Looking back on the debate between Governors DeSantis and Newsom dramatically illustrates the different approaches to problems between the two parties—successful outcomes vs. aspirations. Republicans expect leaders to tackle and solve issues, while it is enough for Democrats to propose.”virtuous” Solutions regardless of results.

Whether the challenge is COVID, crime, education, the economy, or anything else, DeSantis showed us his approach and level of success. On the other hand, Newsome aimed to exhibit that his heart was in the right place. They talked past each other because each was appealing to a different audience.

To those who believe schools should provide the essential reading and math skills for students to succeed in life, DeSantis points out Florida’s high standing. At the same time, Newsome complains Desantis is racist for not allowing progressive-preferred, if incorrect, history. 

No matter the subject, DeSantis or moderator Hannity presented facts showing better outcomes in Florida. Newsome went with what he claimed were DeSantis’ moral failures. 

Without actual accomplishments, Newsome also resorted to untruths and sleight of hand to blunt DeSantis’ edge. Claiming the Florida Governor was a Covid Lockdown supporter while bashing him for deaths caused by his open policies is illustrative of Newsome’s confused tactics.

The debate had value by shining light on what each side sees as the government’s job, making things work as best we can or promoting actions to achieve aspirational outcomes that have yet to work but sound good—putting good feelings over the real world.

Whether the problem is Afghanistan, the border, inflation, crime, or education, you can make a sound good argument for actions that have disastrous results. Terminate endless wars, spend as much as it takes to make lives better, don’t turn away people at the border seeking a better life, don’t lock up criminals coming from challenging circumstances, and disadvantaged children shouldn’t compete with those with “advantages.”

Sounds good, but we now suffer from the consequences of actions taken without considering possible results. It isn’t like we don’t know running away from a fight only invites more aggression, spending way more than we have is inflationary, taking in unlimited migrants will overburden resources, failing to punish criminals will result in more crime, and eliminating tests to find if our kids can read, write, and do math leaves them without needed skills. 

The idea we can override facts, logic, and experience if only the government makes an effort to do the “right thing” never works out in the longer term. The failures of the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and others attest to this truth. 

Do we have to relearn the saying, “If it sounds too good to be true, it most likely isn’t”? Newsome represents hope over reality, while De Santis is the down-to-earth dirt worker achieving tangible gains. In the future, do we elect people with a record of accomplishment or people with the “right feelings”? The choice is up to you.