This year, the state of California will decide the next United States (U.S.) Senator to permanently replace Dianne Feinstein. On Jan. 22, four candidates qualified for the Fox 11/Politico debate held at the University of Southern California. For the first time in front of a live audience, the candidates were able to express their differing values on the Israel-Gaza conflict, congressional earmarks and health care.
The widest range of opinions was on how the U.S. should conduct their relations with the state of Israel during and after Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Steve Garvey, a former Major League Baseball player expressed his utmost support for the state of Israel. “I stay with Israel, yesterday, today, and tomorrow for whatever their needs are … we have to give Israel the opportunity to fulfill their sovereignty, to fight back … it’s naive to think that we can ask our government to tell them or try to influence them to cease fire.” Not only was Garvey the only Republican on the stage, but he was also the only candidate who publicly opposed a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. “I feel it’s also naive to think that a two-state solution can happen.”
Rep. Barbara Lee was on the farthest opposing end of the spectrum from Steve Garvey with regard to the Israel-Gaza crisis. Lee immediately called for a permanent ceasefire less than 24 hours after the Oct. 7 attacks carried out by Hamas. She condemned the “horrific attacks of Oct. 7” but argues that continuing a “war in Gaza that has killed 25,000 people” is “counterproductive to Israel’s security.”
Rep. Lee elaborated on her opinion by explaining her thought process in previous international conflicts. “I voted against the authorization to use military force right after the horrific attacks of 9/11. I said then, and I’m saying now, it could spiral out of control. You see what’s happening? It’s escalating in the region … as this war escalates, as the Arab nations pull back, then what do we have? We do not have a path to Israel’s security, nor do we have a path to a Palestinian state.” Lee believes that the only way to find a “path to peace and to secure Israel and a secure state for the Palestinians … should be a two-state solution.”
Among the Democrats on the stage, Rep. Adam Schiff was the most committed of Israel’s interests in Gaza. “The magnitude of that horror [on Oct. 7] is still shocking to me … the [U.S.] should support Israel in defending itself.” Schiff explained that before there can be an implementation of a two-state solution, Israel still needs to complete their military operations in Gaza and a ceasefire at this current point would be impractical. “We have to get back [to a two] state solution, but Israel has to defend itself. We can’t leave Hamas governing Gaza. They’re still holding over a hundred hostages, including Americans. I don’t know how you can ask any nation to ceasefire when their people are being held by a terrorist organization.”
Rep. Katie Porter’s view on the Israel-Gaza conflict is a blend between Rep. Lee and Rep. Schiff. “I joined millions of Americans around the country in mourning what has happened, the loss of Israeli lives and the loss of Palestinian lives. And we need as the [U.S.] to be pushing for the conditions that can get us to a bilateral durable peace.” Porter differs from Rep. Lee in the sense that Rep. Lee is advocating for an immediate ceasefire, while Rep. Porter believes that a ceasefire should come later with time. “The parties to this conflict are Israel and Hamas. Ceasefire is not a magic word. You can’t say it and make it so.”
Aside from the differing views on the Israel-Gaza conflict, the three Democrats teamed up to pummel Steve Garvey in his support of former President Donald Trump. Rep. Schiff criticized Garvey, “You voted for him twice. You saw what he did on Jan. 6. You have to see what a threat he is to the country … What more do you need to see of what he’s done to be able to say that you will not support him?” Rep. Lee reprimanded Garvey for “[supporting] the M.A.G.A. extremist agenda, led by Donald Trump to dismantle our democracy.” Rep. Porter asserted that if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election, “[t]hen we will lose credibility on the world stage. It will set us back decades”. Garvey defended Trump. “Economists say that he did an exceptional job for our economy. … [H]e created jobs for minorities, more than any [president] in this history.”
The candidates had divergent perspectives on healthcare. Representatives Lee and Porter both had unwavering endorsements for a single payer Medicare for All program. Katie Porter attempted to separate herself from Lee by claiming that many of the lifelong politicians are responsible for the lack of progress in health care. “These career politicians are talking about their fights 30 and 40 years ago for Medicare for All. But where are we? We are not there. Health equities are getting worse.”
Rep. Schiff was more fond of the current Obamacare program. “I fought to pass the Affordable Care [Act], and it has extended coverage to millions of people.” Schiff likes the idea of a Medicare for All program but doesn’t endorse a single-payer system. “If you are in a union and negotiated a good policy or like your doctor, I think you should be able to keep your policy and keep your doctor.”
Steve Garvey believes that government intervention in health care is less effective and that health care should be more privatized for the free market. “[W]e can look at our insurers and start to really find out what the bottom line’s going to be. And they’ll start to compete, as good competitors do, who want to win, want to have a better bottom line.”
Earmarks was another topic with differing viewpoints. Whenever Congress drafts massive pieces of legislation, some members vote in affirmation with the condition that a provision is written to allocate funds to certain areas of a state or district. These additional spending provisions can be a tool for incumbents to campaign on in their bid for re-election.
Katie Porter was the most vocal in opposition to them. “Earmarks is just a fancy word for Washington politicians substituting their personal interests, including getting earmarks for their big donors, for what our needs are. Look, the problem here is that earmarks invite corruption. They invite self-dealing and they do not prioritize what we need, especially our communities of color.”
Meanwhile, Adam Schiff conveyed his support for earmarks citing how Feinstein utilized them to enhance California. He also explained that without them, California would be left behind other states economically. “Diane Feinstein brought billions back to California, for water infrastructure, for housing, for healthcare. I’m going to fight to bring that money back to California. [W]e are a donor state, which means that we send far more back in tax dollars to Washington than we get back. Any Senator from California that says, no, I’m not going to fight for those resources, that’s going to be wonderful news to 49 other states who’ll be thrilled to have that money.”
Barbara Lee was not willing to support ending earmarks entirely, but was open to making reforms. “[E]armarks must be transparent and there must be accountability. Secondly, it would really be a dereliction of my duty to my constituents if I did not fight for every single dollar that I could find. Because, yes, California is a donor state, they deserve their tax dollars back. And, no, it may not solve all the problems, but it sure has filled in the gaps.” Lee then mentioned why she disagreed with former President Obama’s decision to try to end earmarks. “I said to President Obama, ‘You are denying communities of color who don’t have the resources but know how to provide the services, the jobs and the opportunities. You’re denying them the opportunity to deliver these kinds of services.’”
Steve Garvey used the topic of earmarks to make a claim that unlike his Democratic opponents, he is not bought out from outside interests. “I’m quite sure my three opponents owe people who have contributed to their funds, who have asked them, we need this money. Can you provide money for us through earmarks? I owe no one. I’m a fresh face. I’ll have fresh ideas. I will listen to the needs of Californians just as I’ve done.”
The first debate for the Senate seat placed a spotlight where the candidates stood and differed on the key issues that many California voters care about. The last day to vote in this primary election is March 5. In the jungle primary system, out of the four candidates on the debate stage, only two will advance to the general election. Voters will have to decide which candidate resembles their values the closest.
