Bret Stephens: Hi, Frank. I know we’re going to want to talk about Donald Trump’s foray into the Middle East, the government shutdown and other big news. But would you mind if I begin with a story about pots and pans?

Frank Bruni: You think I can’t guess where you’re headed, Bret, but you’re wrong! Remember, I was once this newspaper’s restaurant critic. I devour food-related articles. (And food, period.) So I can sense that you’re setting the table for a discussion of … Gavin Newsom?

Bret: Correct. The story, as our newsroom colleague Hiroko Tabuchi reported this week, is that the California governor vetoed a bill that would have phased out so-called forever chemicals in nonstick cookware. The legislation was backed by environmentalists but fiercely opposed by manufacturers and celebrity chefs, who argued the bill would jack up prices for consumers.

Frank: Strong argument. Consumers right now are plenty battered, price-wise.

Bret: What interests me is what motivated Newsom, and my guess is that it has something to do with California’s well-earned reputation for overregulation and hostility to business. All this seems part of his effort to rebrand himself ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run. Your thoughts?

Frank: So cynical, Bret? About a reliably humble, steadfastly principled public servant like Newsom?

Bret: In Gavin’s defense, his hair gel is made from sustainably farmed kelp. It just has to be.

Frank: I have no insight into his coiffure or his roughage, but into his repositioning? I think your analysis is spot on. The Newsom who just vetoed “forever chemicals” is the one who — after Trump’s big victory last November — broke with many of his fellow Democrats and questioned the participation of young trans women in women’s sports; he also invited both Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk onto his podcast. It’s a complicated, fascinating dance Newsom is doing, a mix of moderation and pugilism, across-the-aisle outreach and partisan fortification. While he’s saving home cooks from omelets that cling to the bottom of the skillet, he’s trolling Trump online and pushing to redraw the map of congressional districts in California to get Democrats more seats. The man certainly has energy.

Bret: I don’t want to scold Democrats who are seeking to move toward the center and willing to talk to the other side. Plus, Newsom just signed an anti-antisemitism bill that deserves a cheer, not least because it was opposed by the California Teachers Association. But the national verdict on nearly 15 years of Democratic control in Sacramento (and much longer in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco) isn’t going to be kind: urban decay, unaffordable housing, declining public school enrollment, a lousy business climate, and more and more people moving out of the state. If I were JD Vance, I’d be praying for Democrats to nominate Newsom.

Frank: If I were JD Vance, I’d have little time to pray because I’d be so busy massaging President Trump’s ego 24/7.

Could Vance be more sycophantic? I guess he has to compete against the obsequious likes of Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, who both stood adoringly beside the president in the Oval Office on Wednesday for a news conference ostensibly about crime statistics. Knowing how much Trump loves a lofty superlative, Patel touted “the best numbers for fighting crime in U.S. history” and credited them to — you guessed it! — Trump, whom he thanked for his “brave leadership” and also his “incredible leadership.” That’s the torrent of gushing Vance is up against, and he’s obviously in it to win it. But how about piping up now and then to question — I don’t know — a $20 billion bailout for Argentina? Blowing up Venezuelan boats before you even know for sure if there are drugs aboard them or just water-skiers behind them?

Bret: The little-known Article II Section 5 of the Constitution states, “The vice president shall at all times on all things suck up to the president.” Or something like that. But hey, you oppose blowing up Venezuelan boats?

Frank: I oppose shooting first and asking questions later. I oppose erring on the side of bloodshed. I oppose guilty-until-proven-MAGA. I oppose the abandonment of due process. I oppose governing by yahoo impulse. Mostly, I oppose a frenzy of executive overreach that sidelines Congress, disregards the Constitution and befits a monarch. The left may be lost, but they have the name of this weekend’s protests right: No Kings.

Bret: Right and true. And yet Trump’s opponents would be on firmer ground politically if they had anything to say about the fact that the government of Venezuela is, in effect, a drug cartel in possession of a ravaged country whose chief export is refugees. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, the estimable María Corina Machado, is practically begging the U.S. to overthrow the regime of Nicolás Maduro. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t heard a single Democrat offer a coherent opinion one way or the other about what to do about this hemispheric crisis more than 20 years on, which is one reason Trump’s blow-them-out-of-the-water approach seems, at least, like some kind of course of action.

Frank: You just put your finger on two hugely important challenges for Democrats, Bret. One is their need, politically, to be brutally realistic. If you believe — and I do — that moving past Trump is the whole ballgame for America, then there are some ideals you’ll have to shelve briefly, some complaints you’ll have to swallow, in the interests of pragmatism. The other is the party’s need to offer as much as it opposes. Not all that many people get excited about voting for a barricade, for a buffer. Give voters a vision for the future — and even a bit of an agenda.

Bret: Right now, I can think of only three Democrats who seem to get your point: Rahm Emanuel, Seth Moulton and John Fetterman.

Frank: Listen to our colleague David Leonhardt’s conversation with Pete Buttigieg earlier this week. It was pretty impressive.

Bret: Does Buttigieg think the government shutdown is a case of a “really futile and stupid gesture being done on somebody’s part”?

Frank: He and David don’t get into that. Which is interesting, no? And emblematic? I’m struck not by how much fighting and shouting this shutdown is causing but by how little most people outside of the public sector or the news media talk about it. That must tell us something about Americans’ relationship with their government and their leaders. Don’t you think?

Bret: We’ve lived through so many shutdowns in recent years that I think people generally tune it out, at least until it affects them personally. But when they do get around to blaming somebody, it’s generally the party that’s causing the shutdown — which this time means the Democrats. That just reinforces the perception of a party that is primarily focused on obstruction.

Meanwhile, the president just put a stop to the war in Gaza. It’s a major diplomatic accomplishment, achieved by unconventional diplomatic means, for which I think he deserves tremendous credit. It’s also a reminder that Trump gets some things right, even if he won’t stop bragging about it. Do you agree?