(2.5)
“State of Resistance” is a political history of California, from the 1950s through 2018. It focuses on the shift from a seemingly progressive political economy to regressive and back to progressive over that time period. It also heavily feels like a history of California propositions.
If I wasn’t reading this for book club, I would have DNF’ed it early on.
The ’50s saw economic boom. The book, while highlighting the prosperity of this early period, acknowledges the dark basis of it. In the ’50s, 1/4 of U.S. defense contracts went to California, a prosperity founded in violence and oppression of other countries (and the root of why Silicon Valley is what it is today). And then there was the subservient role of the black population: “Race was, in fact, central to managing growth; the economic system could not accommodate all comers and so exclusion was part of the recipe.” (34)
Starting in the ’70s, highlighted with Prop 13, the state takes an extremely regressive turn. It was nice to see the book draw a direct connection between Prop 13 and increased homelessness in the ’80s. The property tax restrictions led to an emphasis on local sales tax and away from home building and factories, since these were not a good tax investment from a municipal point of view. The ’70s and ’80s saw a huge growth in foreign-born residents in the U.S., and at times more than half of it was in California. By the ’90s, the white electorate in California passed Prop 187 with 59% approval, seeking to bar immigrants from public services. Prop 184, the three-strikes law that ushered in cruel and unusual punishment against primarily black and Latino residents, passed with 72% support.
We also see the toxic attitudes of the Democratic Party, like Feinstein railing against “illegal residents” in 1993. Their “opposition” argument against 187 was that “illegal Immigration is a REAL problem” (76–77), but that 187 wasn’t the right solution. Even when the party would opposed reactionary propositions, it was usually couched in terms that demonized minorities, including teenagers. Or, with their “opposition” to ending affirmative action, their goal was to win white “swing” voters by focusing on how it would affect white women in education.
The final part of the book focuses on what it took for activists to turn the tide, such that by the 2010s more progressive propositions were passing at the state level. (Many of the activist groups mentioned are backed by corporate-originated philanthropy groups.) There is an emphasis on effective electioneering, particularly with regard to propositions. This 2010s progressive turn, though, feels like a rather narrow window from our current vantage point. The book calls out Prop 47 (2014), a crime reform which passed with 59.6% of the vote. But then Prop 47 was partially overturned by Prop 36 (2024) with 69% approval, all in the name of harming homeless.
This book was written in the first Trump presidency to motivate Democratic Party activists to spread the turnaround “success” of California to the U.S. as a whole. It is odd to read this now, in Trump’s second term. For example, when the book argue that a pillar of building an effective resistance it to bring in part of the business elite. “The task ahead is to translate the obvious corporate commitment to diversity and difference—because it leads to innovation—into more solid support of inclusion.” (196) We saw that “obvious” commitment collapse in 2025, when the shifting tides inspired the wealthiest people in California to gleefully throw diversity under the bus. There are millionaires and billionaires in California openly advocating for fascism or monarchy, and were already doing so before this book was written.
Another thing that dates the book are the references to several political figures. Kevin de León is mentioned several times, and Gil Cedillo is also highlighted. In 2021, these two along with two others were secretly recorded having a racist conversation that ended up tanking their careers. The book highlights Karen Bass several times, and her track record as mayor of Los Angeles now is nothing to be proud of, with the continued war on homeless people and de facto capitulation to the terrorist immigration raids carried out by the federal government within her city.
I’ll end with a few turns of phrase in the book that caught my attention.
It states that the Watts uprising in 1965 was “initially triggered by perceived police brutality.” (39) Perceived? Giving the benefit of the doubt, this might be a statement about the specific incident, just poorly worded. But then it reminds me of a lyric by Ice-T, “All these people out here tripping off police brutality like this shit is something new. Give me a f**king break. I’ve been talking about this shit for over 20 years.”
In praising the efforts of activists in the 2000s and 2010s: “Strikingly, the tendency to take a clearer and less ambiguous stance did not lead to what one often associates with progressive opposition: a sort of shrill, leftist shout from the outside.” (148) If “one” is a reactionary or the media voices speaking for them, then it IS typical to denigrate and dismiss the voices of opposition, whether female or leftist, in this way.
In another dig at leftists: “At the same time, the IVE proponents realized that the traditional language—that is, jargon—of the left on these issues was not winning a growing number of converts.” (158) I’m not sure how to take this. It could be a statement that being popular is more important than being right? Anyone who dives deep into a subject, and not just academics, tends to refine terms and wording in order to be precise, to provide clarity. Being adept at shaping that understanding to a larger audience is a separate issue.
When reviewing the ’70s: “Discomfort with the shifting hue of the California populace was exacerbated by worries about a society under challenge: civil rights militancy, Vietnam War protests, and urban riots fed into concerns about ‘law and order.’” (177) That passive “fed” makes it sound like a natural and obvious process, instead of the concerted effort by racists to divide those with privilege from those asking for their rightful share.