In a recent address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, California Governor Gavin Newsom provided a striking illustration of what some term Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Newsom’s remarks showcased a manner of communication that, while resonating with many in his party, left others bewildered. His fixation on President Donald Trump overshadowed any substantive diplomatic discussion, focusing instead on a series of exaggerated grievances and vague calls for action.
Newsom’s outburst directed at European leaders was revealing. He chided them to “stop being complicit,” urging them to have “backbone” against Trump’s policies, notably his interest in Greenland. Yet, when asked how Europeans should approach the situation, Newsom offered no concrete advice, deflecting with, “The Europeans should decide for themselves.” This lack of specific guidance, while it might play well with his base, showed a disconnect with the diplomatic context at hand.
Moreover, the governor referred to Trump in rather vivid terms, likening him to a “T-Rex.” While such metaphors may entertain his liberal supporters back home, they failed to inform the actual discourse necessary for meaningful political engagement. Newsom described Trump as a “wrecking ball,” “unmoored,” and “unhinged,” but neglected to present any coherent strategy regarding how European leaders should manage their interactions with the American president. Such oversights may diminish their faith in his approach to international diplomacy.
Newsom’s tendency to prioritize his anti-Trump rhetoric over practical solutions raises questions. When he suggested that European leaders need to stand “tall, stand firm, stand united,” it came across more as a slogan than a strategy. In the face of diplomatic complexities, his call for a united stand lacked depth and offered no actionable plan. Instead, it seemed geared towards rallying support among his followers back home rather than addressing the nuanced challenges inherent in international relations.
What becomes clear through Newsom’s remarks is the pervasive nature of TDS, which often manifests as a reflexive opposition to Trump without strategic depth. It’s a form of dialogue absent of the rational discourse expected from a leader, where feelings override facts and performance often trumps substance. Newsom’s remarks seemed tailored to resonate with a particular audience, exhibiting how TDS creates an echo chamber that excludes those who may not share the same fervent sentiments.
Ultimately, Newsom’s harangue at Davos highlighted a leader navigating his narrative of opposition with little regard for the broader implications of his words. His comments served his immediate political interests, but they raised a larger question about the effectiveness of such rhetoric in an international arena. Instead of fostering collaboration or understanding, Newsom’s outburst risked painting him—and perhaps the Democratic Party—into a corner of division, where the complexity of diplomacy is reduced to soundbites and theatrical expressions.
"*" indicates required fields
