Before the California recall election, let’s reality-check Republican candidate John Cox
John Cox lost the governor’s race in 2018 to Gavin Newsom by a margin of 24%. In politics, that’s known as getting crushed.
But Cox is back campaigning again as one of the leading GOP contenders hoping to become California’s top executive should Newsom be recalled in the September special election.
Cox, now of Rancho Santa Fe, is no stranger to campaigning. He twice ran for seats in the Illinois statehouse in the early 2000s, and both times finished well behind the winners. He started a presidential candidacy in 2008 but dropped out several months later.
Cox, 66, made a fortune in real estate in the Midwest.
In an hour-long meeting with McClatchy’s California opinion editors, Cox covered a range of issues facing the state and offered criticisms of Newsom’s leadership. Here are claims by Cox on key issues, and corresponding reality checking:
Newsom and the COVID pandemic:
Claim: “I think the pandemic has illustrated an even greater weakness on the part of this governor in terms of management skill. I would certainly not have kept the state shut down as long as it is … my mother-in-law lives in Florida … despite the fact Florida has a much older population than California, Californian lost thousands more businesses.”
Reality check: A Los Angeles Times analysis in March compared COVID’s impact on the two states that Cox referenced. If California had Florida’s death rate, 6,000 more Californians would have died from March 2020 to March 2021. Conversely, if Florida had California’s death rate, 3,000 fewer Floridians would have died.
An analysis of the conservative-oriented American Enterprise Institute showed that states with looser COVID restrictions had higher death rates. Florida ranked 19th, while California was 25th. That is true despite the fact California has 39 million residents, while Florida’s population is 21 million.
When it comes to business closures during the pandemic, there is not a much difference between the states. From January 2020 to April 11, 2021, California’s share of small business closures was 36%, according to a Harvard University study. Florida’s share was 32.2%.
On mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness:
Claim: “It’s not a successful effort to just put people into housing and not make sure they’re also treated at the same time … I am saying that any residential treatment has to also involve a requirement of treatment. And that treatment may well have to be forced with a conservatorship if need be.”
Reality check: On his campaign website, Cox emphasizes getting homeless people treated first for addiction or mental health problems before moving them into housing. He would force homeless people into treatment programs under a program he calls “compliance born of compassion.”
When Cox unveiled his homeless proposals in June at a campaign event in Los Angeles, Newsweek got reactions from a number of experts who deal with homelessness. Their consensus: Cox’s approach is simplistic, without compassion and would require a major overhaul of how police and judges handle such cases now.
Tristia Bauman, of the National Homelessness Law Center, said Cox’s comments that some people want to live on the streets reflects a “fundamental misunderstanding” of homelessness.
Rod Hochbaum, a professor at the University of the Pacific’s Homeless Advocacy Clinic, called Cox’s approach “criminalization under the guise of providing compassionate services.”
While addiction or mental illness can be factors to someone living on the streets, “they live outside because they can’t afford housing — and the research overwhelmingly supports that,” he said.
Said Hochbaum: “It’s important to acknowledge that it (Cox’s plan) would never work.”
On future energy sources:
Claim: “We should be looking at increasing the availability of nuclear power in California. I also believe that we also need to increase hydroelectric power … we can certainly do more with hydro, as well as with natural gas, which is a clean burning fossil fuel. We have tremendous resources of oil and natural gas in California. And I think those should be developed.”
Reality check: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030 would do so in part by relying on nuclear power. But after the meltdown of a nuclear reactor in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power fell out of favor with Western nations. According to Columbia University’s Climate School, the U.S. has 95 reactors operating now, but only one new reactor came online in the past 20 years. PG&E, which operates Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo, has said it will not seek new licenses and plans to close it down in several years.
The challenge to nuclear power in America is where to store the radioactive spent fuel. The federal government’s plan to put that fuel inside a Nevada mountain was scrapped. So spent fuel is being kept at the nuclear plants, which creates security problems.
Then there is the high cost and long lead times to build a nuclear plant. Two plants in Georgia saw their capital costs soar from $14 billion to $23 billion.
As for hydroelectric power, there are nearly 1,500 dams in California, with many of them generating electricity. There are not many good locations left for new dams. California has been the nation’s second-leading state for hydroelectric power generation. But as has occurred this year, hydroelectric power falls off in a severe drought because there is not enough river flow to push a turbine and generate power.
Natural gas is cleaner-burning than coal, but production of it emits methane, a gas that powerfully contributes to global warming. Climate scientists say that rising production of natural gas will be one of the biggest drivers of climate change, according to Reuters.
The editorial boards of The Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee, Modesto Bee, Merced Sun-Star and the San Luis Obispo Tribune encourage voters to reject the recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom and remember to complete the entire ballot.
