Recently in 2010 General Election Category

The latest poll shows that Arnold Schwarzenegger now holds the embarassing distinction of having the same 22% favorability rate as Gray Davis had when Davis became the first Governor in modern-day California to be recalled by an angry electorate.

 

Of course the public is angry again and for good reason: we're at a 12.3% unemployment rate; we have one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country; the Republicans in the legislature continue to demand that we cut the taxes of fat-cat corporations and the well-heeled oil industry and yet demand more from hard-working Californians, while providing us with less.

 

We're looking at a billionaire who thinks she's Queen and thinks she's equipped to "govern" the state. This is the same person who failed to vote for two decades and has, during this campaign, done more flip-flops than Arnold can do push-ups.

 

We've got a $19.3 Billion deficit that can't be filled by getting rid of "fraud, waste and abuse" because  there isn't enough "fraud waste and abuse" to fill a thimble of the state's deficit. E-Meg wants us to think that, because she presided over a very successful business we should elect her to run the state of California. But increasing profits isn't what a state government is supposed to do.  The goal of business is profit. We all know that---and if not, just check out Goldman-Sachs which says by making all this money, it's doing "the lords work." The role of government is to provide for its people. If we can tighten our belts and give more services for the dollar, that's great, but the way to judge the success of government is by how well we educate our children, how well we protect our communities and how well we plan and build for the future.

 

There is no question that Queen Meg is not equipped or prepared to govern our state. That being said, the problem goes well beyond who we decide to have at the controls of the train. The problem is rather the train itself and the tracks upon which it rides

 

George Skelton observes in the L.A. Times that the problems we are facing don't totally fall at the feet of the governor---although there is plenty of blame to go around on that score. The problem is an obvious one: California's system of governance is a mess. It doesn't work because it is a hodgepodge of stops and starts that don't mesh, don't allow majority rule and don't really require that anyone take responsibility for what they're doing in Sacramento. Applying the train analogy, we've got old and different kinds of rails to ride upon that don't go in a straight line, aren't even the same and dead-end all along the route.

 

I'm no fan of Queen Meg, Meg Whitless, or whatever other cute and probably accurate nicknames are out there which describe her cluelessness and imperial notion of governance. She is clearly unqualified to try to govern the largest state in the nation. But even if she were qualified, had voted over the last 20plus years (which horrorfyingly she has not), the state is simply ungovernable in its present configuration. Period.

 

Those who have studied or have any experience with state government know that it has been immobilized by several initiatives. Each of them may have had, in their day, a well-intended purpose, but put together they create an alphabet soup of dysfunction. They bump into each other, force the train to stop and turn circles when the train should be moving forward.

 

What is interesting is that no one knows this better than Jerry Brown. Perhaps that is why he's speaking more in global concepts than popular but empty promises of cleaning up government or as our now very unpopular governor was accustomed to saying before he became such, "I'm going to blow up the boxes."  Hmmmmm.

 

Let's be clear on what the problems are and not what the right-wing spin machines have so effectively, albeit dishonestly claimed to be the reasons for our state's deteriorating quality-of-life:

 

1- We have a revenue problem. It was created by so-called "free market" policies promoted by the Republicans and epitomized by the Bush Administration's deregulation of just about everything---from the banks and financial institutions (the Goldman-Sachs syndrome) to the de facto deregulation of the oil industry (thanks to MMS's cozy relationship with the oilies) to giving additional tax-breaks here in California to big monopolies that promised and delivered absolutely nothing in exchange. We have reduced taxes on the wealthiest among us and refused to create a more level-playing field for our young people who ask only the same opportunities that the prior generations had to work hard and live the California Dream.

 

2- We're both the most and least democratic state in the country. We require a 2/3 vote of the legislature to pass a budget and a 2/3 vote to increase taxes. No other state does this; no other state is chronically late in getting their fiscal house in order every year. At the same time, we have given the people greater access to direct democracy than most other states through the creation of the initiative and referendum process. (See number 4 below)

 

3- Term-limits means we expect the least-experienced people to run the most diverse and complex state in the country. We are running the 8th largest economy in the world with inexperienced, short-term leaders. Term limits has been a disaster for good government. Ask Dems and Reps alike (at least those Reps who care about government and making sure it works, whether they think it should come in Extra Large or Small). We foolishly think that we're punishing the politicians by limiting the length of time they can serve. In fact, what we're doing is short-changing ourselves.

 

4- Money, not the people, are controlling public policy. The unique system of direct democracy has given way to big businesses buying their way onto the ballot. Just ask why was there a constitutional amendment on the ballot which would have given PG&E greater monopolistic control than it already has in its service areas (which represent the majority of the state)?

Who are these people who are now challenging the bipartisan global warming measure that will open up California as the leader---in jobs and technology for creation of an alternative energy industry to lead the country and world away from dirty, dangerous fossil fuels? They are four major TEXAS-BASED OIL companies. It is clear that when Hiram Johnson proposed the initiative as a way to insure that the people would be able to trump the power of the railroads (that were controlling the legislature in the early 1900's), the last thing he dreamed would be that those same greed-driven, monopolistic entities would be taking control of the state yet again,buying their way onto the ballot and then spending millions to mislead the public as to their intentions.

 

Of course, adding to the corporate take-over of democracy, both in California and the nation is the outrageous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. In one fell swoop, this biased, "free-market" cabal has all but assured right-wing monopolies will control the future of elections and electoral politics for years to come.

 

All that being said, there is one thing that is clear: If we want to get California back on track, we certainly don't want the party of NO to be in charge. We've seen what they've done nationally---and what kind of pollution, dysfunction and economic destruction they bring when we give them the power to do so. Look no farther than the Gulf of Mexico and Wall Street for starters. The right-wing that has taken over a once moderate, but business-leaning party, hates government (unless they're running it) and doesn't care if they take the state or country down with them as long as they regain control. That's not democracy and that's not what we, the people, are entitled to receive. 

 

We need to fix the system and thus the train tracks before we expect to turn this train around. Unless and until we do that, we're going to see our beloved California continue its journey into the abyss and wonder why it happened.

 

This crisis is well-beyond any individual candidate and any single election. We've got to wake up to the mess that has befallen the rules of government in California. We, the people, want and deserve good schools, good roads, clean air and water, safe streets and economic opportunity. Until we straighten out how we run this state, we're not going to get what we need for a brighter tomorrow. Time is running out.

 

While California takes the summer off, the wealthy use their extraordinary wealth to undermine the state's future.

While grills all over California are still smoldering under the weight of July 4th hot dogs, burgers and maybe a veggie-burger or two, those with unlimited resources (and who most likely grilled steaks instead), continue their barrage on the senses of Golden State residents.

With all that money, there's no need to respect the notion that these are the "dog days" of summer, when those lucky enough to have jobs try to sneak in a restful vacation or two with their families and friends and those who are out-of-work try to find some, or if not at least find solace in the fact that summer tends to be slow in the work-place anyway. But for E-Meg and the big oil companies, this is no time to let the rest of us relax.

With four major Texas-based oil companies putting in the few millions necessary to qualify Prop. 23 on the ballot, we can expect a summer filled with more lies and misinformation about what AB 32, the law that will move us to develop an alternative energy economy, is going to do to the state. To the oilies, it represents a commitment to move from their dirty, fossil-based fuel driven economy to something more sustainable and protective of the environment (you can include the ocean in that, as we continue to watch in horror as the Gulf of Mexico absorbs millions of gallons of the dirty, toxic and deathly gunk every day).

Of course, what's not to like in that idea? Well, the claim (made without any justification or factual data to support it---but what else is new?) is that it will raise the price of oil and be a drag on our state's already suffering economy. You know, another "job-killer" bill.

For thinking people, this reasoning is pure nonsense. Fortunately, according to a new poll that came out today, most Californians reject this nonsense and realize forcing us to move to renewable energy resources could and would put California right in the middle of a changing, vibrant and profitable new energy economy. For more information on the report, check out Cal Buzz here.

And then there's E-Meg, the multi-billionaire who wants to buy the Governorship on her way to trying to buy the Presidency of the United States. Now, while I'm all for women aspiring and reaching the highest office in the land, (and I am, indeed), E-Meg has no experience and up until fairly recently no interest in government or its workings. But that's the least of it. For those of us who have been in both public service and private enterprise, there is one thing that is clear. One is analog and the other digital. You can't run business like and government and you can't run government like a business. Why? Because the purpose of business is profit. The purpose of government is to provide for the public good.

We saw that up close and personal with Ahnold. He came in as an "outsider" with a great story of financial success (even as a mediocre actor, but that's for another day). No one can argue that Meg has had enormous success as well (even though much of it is integrally linked to her relationship with Goldman Sachs). And no one can argue that she's put together an extraordinary political campaign machine--probably the best that $90 million (and counting every minute) can buy. She's got the sound-bites down, controls her press conferences with impressive precision and has well-choreographed ads up on all the right stations and programs, etc. She has attacked her opponent with great gusto and creativity----unfazed by the fact that most of her criticisms are totally distorted, if not downright lies. We know, however, that she will stop at nothing to make her case---just look at the way she ran to the far-right to beat Steve Poizner in the primary.

It will be interesting to see her race back to the "middle", which she is already trying to do with the Latino community. She's spent a small fortune so far buying time on Spanish-speaking media trying to convince this population that she's supportive, even though the hated former-governor Pete Wilson (Mr. Prop.118) was (and still is?) her campaign chairman.

Her politics aside, the problem is: With all her money and clever advertising and posturing, she doesn't have a clue how to GOVERN. We do know she knows how to bully---as illustrated by a small incident that only cost her a couple hundred-thousand dollars. Just chump change for her. Just wait til she's in Sacramento if she wins. What's she going to do--challenge the legislature to a shoving match? Challenge the cities and counties and public safety groups and public interest groups to a duel?

Governing calls for compromise, for respect for the other branches of government. It calls for thoughtful discussion. This is not a monarchy where the richest get to tell everyone else what to do-and how to think. No sound-bite in the world is going to suddenly move everything in your direction in a democracy. Willing it to be doesn't make it happen. Governing is an intricate, subtle, and wisdom driven calling. If you don't have the skills and experience, you're going to flop. And the last thing this state needs at this point is another inexperienced, arrogant, unprepared rich person who has no idea what they're doing. Just look at the present governor if you have any doubts.

Bebra Bowen, California Secretary of State, issued a press release today announcing the assigned numbers for the November 2010 ballot initiatives.

Why won't Jerry Brown just announce that he is running for Governor?  Why won't he campaign?  Why is he letting Meg Whitman get so far ahead of things in this campaign?  Does he just assume he has it "in the bag?"

I suspect that is exactly what he assumes.  My take on Brown is that Democrats who were around when he was Governor and later when he ran for President in 1992 are going to support him, many quite strongly, and they regularly let him know this.  I suspect it is hard for him to go anywhere without stopping to shake a hand and hear from someone who tells him what a great Governor he was, that his ideas on energy and the environment were so far ahead of their time, that he should have been elected President, etc.

So he probably feels a wind at his back wherever he goes.  This is for sure: the "moonbeam" things Brown was about like energy and the environment and unions have proven to be the right things.  I wrote about this almost a year ago, 

He was called "Moonbeam" and mocked, but he was right, and we were right, and the country needs to come to terms with this so we can move on and finally DO right.

. . . It is 30 years later and the country needs to get past that mocking of the people who were right. But the mocking and obstruction by entrenched interests are still in the way of letting us move on and do the things we need to do for the economy, the country, and the planet.

The problem with this is that it really is 30 years later now.  This is 2010, and that pool of people just isn't big enough by any means.  You have to be "a certain age" to even care.  He needs to find a way to reach out and be relevant to people who were not around when he was Governor or when he ran for President.

Does he realize this?  If he is not meeting a lot of the people to whom he just isn't relevant and who just don't care, he might not be picking this up at all.  But it just is the case.  He needs to start campaigning and saying things that are relevant to the 21st century of he is going to win this election.

 

In last week's post progressive voters on strike? Santa Barbara blogger Retired UC Santa Barbara Professor of sociology and renowned social activist, Richard Flacks looks at recent polls showing Democratic voters to be unenthusiastic about voting while Republican voters are highly motivated.  Professor Flacks writes,

These numbers tell us that the Democrats are going to lose the elections in  2010, but the underlying data are even more disturbing. They show that the heart of  Obama;s support base is not planning to vote next year.

. . . The same sort of disillusionment pervades the ranks of liberal and progressive activists. Each week we can add new instances of administration betrayal of our hopes. The latest include the handling of the Honduras coup (defying near unanimity in the rest of the hemisphere),  and the continuation of Bush policies on  the land mine treaty. The escalation of the war dwarfs all these other failures.

This is not President Obama's fault, necessarily,

I've said in this space that it's the structure of power in America rather than Obama's weakness of will that accounts for the growing feeling that the chances for progressive reform are slipping away.

Professor Flacks' post looks at a national poll, the "base" sense of betrayal is on national issues, and President Obama is not from California, but there is no reason to believe California Democrats are any more enthused.  More likely less so.  California Democrats who do pay attention see Democrats in Sacramento caving over and over again to the demands of an extremist Republican minority, while those not paying attention see generally that nothing good is happening and government is doing very little for them.

What might come along to raise democratic enthusiasm and encourage them to vote?  Jerry Brown running for Governor?  With the statements he's been making, don't bet that Democrats are going to be enthusiastic about Jerry Brown as their standard-bearer either.