California voters have an identity crisis on their hands.
We worry our children will never afford homes near us. We dread filling our gas tanks. We want homelessness addressed effectively and expect government to account for the money it spends.
Yet the party who has created California’s affordability crisis over the past three decades once again remains in power.
To me, it feels like political Stockholm syndrome: Voters are attached to the political system and people responsible for making everyday life harder.
Why?
Why, oh why, do we keep accepting failure after failure from people asking for another term to fix it?
Loving California should make us demand more from its government.
Consider gasoline. The U.S. Energy Information Administration identifies taxes, environmental requirements, special fuel blends, and California’s isolated petroleum market as contributors to higher prices seen only in California.
Policy is part of the equation, alongside market conditions and production costs.
While clean air matters, so does a working parent’s ability to afford the drive to work without incurring a mileage tax.
When a policy adds costs or taxes, its supporters should explain the benefits, who bears the burden, and whether a less expensive approach could achieve the same goal.
A worthy intention is not enough. It’s the start of the discussion, not the end.
Why does the same political sales pitch keep working, cycle after cycle?
Part of the answer may be the difference between a political brand and a governing record.
Spencer Pratt recently argued that political storytelling can outweigh the underlying product.
He used Nike and New Balance as metaphors. Both are good running shoes. Nike tells the story better. The swoosh alone tells a story.
He criticized Republicans for failing to communicate effectively while opponents build compelling political stories, even if not based in fact.
There is a lesson there, and he is 100% correct: Branding matters. A political label can suggest compassion, competence, or progress before a candidate can even explain a proposal.
Once voters identify with that branded label, even without a credible explanation on how to achieve it, criticism of it will fall short because the story has already been sold without even reading or buying the book. Defending your party of choice becomes easier than taking time evaluating the actual path forward or the outcome.
We saw this here locally in the City Council race about building another hospital in Santa Clarita. I cannot wait to see our newly elected council members “just ****-ing build” another hospital. I will wait with bated breath and will be the first to congratulate him if that actually happens.
Will voters remember?
Only time will tell. An admirable goal does not exempt a policy from critical evaluation on how to actually make it happen.
Republicans must also understand: Dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership does not automatically earn us anyone’s vote. We need credible alternatives, concrete and clear explanations, and accountability for our own officials.
A voter worried about rent needs a practical answer. A parent needs confidence that we understand the pressures facing the family.
We earn trust by listening, explaining, and delivering. Voters should ask every candidate: What did you promise? What happened? What did it cost? Who benefitted? What will you change if your approach failed?
All politicians deserve scrutiny, regardless of party. We owe elected officials no permanent loyalty due to party affiliation.
They owe the public an honest account of their actions and decisions.
Love California enough to question its leadership. And when things don’t actually change, be willing to change your mind and your vote.
And PS: Thank you to all District 2 voters who voted for me in the recent election. We fell short, but I appreciate your confidence and look forward to seeing you out and about in the community.
Denise Lite is a Santa Clarita resident. “Right Here, Right Now” appears Saturdays and rotates among local Republicans.
