WEBVTT - Can Republicans Win California Again? Steve Hilton Thinks So 0:00:02.720 --> 0:00:10.000 Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. 0:00:10.000 --> 0:00:11.720 Sometimes people have asked me, how did you end up 0:00:11.760 --> 0:00:14.800 supporting President Trump? In many ways, I think the campaign 0:00:14.840 --> 0:00:19.280 I'm running is not particularly partisan. However, there are realities 0:00:19.320 --> 0:00:22.280 about running for office in the US. But look, he's 0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:24.079 not on the ballot and this is a point of 0:00:24.280 --> 0:00:25.400 choice for California. 0:00:26.920 --> 0:00:31.640 Steve Hilton, once a British political strategist, now the Trump 0:00:31.760 --> 0:00:36.040 backed Republican running for governor of California. Do you agree 0:00:36.040 --> 0:00:37.479 with his decision to go to Warneran? 0:00:37.640 --> 0:00:39.840 Well, look, I'm just focused on this race. 0:00:40.040 --> 0:00:43.120 You really don't think you need to or the voters 0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:46.559 of California deserve to hear you express a view on that. 0:00:47.000 --> 0:00:48.880 You're trying to be a leader of the state. 0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:51.839 No, I understand, But there's plenty to fix and focus 0:00:51.880 --> 0:00:52.760 on in California. 0:00:54.800 --> 0:01:00.690 From Bloomberg Weekend, this is the Mishal Husain Show. I'm 0:01:00.690 --> 0:01:06.920 Mishal Husain. Over the next few months, the US political 0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:10.600 climate is going to get even more intense as we 0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:15.679 get closer to the midterms. This November's set of elections 0:01:15.680 --> 0:01:19.959 will mark the halfway point between one presidential vote and 0:01:20.040 --> 0:01:23.399 the next, and while most of the attention will be 0:01:23.480 --> 0:01:27.360 on Congress whether the Democrats can seize control of one 0:01:27.480 --> 0:01:32.640 or both houses. There are some fascinating contests elsewhere, and 0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:35.080 one of them is the race to be the next 0:01:35.280 --> 0:01:41.559 governor of California. Now, California is a notable Democratic leaning state, 0:01:42.200 --> 0:01:47.640 but it has had Republican governors Ronald Reagan, more recently 0:01:48.120 --> 0:01:53.560 Arnold Schwarzenegger, and this time a Republican is through to 0:01:53.680 --> 0:01:57.800 the final stage. One of two candidates on the ballot 0:01:58.200 --> 0:02:04.880 in November is Steve Hilton, and he is unusual, not 0:02:05.120 --> 0:02:09.080 least because he only became a US citizen five years ago. 0:02:09.840 --> 0:02:13.720 He's someone whose name I've known for about twenty years 0:02:14.280 --> 0:02:17.800 because he used to be embedded in UK politics. He 0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:21.760 worked for the Conservative leader David Cameron before and after 0:02:21.800 --> 0:02:25.760 he became Prime Minister. So when I saw Steve Hilton's 0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:29.680 advance through the California governor primary, I knew I wanted 0:02:29.720 --> 0:02:33.680 to understand it, and I reached out to him. His 0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:37.680 rival in November is Democrat Javier Bessera, someone who used 0:02:37.680 --> 0:02:41.240 to work for Joe Biden. And California is such an 0:02:41.280 --> 0:02:45.239 important place economically in global as well as US terms, 0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:50.440 that this conversation does go beyond state matters above all. 0:02:50.800 --> 0:02:53.280 I hope that through it you get a much better 0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:57.120 sense of a man who wants to be California's next leader. 0:02:58.840 --> 0:02:59.720 How are you doing great? 0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:03.760 Thank you for saying yes to my email out of 0:03:03.800 --> 0:03:07.040 the blue. How are you most importantly good? 0:03:07.120 --> 0:03:08.760 Thanks? Onto the next round? 0:03:08.760 --> 0:03:12.440 Well, yeah, I know, absolutely, Well stop next round of interviews, 0:03:12.560 --> 0:03:14.720 or next round of the campaign, the. 0:03:14.720 --> 0:03:17.239 Campaign, the next fight, you know, like there's no break. 0:03:17.320 --> 0:03:19.079 We got to keep going. There's not much time now. 0:03:19.480 --> 0:03:21.359 Well, look, we'll talk about all of that. And it's 0:03:21.360 --> 0:03:24.160 clearly it's been a remarkable few weeks for you. And 0:03:24.200 --> 0:03:28.120 you've obviously been involved in politics for a long time. 0:03:28.200 --> 0:03:31.600 You've been a strategist, you've been a political aid, you've 0:03:31.600 --> 0:03:35.600 been a commentator on Fox News. I'm still curious about 0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:39.200 the moment when you decided to run for office yourself, 0:03:39.200 --> 0:03:41.200 because that's a very big decision to make. 0:03:41.640 --> 0:03:44.200 I don't think there was one one specific moment, but 0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:47.760 there was a period of time that I can recall. 0:03:48.200 --> 0:03:50.880 As you mentioned, i'd been a host on television, a 0:03:50.880 --> 0:03:55.360 most unexpected turn in my career in media. I greatly 0:03:55.440 --> 0:03:58.840 enjoyed that, but as the years went on, I felt 0:03:58.840 --> 0:04:02.000 that I wanted to get back into actually doing things 0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:05.960 rather than just talking about things. I love California, been 0:04:06.040 --> 0:04:09.360 living here since twenty twelve, raised my family here, started 0:04:09.440 --> 0:04:11.840 a business here. I could see that things were going 0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:14.720 off the rails pretty badly from a policy point of view, 0:04:14.760 --> 0:04:18.800 so I started a policy organization, Golden Together, started working 0:04:18.800 --> 0:04:21.160 on some of our big problems in California. I then 0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:26.000 started engaging with Sacramento trying to advance those policy ideas 0:04:26.040 --> 0:04:29.680 through the legislature. And that was the point where I 0:04:29.800 --> 0:04:35.160 realized just how dysfunctional and broken California's system of government is, 0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:40.440 because every single meeting I had with legislators, Democrats, Republicans, 0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:44.200 it was the same story. Yes, you're right, these policies 0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:47.440 you're advocating would make a huge difference. We'd get more 0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:52.160 housing built, we'd lower the cost. All those things are true. However, 0:04:52.480 --> 0:04:56.279 it can never happen because the unions won't allow it, 0:04:56.680 --> 0:05:00.320 the climate activists won't allow it. The system just can't 0:05:00.360 --> 0:05:03.640 make it happen. And I just realized then that something 0:05:03.760 --> 0:05:06.880 has to change otherwise I love it is just going 0:05:06.960 --> 0:05:08.560 to continue to decline. 0:05:08.760 --> 0:05:11.160 Yeah, it's the state you've made your home in the 0:05:11.200 --> 0:05:13.600 country that you've made your home having left the UK. 0:05:13.800 --> 0:05:15.960 And we're going to dig into all of this and 0:05:16.000 --> 0:05:18.200 the nuts and bolts of your campaign in a moment, 0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:20.240 but I just want to understand you more broadly. To 0:05:20.279 --> 0:05:23.840 start with, would you say that being on Fox, having 0:05:23.839 --> 0:05:25.719 that kind of prominence on TV, that's got to have 0:05:25.800 --> 0:05:28.760 played an important role in rising in the Republican Party? 0:05:28.880 --> 0:05:29.839 Right it? 0:05:31.000 --> 0:05:33.279 Donald Trump, it helped his rise because he was known 0:05:33.279 --> 0:05:35.039 from television and he was a fan of your show 0:05:35.080 --> 0:05:35.560 on Fox. 0:05:35.880 --> 0:05:38.120 I think that's right that it gives you a platform. 0:05:38.440 --> 0:05:42.200 But I think it's that combination actually of media experience, 0:05:42.720 --> 0:05:46.200 policy and government experience and business experience that actually is 0:05:46.240 --> 0:05:49.119 a good fit for this role, not only running for governor, 0:05:49.200 --> 0:05:52.400 but as I planned to be being the next governor. 0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:56.960 But when did you actually become a Republican because twenty 0:05:57.000 --> 0:06:00.240 seventeen you were very clearly saying you weren't partisan, and 0:06:00.640 --> 0:06:02.799 you were you were neither Democrat or Republican. 0:06:03.560 --> 0:06:07.000 Well, it's interesting in many ways. I think the campaign 0:06:07.000 --> 0:06:12.039 I'm running is not particularly partisan. It's based on some broad, 0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:15.600 common sense principles that I think most people can get behind. 0:06:15.640 --> 0:06:19.679 So I've never thought of myself as a particularly partisan person. However, 0:06:19.760 --> 0:06:25.279 there are realities about running for office. In the US, 0:06:25.120 --> 0:06:27.920 it's basically a two party system, and of course I 0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:33.560 identify very much with the principles that underlie the Republican Party, 0:06:33.680 --> 0:06:36.120 just as I do the Conservative Party, where I work 0:06:36.200 --> 0:06:39.359 for some years and was part of a coalition government 0:06:39.440 --> 0:06:43.159 led by Conservative Prime Minister. The basic ideas that you 0:06:43.200 --> 0:06:46.880 would associate with the center right are ideas that I 0:06:46.960 --> 0:06:50.960 share in terms of limiting the role of government, enhancing 0:06:51.000 --> 0:06:54.280 individual freedom. Those sorts of things have always been part 0:06:54.320 --> 0:06:58.200 of my political philosophy and therefore connect very much with 0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:00.400 the Republican Party here in America. 0:07:01.000 --> 0:07:03.000 I of course remember you from your time in the 0:07:03.120 --> 0:07:07.680 UK working for David Cameron before he got elected. After 0:07:07.720 --> 0:07:11.120 he became Prime minister. You were part of that effort 0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:14.760 to detoxify the Conservative Party, to make it more electable, 0:07:14.760 --> 0:07:18.880 bring it into more of the center ground, more socially liberal, 0:07:18.960 --> 0:07:22.840 more climate conscious. Are you still the same guy who 0:07:22.840 --> 0:07:23.160 did that? 0:07:24.120 --> 0:07:27.000 Oh, very much, very much. I understand that some people 0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:31.000 who haven't been following the intervening years may look at 0:07:31.040 --> 0:07:33.480 that and say, well, it's very different. David Cameron's a 0:07:33.600 --> 0:07:38.120 very different personality to the president, who's the leader of 0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:41.000 the Republican Party in America today. I can see that 0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:43.720 very clearly. But everyone has their own personal style. But 0:07:43.880 --> 0:07:48.560 the ideas that really drove that process of change for 0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:53.120 the Conservative Party, in particular, focusing on people who've been 0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:57.360 left behind, on dealing with poverty and inequality, on helping 0:07:57.400 --> 0:08:00.600 working people, that was a really big part of the 0:08:00.640 --> 0:08:03.200 work that we did twenty years or so ago with 0:08:03.280 --> 0:08:06.440 the Conservative Party. And that's a big driver of what 0:08:06.480 --> 0:08:09.440 I'm really arguing for here. And there's many other similarities 0:08:09.480 --> 0:08:12.440 as well. I think perhaps the broadest one is a 0:08:12.480 --> 0:08:16.200 sense that I've always had, which is a sense that 0:08:16.240 --> 0:08:19.920 we need to put power in people's hands and enable 0:08:19.960 --> 0:08:24.480 them to fight back against establishments or systems or centralized 0:08:24.520 --> 0:08:29.440 power that benefits a small group rather than the majority 0:08:29.440 --> 0:08:31.520 of people. That's always been a really dry and important 0:08:31.600 --> 0:08:32.360 driving force. 0:08:33.080 --> 0:08:35.920 Yeah, but what you did for David Cameron, the person 0:08:35.920 --> 0:08:38.400 who you still say you are, that is very, very 0:08:38.440 --> 0:08:42.079 far from not only Donald Trump himself, but MAGA And 0:08:42.360 --> 0:08:45.400 I just wonder how you reconcile that, because you are 0:08:45.520 --> 0:08:50.199 endorsed by President Trump himself, what you're representing yourself as 0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:53.160 is I think more than Arnold Schwarzenegger wing of the 0:08:53.240 --> 0:08:56.480 Republican Party in California, and he's someone who endors Kamla 0:08:56.520 --> 0:08:58.400 Harris in the last presidential election. 0:08:58.720 --> 0:09:00.439 I don't think that the box is a quite as 0:09:00.440 --> 0:09:03.320 neat and defined as that. I'm endorsed by many different 0:09:03.400 --> 0:09:08.080 kinds of Republicans. Of course, political parties are coalitions, and 0:09:08.120 --> 0:09:11.200 as I say, I think this campaign everything I'm arguing 0:09:11.240 --> 0:09:14.839 for it's not particularly partisan. The fact that we've got 0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:17.679 Democrats supporting the campaign is an example of that. And 0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:21.080 I think that what I've always tried to focus on 0:09:21.640 --> 0:09:25.760 is really the substance the ideas specific things. I'm a 0:09:25.800 --> 0:09:30.280 pragmatic candidate in this race, not an ideologue that the 0:09:31.160 --> 0:09:35.080 arguments I'm making about how we need to turn California around. 0:09:35.280 --> 0:09:37.880 We've got the highest cost of living by far. I'm 0:09:37.880 --> 0:09:40.880 not sure it's appreciated around the world because you look 0:09:40.920 --> 0:09:44.320 at the headline for California with the fourth biggest economy, 0:09:44.559 --> 0:09:47.320 and there's a sense of complacency there on the part 0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:50.360 of the current leadership. They keep saying that as if 0:09:50.640 --> 0:09:54.200 that answers all questions underneath that this is a state 0:09:54.280 --> 0:09:57.760 that's in real trouble, especially from an economic point of view, 0:09:58.040 --> 0:10:01.680 and the solutions there actually go across party lines. They're 0:10:01.720 --> 0:10:06.200 just practical things to make life easier for families and businesses. 0:10:06.240 --> 0:10:10.160 So I think this whole conversation around you know, labels 0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:13.440 and whatever doesn't really get to the point about what 0:10:14.040 --> 0:10:18.559 is needed in order to help California get back on track. 0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:20.839 Okay, but I don't think you can bat away being 0:10:20.840 --> 0:10:24.640 the fourth largest economy in the world quite so likely. 0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:27.559 This happened last year it was the fifth largest. Then 0:10:27.640 --> 0:10:32.000 California overtook Japan under Gavin Newsom. It doesn't feel like 0:10:32.080 --> 0:10:35.960 a failure to many people in the state, I would suspect, 0:10:36.000 --> 0:10:37.600 and certainly to people outside. 0:10:37.800 --> 0:10:40.480 Well, I think it does to many people inside, because 0:10:40.480 --> 0:10:44.400 they're struggling to even live. That's why during Gavin Newsom's 0:10:44.440 --> 0:10:48.200 tenure as governor, nearly two million Californians have actually moved 0:10:48.240 --> 0:10:51.080 out because they can't live here anymore because it's so expensive. 0:10:51.360 --> 0:10:53.920 Let's just look at that number. The fourth biggest economy 0:10:53.920 --> 0:10:57.200 in the world that's driven by two things that don't 0:10:57.240 --> 0:11:01.640 actually tell a story of health in terms of our economy. Partly, 0:11:01.960 --> 0:11:06.400 it's driven by very small number of tech companies fantastic 0:11:06.400 --> 0:11:09.679 success stories, which I strongly support. I'm very proud of 0:11:09.720 --> 0:11:12.880 the fact that we're leading the AI revolution in California. 0:11:13.160 --> 0:11:16.960 They generate enormous amounts of revenue, but not very many jobs. 0:11:17.280 --> 0:11:19.880 The second part of the story in terms of the 0:11:19.920 --> 0:11:22.720 size of our economy is that it includes the size 0:11:22.760 --> 0:11:25.840 of government. They've doubled the budget of the state of 0:11:25.840 --> 0:11:29.600 California in the last ten years or so. Meanwhile, the 0:11:29.679 --> 0:11:35.199 results on every measure education standards, the quality of our infrastructure, 0:11:35.520 --> 0:11:38.680 the highest unemployment rate of all fifty states, the highest 0:11:38.679 --> 0:11:42.720 poverty rate of all fifty states, tied with Louisiana. I 0:11:42.800 --> 0:11:46.959 think if we don't change direction this year, California really 0:11:47.000 --> 0:11:49.760 is heading for economic disaster. I've heard from so many 0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:53.080 business leaders that they're waiting to see what happens in November, 0:11:53.400 --> 0:11:57.400 and if we don't vote for change in California, they're 0:11:57.400 --> 0:12:01.080 out And the exodus of businesses in California that you've 0:12:01.080 --> 0:12:04.480 seen in the last few years could turn into a stampede. 0:12:05.000 --> 0:12:08.439 So if California is doing that badly, I want to 0:12:08.480 --> 0:12:13.760 put two other points too. One is whether you think 0:12:13.880 --> 0:12:17.280 there is something longer term going on that is affecting 0:12:17.320 --> 0:12:19.800 the poorest in California and elsewhere, and that is a 0:12:19.840 --> 0:12:22.840 long term decline in living standards that's happened over the 0:12:22.880 --> 0:12:25.400 course of the last fifty years. So it's not about 0:12:25.440 --> 0:12:28.320 the Democrats ruling California now. It is about something more 0:12:28.360 --> 0:12:32.079 systemic that reflects poorly on American leadership for decades. 0:12:32.280 --> 0:12:34.599 Well, I agree with you. Actually, sometimes people have asked me, 0:12:34.720 --> 0:12:36.400 how are you going back to your earlier conversation, how 0:12:36.400 --> 0:12:39.120 did you end up supporting President Trump? I do remember 0:12:39.480 --> 0:12:43.600 back in twenty fifteen, I for the first time saw 0:12:43.640 --> 0:12:46.800 this chart based on US data. This is going back 0:12:47.000 --> 0:12:51.240 ten years now, eleven years, showing the earnings of the 0:12:51.280 --> 0:12:55.160 majority of workers in California. I think the technical term 0:12:55.320 --> 0:12:59.040 was non managerial, non supervisory workers roughly eighty percent of 0:12:59.080 --> 0:13:03.440 the workforce after inflation, and it's basically a straight line, 0:13:04.000 --> 0:13:09.240 just flat so through a Republican and Democrat governance in 0:13:09.360 --> 0:13:12.080 fifty years since nineteen seventy four. I think it was 0:13:12.520 --> 0:13:14.400 basically the economic. 0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:17.319 Position of the most stated Nobel Prize winning economist has 0:13:17.320 --> 0:13:19.880 done the seminal work on that, and I don't know 0:13:19.880 --> 0:13:21.840 if those are the figures you're referring to, but he's 0:13:21.880 --> 0:13:24.040 absolutely laid this out for the last fifty years. But 0:13:24.080 --> 0:13:26.920 that's exactly why I think the challenge is much broader 0:13:26.960 --> 0:13:29.839 than the political points you're making. It is one about 0:13:30.080 --> 0:13:33.760 choices that America's leaders have made, right. 0:13:33.600 --> 0:13:35.520 I agree with that, and I think that there needs 0:13:35.559 --> 0:13:39.840 to be a much bigger emphasis on the gap between 0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:42.800 the very top and the super rich and so on. 0:13:42.840 --> 0:13:46.000 Of course that's been in the news with the SPACEXIPO 0:13:46.080 --> 0:13:48.080 and so on. I think the real issue is the 0:13:48.080 --> 0:13:50.240 fact that you've got so many people in the lower 0:13:50.320 --> 0:13:52.400 end of the income scales who just feel stuck and 0:13:52.440 --> 0:13:55.160 that social mobility has gone. I think that's absolutely a 0:13:55.200 --> 0:13:58.120 broad point. However, within that, one of the great things 0:13:58.160 --> 0:14:00.959 about America and our system here that you've got this 0:14:01.360 --> 0:14:04.640 experiment in policy making through the federal system, the fact 0:14:04.679 --> 0:14:07.320 you've got fifty states that do things a different way, 0:14:07.559 --> 0:14:11.000 and even within that overall framework, which I agree needs 0:14:11.040 --> 0:14:15.200 serious reform, some states are doing better than others. And 0:14:15.240 --> 0:14:17.600 you can see it in the fact that people and 0:14:17.679 --> 0:14:21.920 businesses are leaving California and moving to states with more 0:14:21.960 --> 0:14:25.480 welcoming policies to business and where the cost of living 0:14:25.520 --> 0:14:30.800 is much lower Texas, Florida, Tennessee. Even our neighboring states Nevada. 0:14:31.080 --> 0:14:35.320 You've got a lot of evidence now that the high tax, 0:14:35.640 --> 0:14:39.280 high spending, progressive model of governance that you see in 0:14:39.320 --> 0:14:42.720 the Blue States as they're known, like California, like New York, 0:14:43.120 --> 0:14:46.000 is not working. We've had sixteen years of one party 0:14:46.080 --> 0:14:50.040 rule in California, where one party's controlled everything. There's really 0:14:50.080 --> 0:14:55.080 been no barrier to the democratic philosophy being implemented fully 0:14:55.120 --> 0:14:58.280 in California. The results are among the worst in the country. 0:14:58.600 --> 0:15:01.000 But you know, on people leave. There's an aspect of 0:15:01.040 --> 0:15:03.200 this on which you could agree with Gavin Newsom, which 0:15:03.240 --> 0:15:06.440 is that he is trying to stop the wealth tax 0:15:06.600 --> 0:15:10.320 on billionaires that's been proposed by one of the labor unions. 0:15:10.360 --> 0:15:12.600 He's determined to try and stop it because he thinks 0:15:12.600 --> 0:15:17.680 it will drive more people away. So area of agreement, yes, between. 0:15:17.720 --> 0:15:21.320 Very very although I have to say, given his close 0:15:21.360 --> 0:15:24.120 relationship with the unions, I would have hoped he would 0:15:24.120 --> 0:15:28.880 have acted sooner to stop that even becoming a consideration. 0:15:28.960 --> 0:15:32.080 For example, right now, there's a process going on in Sacramento, 0:15:32.120 --> 0:15:35.920 very typical. It's going to a horse trading process where it's 0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:39.000 possibly one that the union itself will take it off 0:15:39.000 --> 0:15:42.360 the ballot now because they're negotiating some other kind of 0:15:42.720 --> 0:15:45.760 agreements that could have been done a year ago. 0:15:46.600 --> 0:15:48.160 He's working on this, that's the point. 0:15:48.680 --> 0:15:51.680 No, I agree with that, But as often with Gavin Newsom, 0:15:51.800 --> 0:15:56.239 a little bit more attention and focus earlier would have worked. Wonders. 0:15:56.480 --> 0:15:59.200 Okay, The other point I wanted to put to you 0:15:59.240 --> 0:16:02.880 about your econom critique of California is a question really 0:16:02.920 --> 0:16:06.080 about whether the policies of the federal government are playing 0:16:06.160 --> 0:16:10.280 a role in making life more unaffordable for Californians. 0:16:10.800 --> 0:16:15.600 Well, it's certainly true that there which examples you're thinking of? 0:16:15.680 --> 0:16:18.920 Particularly, I'm wondering, Well, let's take tariffs for starters and 0:16:18.960 --> 0:16:21.960 their impact on the cost of some goods. 0:16:22.520 --> 0:16:25.200 Well, I think that if you look at the detail 0:16:25.240 --> 0:16:29.160 on that, it's nothing like as significant. We have the 0:16:29.240 --> 0:16:32.320 highest grocery prices, for example, in the country. The main 0:16:32.400 --> 0:16:36.280 drivers of that of policies made in California. Energy cost 0:16:36.320 --> 0:16:42.200 the highest in the country, The labor and environmental regulations 0:16:42.200 --> 0:16:44.680 that make operating here so expensive. 0:16:44.920 --> 0:16:47.640 Can I give you others? This is Bloomberg analysis from 0:16:47.640 --> 0:16:49.600 earlier in the year that the jumps in the prices 0:16:49.600 --> 0:16:55.080 of children's clothing tools, outdoor equipment, furniture, bedding, motor vehicle parts. 0:16:55.720 --> 0:16:59.760 All of this is linked to tariff policy and trade. 0:17:00.200 --> 0:17:02.120 See that the administration brought in last year. 0:17:02.640 --> 0:17:04.960 Yeah, but if you basically look at where we settled 0:17:05.320 --> 0:17:08.240 on tariffs in terms of the percentage rates, and then 0:17:08.240 --> 0:17:10.399 you and you look at the way that the international 0:17:10.440 --> 0:17:15.639 trading system has worked for a long time before the tariffs, 0:17:15.840 --> 0:17:18.880 it is a leveling of the system. And I think 0:17:18.920 --> 0:17:23.360 that the impulse that drove that policy is absolutely correct, 0:17:23.600 --> 0:17:27.080 which is that there hasn't been fairness most other countries, 0:17:27.119 --> 0:17:30.440 most of America's trading partners, for example, have a value 0:17:30.440 --> 0:17:34.399 added tax, which distorts the picture in terms of imports 0:17:34.400 --> 0:17:34.920 and exports. 0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:38.359 It favors Okay, so you support do you support the 0:17:38.400 --> 0:17:39.600 imposition of tariffs? 0:17:40.280 --> 0:17:42.960 Well, it's not a California state policy. So I try 0:17:42.960 --> 0:17:46.560 and avoid weighing in on policies where there aren't really 0:17:46.600 --> 0:17:49.080 the subject of this campaign. I mean, I can give 0:17:49.080 --> 0:17:52.760 you a general observation that I think it was important 0:17:53.080 --> 0:17:56.399 to try and do something to bring manufacturing back to 0:17:56.440 --> 0:18:01.360 the US, and that's happening. Unfortunately, it's not happening for California. 0:18:01.520 --> 0:18:04.560 Okay, I remember, I remember I mean, I've read you 0:18:04.920 --> 0:18:08.600 talking about global and supporting globalization, So is your view 0:18:08.680 --> 0:18:12.720 completely changed on that because that was something that you 0:18:12.840 --> 0:18:16.760 used to say you believed in. Well, the globalization was 0:18:16.760 --> 0:18:19.440 a force for good and a force that created wealth 0:18:19.520 --> 0:18:20.920 rather than lifted. 0:18:21.240 --> 0:18:24.240 Yeah. Right, but you've got to nothing is all good 0:18:24.320 --> 0:18:27.160 or all bad. I mean, I think that the point 0:18:27.200 --> 0:18:30.880 about policy generally about in all sorts of areas, it's 0:18:30.880 --> 0:18:35.560 about trade offs. And of course it's true that over 0:18:35.600 --> 0:18:38.480 the years that we've seen the globalization of trade and 0:18:38.840 --> 0:18:43.280 so on, it's in tremendous advances in economic opportunity in 0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:46.040 some parts of the world, and that's a good thing, obviously, 0:18:46.080 --> 0:18:48.760 I think anyone would support that. But at the same time, 0:18:49.640 --> 0:18:54.040 partly because of this sometimes the speed of transition, Partly 0:18:54.080 --> 0:18:59.520 sometimes because the concentrated effects of a transition, places have 0:18:59.640 --> 0:19:02.440 really lost out and suffered. And so the policy goal 0:19:02.800 --> 0:19:05.160 is to try and keep as much of the positive 0:19:05.280 --> 0:19:08.240 while alleviating the negative. And I always bring it back 0:19:08.280 --> 0:19:10.919 because I am running now for governor of California. What 0:19:11.040 --> 0:19:14.159 does it mean in California? Going back to the AI companies, 0:19:14.200 --> 0:19:17.840 You look at Nvidia Andthropic, these big companies making major 0:19:17.880 --> 0:19:21.480 investments in the US, none of them in California. The 0:19:21.640 --> 0:19:24.880 job creation that's coming from the AI boom in America 0:19:25.119 --> 0:19:28.640 is happening outside of the home state of those companies. 0:19:28.960 --> 0:19:31.040 That's something I want to change so we get the 0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:34.480 full stack as I describe it, of AI jobs in California. 0:19:34.640 --> 0:19:37.120 So I do want to ask you about your attitude 0:19:37.160 --> 0:19:41.359 to big tech, because I remember you being really critical 0:19:41.640 --> 0:19:46.880 of these companies' Facebook as it was then Amazon and Google, 0:19:47.000 --> 0:19:50.120 talking about their dominant position, how you'd like the kind 0:19:50.119 --> 0:19:53.760 of framework where if they became too dominant in the market, 0:19:53.800 --> 0:19:56.760 then you'd want them to be treated as a monopoly, 0:19:56.840 --> 0:20:00.560 that you'd want maximum pay rates for senior execut Have 0:20:00.640 --> 0:20:04.480 you changed your mind? And at that time you were 0:20:04.520 --> 0:20:08.159 talking about regulation of big tech being really important to you, 0:20:08.600 --> 0:20:10.479 And now I'm trying that kind of thing in your 0:20:10.720 --> 0:20:11.879 in your set of policies. 0:20:12.280 --> 0:20:15.359 I've changed my job, which is now running for governor. 0:20:15.400 --> 0:20:19.920 As I plan to be governor, my job, my responsibility. 0:20:19.000 --> 0:20:20.800 And does that mean you can't afford to take on 0:20:20.880 --> 0:20:21.360 big tech? 0:20:22.520 --> 0:20:24.199 If I just finished this at the point, which is 0:20:24.240 --> 0:20:29.480 that it's my responsibility will be to support every business 0:20:29.520 --> 0:20:32.480 in California to help them grow, so we create jobs 0:20:32.680 --> 0:20:36.000 and wealth and opportunity in our state. So, regardless of 0:20:36.040 --> 0:20:39.480 my personal opinions about this or that company, I see 0:20:39.520 --> 0:20:42.320 it as the responsibility of the governor of any state 0:20:42.720 --> 0:20:47.680 to stand up for the people and the businesses, small business, 0:20:48.200 --> 0:20:52.080 medium sized, big global corporations, whatever it is, that is 0:20:52.119 --> 0:20:53.119 my responsibility. 0:20:53.640 --> 0:20:55.720 So what is your personal opinion of big tech. 0:20:56.640 --> 0:20:59.160 Well, I think that, like we were just talking about, 0:20:59.200 --> 0:21:03.439 in other areas, tremendous advances and change people's lives in 0:21:03.440 --> 0:21:06.400 a positive way. I'm usually proud of the tech sector 0:21:06.640 --> 0:21:09.200 and the fact that it's that we're leading and dominating 0:21:10.119 --> 0:21:14.840 once again in this new wave of innovation. That's fantastic 0:21:15.119 --> 0:21:18.119 and I'm proud of that. But as with everything, you know, 0:21:18.200 --> 0:21:23.040 there's positives and downsides, and the goal of policy makers 0:21:23.440 --> 0:21:26.959 should be to be really careful about not kind of 0:21:27.040 --> 0:21:31.480 leaping into trying to fix things. There really is a 0:21:31.560 --> 0:21:37.080 danger of over correcting and having unintended consequences. I think 0:21:37.119 --> 0:21:41.800 that's the skill of governance, and I think that when 0:21:41.800 --> 0:21:45.000 you look at tech, of course it's had positive transformation effects. 0:21:45.040 --> 0:21:47.760 I remember, people are choosing to use this technology. No 0:21:47.760 --> 0:21:51.280 one's forcing it on anyone. People are using it because 0:21:51.320 --> 0:21:54.120 they find it helpful, and businesses are using it because 0:21:54.119 --> 0:21:56.000 they find it helpful. I don't want to stand in 0:21:56.040 --> 0:21:56.600 the way of that. 0:21:57.080 --> 0:21:59.480 Yeah, And I do understand, of course that you're doing 0:21:59.520 --> 0:22:02.199 a different now, and running for office is different to 0:22:02.280 --> 0:22:04.720 being a commentator and having much more freedom when you 0:22:04.760 --> 0:22:07.560 can say. But there is also a question of belief 0:22:07.840 --> 0:22:11.800 and core principles. And you clearly felt strongly and thought 0:22:11.840 --> 0:22:14.800 a lot about tech, not least because you've spent so 0:22:14.880 --> 0:22:19.119 many years, you know, seeing it up close and living 0:22:19.160 --> 0:22:23.720 in California. So do you not have any concerns today 0:22:23.720 --> 0:22:26.840 about the dominance of these companies in our lives. They're 0:22:26.920 --> 0:22:29.240 a key part of the stock market, a lot of 0:22:29.240 --> 0:22:31.639 American wealth is wrapped up in them. They're at the 0:22:31.680 --> 0:22:36.760 forefront of AI, which will change, if not destroy many jobs. 0:22:37.240 --> 0:22:39.960 Like have those one things gone away? Or you just 0:22:40.000 --> 0:22:41.240 can't talk about them anymore? 0:22:41.680 --> 0:22:44.480 No, No, I think that. Well, first of we'll not 0:22:44.600 --> 0:22:48.399 just observed. I started and ran a tech company. I 0:22:48.440 --> 0:22:52.560 taught at Stanford University. So I absolutely agree with you 0:22:53.000 --> 0:22:57.400 that you've seen you're seeing companies with a huge transformational effect. 0:22:57.920 --> 0:23:01.200 But that's new and it's what innovation is We've got 0:23:01.240 --> 0:23:06.960 to be careful about what happens. That's what that's my 0:23:07.080 --> 0:23:12.960 attitude to the whole question of the impact of technology 0:23:12.960 --> 0:23:18.480 on society is to just be very open about what's 0:23:18.560 --> 0:23:23.560