to work together, and we need to find consensus with these administrations on certain issues.”

Newsom has learned the hard way that the same thing is what Trump says, and changes without warning or reason.

So what’s your take from all of this?

Boring father; hot mom; the rich do good; try something new; One MAGA; Two MAGA.

None of them hit it out of the park, but neither did they shoot. Maybe next time.