California Gov. Gavin Newsom told the DealBook Summit that Democrats should be "more culturally normal" and "a little less judgmental," a phrase he did not define. The remark fuels an internal party debate over "cultural moderation," now centered on transgender rights from sports participation to medical care. Advocates of moderation argue it can help win elections; critics warn that conceding civil rights risks alienating marginalized voters and weakening long-term coalitions as the 2026 midterms and 2028 primary approach.
Gavin Newsom Urges Democrats To Be 'More Culturally Normal.' What That Means—and Why It Matters
Dec 11
Gavin Newsom said Democrats need to be more ‘culturally normal.’ Let’s unpack that.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential Democratic contender for 2028, told the DealBook Summit last week that Democrats should be "more culturally normal" and "a little less judgmental" if the party hopes to improve its electoral prospects. Newsom did not define what he meant by "culturally normal," but his remarks echo a broader debate within the party over cultural moderation and identity-focused politics.
Why Moderates Raise Cultural Normality
Moderate Democrats who advocate cultural moderation argue that emphasizing positions perceived as outside the mainstream can cost elections. They have previously pointed to slogans such as "Defund the police" as examples that failed to win broad public support. In recent months, the debate's flashpoint has been the rights of transgender people — from participation in school sports to access to education, public accommodations, parental rights and medical care.
Newsom's Comments And The Transgender Rights Debate
On a March episode of his podcast "This Is Gavin Newsom," Newsom said it is "deeply unfair" for trans girls and women to compete in women's sports. Some critics read that statement — and his broader call for cultural normality — as suggesting Democrats might accommodate majority objections to certain transgender rights for tactical reasons. Opponents argue that conceding rights to a marginalized group could alienate those voters and damage long-term trust in the party.
"Politics is about building coalitions capable of winning power and making the decisions you need to do that," Ezra Klein said on the New Yorker Magazine Radio Hour — a reminder that electoral strategy and civil-rights commitments can clash.
Class, Identity, And The Limits Of A Purely Strategic Approach
The split between those who prioritize class-based politics and those who emphasize identity issues is often presented as a binary, but most people occupy overlapping identities. Economic outcomes are influenced by race, gender, disability status and sexual orientation as much as by class. For example, the affordability of basic goods and steady employment can be profoundly affected if someone faces discrimination for being transgender, disabled, a single parent or a racial minority.
There is a civic and moral risk to treating civil rights as negotiable when they become politically inconvenient. Civil rights can be thought of as a chain whose strength is determined by the weakest link; when a political coalition is willing to compromise protections for one group, it sends a message of insecurity to all historically marginalized communities.
Political Trade-Offs Ahead
As the 2026 midterms approach and the 2028 Democratic primary season begins to form, internal debate about cultural moderation will intensify. Candidates and strategists will increasingly confront a central question: should Democrats promise to defend everyone's rights fully and risk being portrayed as outside the cultural mainstream, or should they narrow their commitments to try to win swing voters in key states?
How the party answers that question will shape messaging, coalition-building and trust with voters who have historically relied on its protection.
