Gavin Newsom was a better governor when he feared the recall. Which version do we get now?

We all knew and expected that Gov. Gavin Newsom would easily beat the recall attempt. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t still legitimate concerns about his job performance as governor, or that California is united by his policies and politics.

Qualifying a statewide recall campaign against the incumbent governor should not be dismissed as a small effort. The signature-gathering effort was truly a grassroots phenomenon. Anyone who brushes it off as a cadre of angry Trumpists or white supremacists is ignoring another political reality of California: This is a deeply divided state where rural California has reasons to oppose the policies of the Newsom administration.

Newsom is more unpopular in many communities of California than just about any other politician in recent history. I’m a Republican, a former Yolo County supervisor, but that sentiment is not wholly partisan and, in many ways, is well deserved.

Newsom lied about the levels of forest management his administration conducted at the same time communities were burning. Rural North State voters are right to be angry with the governor.

Newsom has ignored the water storage crisis while farmers had to ration their usage and fallow their lands. Central Valley voters are right to be angry with the governor.

Newsom understood these vulnerabilities and governed the state better under the threat of recall. On just about every issue that was within his role as an executive, but most prominently the pandemic response, the actions of this governor were noticeably more tempered than at previous points of his tenure.

Newsom of 2021 was a different governor than Newsom of 2020. With the recall now behind us, which version of Newsom will we have for the remainder of his term?

While many on the right often disagreed with Gov. Jerry Brown, there was never the level of toxicity and adamant opposition like what drove the recall against Newsom. In part, that was because Brown was uniquely able to govern as the “adult-in-the-room.” He waged battle against his own party more often than he did against Republicans.

The early years of the Newsom governorship were different. The governor took ownership only when convenient, cast blame when the fault was his and celebrated others’ accomplishments as his own.

Yet after the recall, the governor is politically wrapped in Teflon. He will likely cruise to reelection and has few political concerns to worry about other than his ambition for higher office.

This dynamic means there are two possible states of affairs that could emerge in the post-recall California. The first, perhaps most likely, is that we see a reversion to the Newsom who ruled before the recall.

The alternative, perhaps more optimistic take, is that the governor learns from the past year and tempers his worst instincts. By doing so, he could make those that fervently supported the recall feel as though there is some semblance of representation left for them in their state Capitol.

Some of his vetoes, such as farmworker absentee voting and an expansion of Cal Grants, provide some hope that Newsom can be more than a rubber stamp for Democratic supermajorities in the Legislature.

If Newsom wants to truly govern the entire state of California he will need to address some of the key issues that impact the rural parts of this state. But it’s not just policy choices. It’s communicating clear, transparent messages on the direction of the state.

If Newsom can’t work things out with the rural parts of California now he’s going to have a hard time with his presumed future effort in Washington D.C. when he’ll need to win over the rural parts of Iowa or New Hampshire.