“On December 17th, MoveOn members began 2 days of voting to decide our top goals for 2009. Each member was able to vote for 3 goals. Here are the final results, with the percentage of members who included each goal in their top 3.”
6. Restore civil liberties 16.8%
7. Hold the Bush Administration accountable 15.2%
8. Gay rights/LGBT equality 8.6%
- Ranking of each of these topics in a survey of MoveOn .Orgs members of the top ten goals for 2009. (Complete results can be found at http://www.pol.moveon.org/2009/agenda/results/results2.html).
Disappointment.
That is what I felt when I read the results of MoveOn.org’s member survey of what its top three goals for 2009 should be. It is hard to argue with the survey’s response that the number one goal in 2009 should be providing universal health care or that fixing the economy should be number two. What is disappointing, is undoing the damage done by the Bush administration to the constitution and the guarantee of rights for our fellow citizens ranked so low.
If only 16.8% of MoveOn ’s membership say a goal for 2009 should be to restore the civil liberties that Bush has abridged, and only 15.2% think holding the Bush administration accountable should be a goal, then what priority do these goals have for the rest of the country?
In the campaign Obama did not speak out heavily against the abridgement of our freedoms by the Bush/Cheney administration. Even now there is very little discussion on the fate of government eavesdropping or rendition programs. In addition there is a noticeable silence among other establishment politician on holding any Bush administration members to account, either legally or morally, for their actions.
The press has spent more time discussing Obama’s workout schedule then the report released December 11, by Carl Levin and the Armed Service Committee linking Bush and the White House to the torture of prisoners. (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735 – this link also contains a pdf of the complete report). This story came and went with little or no notice.
Imagine.
A major Senate committee links the President to decisions that lead to torturing detainees held without trial, counsel or legal protection – and hardly anyone notices. (See Glen Greenwald: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/15/rumsfeld/).
If only 8.6% of MoveOn’s membership name LGBT rights a top priority, Obama can safely assume that more centrist or conservative groups would hold LGBT rights as an even lower priority. No wonder he feels safe in starting the new administration receiving a blessing from someone who helped voters revoke a minority group’s rights that had been guaranteed by the California constitution.
Bush changed the country in ways we couldn’t image when he took office 8 years ago. If one measures a President’s effectiveness by the impact he has on the character and dialog of the country, Bush ’43 will go down as one of history’s most effective Presidents.
In a Bush led US, the government can now declare anyone a threat to national security, lock them up without a lawyer and without showing them the evidence used to support the accusation against them. Then if it chooses the Government can torture a confession from the suspect. If the torture gets to be too much of an effort the Government can do the American thing and outsource it to other countries.
When I was growing up the fact that these acts were illegal was used to illustrate the limits on our Government that guaranteed our citizens’ rights. We were told this is why the United States was different and made our country a beacon to the rest of the world. Throughout the 20th Century we believed that to preserve these rights we had to stand up and fight totalitarianism in all its forms.
The incoming administration has said little about restoring these limits on the government and preserving our rights and freedoms. The press has also shown little interest reporting what the Bush administration has done to our freedoms and holding its members accountable.
Now one of the most venerable voices from the activist left does not see working for the restoration and preservation of its citizen’s civil rights as a major goal for the new year. If we do not hold Bush accountable, who will hold Obama to account? How will we ensure that Obama will not simply continue these same abuses?
I agree health care is major issue that has to be addressed for both the physical and economic health of the country. But ensuring all our citizens have their rights guaranteed and holding the Government accountable when those rights are abridged is just as vital to the health and character of this country. Otherwise little separates us from countries that provide universal health care while spying on its citizens and curtailing their freedoms.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Peggy Noonan and Gov. Palin, Should Listen to Nixon
"I happen to think the media is up to a bit of mischief here. I think the media wants to take Sarah Palin and make her, subliminally, the face of the Republican Party. They want to make her: this is what Republicans are, the face of the party, the leader of the party, because it amuses them to do that."
-- Former White House speechwriter Peggy Noonan, on MSNBC.
Ms. Noonan’s disdain for Gov Palin was evident from the moment her open-mike “we’re finished” comment hit airwaves. From George Will to Kathleen Parker, establishment Republicans lined up to express their contempt for the Governor. They sat on their hands while the McCain campaign did everything it could to throw her under the bus without leaving any fingerprints. It was clear they felt she was a gate crasher to their club, and they not only disliked her, but were angry at McCain for letting her through the door.
But, despite her gaffes, her fractured syntax, a shaky grasp of many of the issues, and the contempt of the Republican establishment, Gov. Palin survives.
In a poll commissioned by the Daily Kos performed by Research 2000, (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/19/163122/92/701/674605), Palin would easily defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 Republican primary for US Senate. In addition, the same poll shows Palin would defeat any named politician for that Senate seat. She does better running for Senate than she would running for re-election as Governor. Even so, she would handily win another term as Governor if she stood for re-election.
One thing no one disputes is her ability to read poll numbers. Palin is too ambitious to stay in Alaska. The Senate provides her a national platform closed to her if she stayed in the Governor’s mansion. In addition, being in the Senate would make her initial primary campaign stops easier. Because of distance and airline connections it takes 3 days of her time to speak at one dinner in Iowa. Compare that with Gov. Jindal who can get to and from an Iowa event in afternoon. If she were in the Senate it would be easier for her to stay in the lower 48 and pop in and out of the early primary and caucus states from DC.
It is not just the “left wing” media that is pushing Sarah Palin. In the December 23, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal, John O’Sullivan compares the Governor favorably to Margaret Thatcher. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122999917373529125.html). O’Sullivan makes the case that Palin speaks for the same constituency and values as the Iron Lady. Thatcher was widely ridiculed as a lightweight, until she took office and grew, like Reagan, into a benchmark of conservative political thought.
Sarah Palin sent her own message on what she thinks of the Republican elite, when she did not return two phone calls from former President George H.W.Bush. The press portrayed this omission as part of the same cluelessness that sees Russia from her backyard, while oblivious to a turkey being guillotined right behind her.
Maybe, just maybe, the Governor believes that former President Bush and the wing of the party he represents are not worth the effort to contact and cultivate. Palin and the group of Republicans who support her have clearly concluded that moderates like Bush ’41, are a part of the party they no longer need. They feel Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because they were not conservative enough. They believe that moderates weakened them, and voters will only return to an ideologically pure form of socially conservative Republicanism – one that does not include either former President Bush or any of the New England moderates whose passing they so loudly cheer.
No one can win the Presidency with only the support of one extreme wing of their party. The liberals couldn’t do it in 1988 with Dukakis. The Democrats regained power only with the broader centrist appeal of Bill Clinton. President Nixon learned this lesson early on. His advice to Republicans to run to the right in the primaries in and to the center in the November is now a truism. Play to your extreme base in the primary season and to the public in the general election.
When Gov. Palin does run for President, she will find she can mobilize enough voters to be a contender but not enough to win. To win the Presidency, she will have to start returning phone calls from all wings of the party. Unless establishment Republicans want to spend the next political generation slipping into irrelevance, they will have to admit that Gov Palin and the people she speaks to have a place at the political table.
-- Former White House speechwriter Peggy Noonan, on MSNBC.
Ms. Noonan’s disdain for Gov Palin was evident from the moment her open-mike “we’re finished” comment hit airwaves. From George Will to Kathleen Parker, establishment Republicans lined up to express their contempt for the Governor. They sat on their hands while the McCain campaign did everything it could to throw her under the bus without leaving any fingerprints. It was clear they felt she was a gate crasher to their club, and they not only disliked her, but were angry at McCain for letting her through the door.
But, despite her gaffes, her fractured syntax, a shaky grasp of many of the issues, and the contempt of the Republican establishment, Gov. Palin survives.
In a poll commissioned by the Daily Kos performed by Research 2000, (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/19/163122/92/701/674605), Palin would easily defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 Republican primary for US Senate. In addition, the same poll shows Palin would defeat any named politician for that Senate seat. She does better running for Senate than she would running for re-election as Governor. Even so, she would handily win another term as Governor if she stood for re-election.
One thing no one disputes is her ability to read poll numbers. Palin is too ambitious to stay in Alaska. The Senate provides her a national platform closed to her if she stayed in the Governor’s mansion. In addition, being in the Senate would make her initial primary campaign stops easier. Because of distance and airline connections it takes 3 days of her time to speak at one dinner in Iowa. Compare that with Gov. Jindal who can get to and from an Iowa event in afternoon. If she were in the Senate it would be easier for her to stay in the lower 48 and pop in and out of the early primary and caucus states from DC.
It is not just the “left wing” media that is pushing Sarah Palin. In the December 23, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal, John O’Sullivan compares the Governor favorably to Margaret Thatcher. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122999917373529125.html). O’Sullivan makes the case that Palin speaks for the same constituency and values as the Iron Lady. Thatcher was widely ridiculed as a lightweight, until she took office and grew, like Reagan, into a benchmark of conservative political thought.
Sarah Palin sent her own message on what she thinks of the Republican elite, when she did not return two phone calls from former President George H.W.Bush. The press portrayed this omission as part of the same cluelessness that sees Russia from her backyard, while oblivious to a turkey being guillotined right behind her.
Maybe, just maybe, the Governor believes that former President Bush and the wing of the party he represents are not worth the effort to contact and cultivate. Palin and the group of Republicans who support her have clearly concluded that moderates like Bush ’41, are a part of the party they no longer need. They feel Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because they were not conservative enough. They believe that moderates weakened them, and voters will only return to an ideologically pure form of socially conservative Republicanism – one that does not include either former President Bush or any of the New England moderates whose passing they so loudly cheer.
No one can win the Presidency with only the support of one extreme wing of their party. The liberals couldn’t do it in 1988 with Dukakis. The Democrats regained power only with the broader centrist appeal of Bill Clinton. President Nixon learned this lesson early on. His advice to Republicans to run to the right in the primaries in and to the center in the November is now a truism. Play to your extreme base in the primary season and to the public in the general election.
When Gov. Palin does run for President, she will find she can mobilize enough voters to be a contender but not enough to win. To win the Presidency, she will have to start returning phone calls from all wings of the party. Unless establishment Republicans want to spend the next political generation slipping into irrelevance, they will have to admit that Gov Palin and the people she speaks to have a place at the political table.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Obama - meet Cindy Sheehan
" But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."
George Bush August 13, on why he did not meet with Cindy Sheehan, reported by Ken Herman of Cox Enterprises
The erosion of your image, your support and your popularity often doesn’t begin with some big crisis or a cataclysmic rockslide in popularity. It begins with a small pebble bouncing down the hillside - a pebble that held a larger boulder in the balance. Bush’s image of callous incompetence did not begin in late August of 2005, with the image of people sleeping on overpasses in a flooded New Orleans. It began earlier in the month when he refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan, a Gold Star mom who wanted to speak to him about Iraq. When Bush went bike riding with Lance Armstrong rather than taking the time to shake the hand of a woman who had lost her son in Iraq, the President changed his narrative from being a compassionate conservative to being selfish and unconnected.
This change set the framework for the narrative of Katrina and made it easier for the American people to believe their President was callus and self absorbed. Had he shaken Sheehan’s hand and listened to her, Americans would have more likely seen him as compassionate and caring. That view would have helped him get through the Katrina debacle with much less damage.
Why bring this up now? Because this story holds a lesson for President-elect Obama. Somewhere out there is a pebble that will start bouncing down the hillside. It will be a missed detail, an opportunity stepped past – or the insensitivity of a choice.
Is Rick Warren his pebble?
For Obama, the choice of Warren presents several dangers. First, it could end the narrative of Obama as change. Selecting Warren for the invocation gives a nod to a man with unpopular and bigoted ideas. Obama looks like any other politician pandering to the hard right. Second, Warren will remind people of the controversy around Rev Wright. People will start wondering about Obama’s true beliefs. Is he the progressive who fought fiercely for gay rights or is he the candidate who kept quiet about Prop 8 and regularly came out against marriage equality? Obama’s “Mr Cool”, remote demeanor, gives so little away that people will come up with the answers based on the clues they find.
During the campaign people looked at Rev. Wright as a clue of Obama’s true beliefs. The conclusion people drew nearly killed Obama’s candidacy. He was able to change that narrative with a brilliant speech.
It is hard to change your own narrative once it sticks. Romney tried and failed. So did McCain. Bush is trying it now. It is not easy to do once, nearly impossible to do twice. Obama was able to change the narrative after the Rev. Wright controversy. Will he be able to do it again after Rev Warren pronounces his blessing on the inauguration?
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Hidden Burden
72%
- According to ProjectStudentDebt.Org, the percentage of students in 2007 who graduated from the University of North Carolina School of the Arts with an average college loan debt of $18,000.
This September, bankers trekked to Washington DC and were handed the equivalent of the cost the Iraq war with no strings and no questions asked. The auto industry is asking for the equivalent of twice their combined market value.
No one is discussing a bailout for people carrying student loans.
How important relief to student loan holders is, was driven home to me while cleaning house and indulging in my guilty pleasure of watching TRU TV (formally Court TV) reality shows. In a show about repo men, a young woman who had had her car repossessed, sat on the curb and cried, “They’ve taken my car! How am I going to get to work? I have $35,000 dollars in college loans!”
This scene is, I am sure, being repeated on curbs and living rooms all across the country.
Since 1995, the average annual tuition cost for both public and private universities has doubled, (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022_3b.pdf, pg 467). Over 70% of college students leave school with some sort of college debt. The amount of student debt rose 6% between 2006 and 2007. During the same period, earnings for 18-24 year old graduates rose only 3%, (Student Debt for the Class of 2007. Report released by ProjectStudentDebt.Org in Oct 2008). The US Department of Education will provide $83 Billion worth of financial aid loans this year, (Department of Education website at Ed.Gov).
This load of debt represents a secret drag on the economy. When graduates are laid off - as they will be in this economy – they are still liable for what they owe. This could force them into a bankruptcy that will follow them for years. If they do have jobs, their debt load will prevent them from getting mortgages to buy a home, get credit, or start a business.
People are staggering under a mountain of debt. They have so much debt that even if the banks were lending, consumers have too much debt to borrow. The average amount of credit card debt per U.S. household in 2007 was $9,840 - an increase of 25% since 2000. According to the Federal Reserve consumers in the US carry $2.6 trillion of all kinds of consumer debt - an increase of 24% from just 2003.
Delinquencies for credit cards are on the rise. According to the American Bankers Association in the first quarter of 2008, bank-card delinquencies jumped to 4.51% - above the five-year average delinquency rate of 4.4%. (This information may be found in Forbes magazine at http://www.forbes.com/finance/2008/09/12/credit-card-debt-pf-ii-in_jl_0911creditcards_inl.html?feed=rss_finance).
Since September, politicians, business people and economists have proposed different ways to stimulate the economy. The goal of all of these plans is to put money back into people’s hands so they can spend and save. The fastest way to do this would be reduce personal debt loads. Less money going to debt service is more money that goes into the economy.
The most effective way the government can address the problem of personal debt load is to forgive or reduce college loans. This is one of the major financial levers the government has access to. It is also an option that has not been discussed at all.
If the government forgave or reduced loans from 1999-2008 it wouldn’t cost more than Paulson’s $700 Billion plan to bail out the banks - which had no impact on the current economic crisis. But forgiving $10,000 of loans per student loan holder would provide a direct jolt to the economy both in the short and long term. Its price tag would be finite and stable as the Government would know the exact dollar value of loans forgiven.
The effects of forgiving Federal student loans would flow into the economy faster than Obama’s public works proposals, and would be broader and less expensive than McCain’s idea of buying bad mortgages. Easing the burden of college loans could also reduce personal bankruptcies, which would preserve loan holders’ future ability to obtain a mortgage or car loan.
There are other benefits to this approach - and not all of them financial. How would the culture of the country be enriched if artists, who graduated from the University Of North Carolina School of the Arts, could practice their art without having to slow, sidetrack or give up their careers to pay student loans? How many more teachers would we be able to hire for public schools if loan holders did not have to worry about paying back a college loan on a school teacher’s salary?
The point of the banker’s bailout was to “unfreeze” the credit markets and get people and corporations spending again. The banks took the money and ran. There was no accountability and they have simply used the money to clean their balance sheets. It is now time for the government to help people who wear Nike’s, sweatshirts and carry backpacks, and not just those who wear Gucci, Armani and carry briefcases.
- According to ProjectStudentDebt.Org, the percentage of students in 2007 who graduated from the University of North Carolina School of the Arts with an average college loan debt of $18,000.
This September, bankers trekked to Washington DC and were handed the equivalent of the cost the Iraq war with no strings and no questions asked. The auto industry is asking for the equivalent of twice their combined market value.
No one is discussing a bailout for people carrying student loans.
How important relief to student loan holders is, was driven home to me while cleaning house and indulging in my guilty pleasure of watching TRU TV (formally Court TV) reality shows. In a show about repo men, a young woman who had had her car repossessed, sat on the curb and cried, “They’ve taken my car! How am I going to get to work? I have $35,000 dollars in college loans!”
This scene is, I am sure, being repeated on curbs and living rooms all across the country.
Since 1995, the average annual tuition cost for both public and private universities has doubled, (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022_3b.pdf, pg 467). Over 70% of college students leave school with some sort of college debt. The amount of student debt rose 6% between 2006 and 2007. During the same period, earnings for 18-24 year old graduates rose only 3%, (Student Debt for the Class of 2007. Report released by ProjectStudentDebt.Org in Oct 2008). The US Department of Education will provide $83 Billion worth of financial aid loans this year, (Department of Education website at Ed.Gov).
This load of debt represents a secret drag on the economy. When graduates are laid off - as they will be in this economy – they are still liable for what they owe. This could force them into a bankruptcy that will follow them for years. If they do have jobs, their debt load will prevent them from getting mortgages to buy a home, get credit, or start a business.
People are staggering under a mountain of debt. They have so much debt that even if the banks were lending, consumers have too much debt to borrow. The average amount of credit card debt per U.S. household in 2007 was $9,840 - an increase of 25% since 2000. According to the Federal Reserve consumers in the US carry $2.6 trillion of all kinds of consumer debt - an increase of 24% from just 2003.
Delinquencies for credit cards are on the rise. According to the American Bankers Association in the first quarter of 2008, bank-card delinquencies jumped to 4.51% - above the five-year average delinquency rate of 4.4%. (This information may be found in Forbes magazine at http://www.forbes.com/finance/2008/09/12/credit-card-debt-pf-ii-in_jl_0911creditcards_inl.html?feed=rss_finance).
Since September, politicians, business people and economists have proposed different ways to stimulate the economy. The goal of all of these plans is to put money back into people’s hands so they can spend and save. The fastest way to do this would be reduce personal debt loads. Less money going to debt service is more money that goes into the economy.
The most effective way the government can address the problem of personal debt load is to forgive or reduce college loans. This is one of the major financial levers the government has access to. It is also an option that has not been discussed at all.
If the government forgave or reduced loans from 1999-2008 it wouldn’t cost more than Paulson’s $700 Billion plan to bail out the banks - which had no impact on the current economic crisis. But forgiving $10,000 of loans per student loan holder would provide a direct jolt to the economy both in the short and long term. Its price tag would be finite and stable as the Government would know the exact dollar value of loans forgiven.
The effects of forgiving Federal student loans would flow into the economy faster than Obama’s public works proposals, and would be broader and less expensive than McCain’s idea of buying bad mortgages. Easing the burden of college loans could also reduce personal bankruptcies, which would preserve loan holders’ future ability to obtain a mortgage or car loan.
There are other benefits to this approach - and not all of them financial. How would the culture of the country be enriched if artists, who graduated from the University Of North Carolina School of the Arts, could practice their art without having to slow, sidetrack or give up their careers to pay student loans? How many more teachers would we be able to hire for public schools if loan holders did not have to worry about paying back a college loan on a school teacher’s salary?
The point of the banker’s bailout was to “unfreeze” the credit markets and get people and corporations spending again. The banks took the money and ran. There was no accountability and they have simply used the money to clean their balance sheets. It is now time for the government to help people who wear Nike’s, sweatshirts and carry backpacks, and not just those who wear Gucci, Armani and carry briefcases.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
A Silent Earthquake
“The devil is in the details.”
State Sen. Don Perata on Proposition 11 – California’s redistricting reform
A silent earthquake struck California on election night.
Californians passed Proposition 11, a complete reform of the state redistricting process. Its passage was overshadowed by Prop 8 and Barak Obama.
Prop. 11 is designed to break the hold of the extreme wings of both parties on the State Assembly by creating competitive state assembly districts. The theory is holding incumbents accountable in competitive districts should move them to the political center.
By taking redistricting out of the hands of the State Legislature, Prop 11 completely changes the way districts are drawn for the California State House, the California State Senate and the State Board of Equalization (our Orwellian named tax department). It also writes into law, guidelines that must be followed in creating US House Districts.
Prop 11 requires that districts be of equal population size, be geographically compact, not divide communities, and comply with all Federal voting rights acts. Districts will be drawn by a commission whose selection process is arcane and out of the hands of the legislators themselves.
Before Prop 11, legislative districts, as in most states, were drawn by the legislators themselves. As time went on they became more open that their goal was to protect their seats. The result was (and is) a highly partisan legislature, with a high reelection rate, that contains the most extreme members of each party. The Democrats are represented by uncompromising purist of the left and the Republicans by an anti-tax group nick-named C.A.V.E dwellers (which stands for Citizens Against Virtually Everything).
The result has been a disaster for California. California has a balanced budget requirement with a super majority needed to raise taxes. We have spent the entire year (as we did last year and the year before) locked in a budget deadlock that threatens to close down the State. The legislature just adjourned from a special session without reaching a budget deal (second time this year). The Republicans refused to raise taxes, and the Democrats refused to reform government employee union work rules that have lead to massive abuse. Once again regular Californians will suffer as social services stop for our neediest citizens.
This gridlock is one reason why the state’s ballot initiative process is so active. Regular citizens are frustrated by the lack of action in Sacramento. Special interest groups also realize that they cannot get their agendas through the gridlock in the State Assembly. Consequently, these groups pour a lot of money (much of it from out of state), passing ballot initiative that benefit a very narrow group (Indian Gaming) or to press a particular social agenda (Proposition 8). If the State Assembly worked together to address the issues facing the state, there would be less reason to turn to ballot initiatives. This would be a significant change in California politics.
One argument against Proposition 11 was that it would hurt minority representation as there is no guarantee that the redistricting commission wouldn’t cut up their communities. This ignores the fact that legislators currently don’t have any motivation to keep minority communities intact. In many cases there is incentive to divide and neutralize the voices of these communities. Minorities fared better after the courts took over the redistricting process in 1970 and 1990. In the 2000 redistricting legislators cut up minority communities in Long Beach, San Jose, Fresno and the San Gabriel Valley. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/12/EDV812RJMK.DTL).
A stronger argument against Prop 11 was that states that have adopted the commission process (for example Washington State) have not seen an easing of partisanship. This may be so. But reforming the processes should lower the amount of horse trading that goes on between members to draw districts designed to keep each other safe.
In 2011 we will see how successful Prop 11 is. If it is successful, Prop 11 should give Californians more moderate representation that will work to solve the state’s problems and not just to score points off the other guy. If it doesn’t work, we won’t be much worse off than we are.
California is the cradle of other movements that have swept the country. If Prop 11 is successful, a redistricting commission may be coming to state near you.
State Sen. Don Perata on Proposition 11 – California’s redistricting reform
A silent earthquake struck California on election night.
Californians passed Proposition 11, a complete reform of the state redistricting process. Its passage was overshadowed by Prop 8 and Barak Obama.
Prop. 11 is designed to break the hold of the extreme wings of both parties on the State Assembly by creating competitive state assembly districts. The theory is holding incumbents accountable in competitive districts should move them to the political center.
By taking redistricting out of the hands of the State Legislature, Prop 11 completely changes the way districts are drawn for the California State House, the California State Senate and the State Board of Equalization (our Orwellian named tax department). It also writes into law, guidelines that must be followed in creating US House Districts.
Prop 11 requires that districts be of equal population size, be geographically compact, not divide communities, and comply with all Federal voting rights acts. Districts will be drawn by a commission whose selection process is arcane and out of the hands of the legislators themselves.
Before Prop 11, legislative districts, as in most states, were drawn by the legislators themselves. As time went on they became more open that their goal was to protect their seats. The result was (and is) a highly partisan legislature, with a high reelection rate, that contains the most extreme members of each party. The Democrats are represented by uncompromising purist of the left and the Republicans by an anti-tax group nick-named C.A.V.E dwellers (which stands for Citizens Against Virtually Everything).
The result has been a disaster for California. California has a balanced budget requirement with a super majority needed to raise taxes. We have spent the entire year (as we did last year and the year before) locked in a budget deadlock that threatens to close down the State. The legislature just adjourned from a special session without reaching a budget deal (second time this year). The Republicans refused to raise taxes, and the Democrats refused to reform government employee union work rules that have lead to massive abuse. Once again regular Californians will suffer as social services stop for our neediest citizens.
This gridlock is one reason why the state’s ballot initiative process is so active. Regular citizens are frustrated by the lack of action in Sacramento. Special interest groups also realize that they cannot get their agendas through the gridlock in the State Assembly. Consequently, these groups pour a lot of money (much of it from out of state), passing ballot initiative that benefit a very narrow group (Indian Gaming) or to press a particular social agenda (Proposition 8). If the State Assembly worked together to address the issues facing the state, there would be less reason to turn to ballot initiatives. This would be a significant change in California politics.
One argument against Proposition 11 was that it would hurt minority representation as there is no guarantee that the redistricting commission wouldn’t cut up their communities. This ignores the fact that legislators currently don’t have any motivation to keep minority communities intact. In many cases there is incentive to divide and neutralize the voices of these communities. Minorities fared better after the courts took over the redistricting process in 1970 and 1990. In the 2000 redistricting legislators cut up minority communities in Long Beach, San Jose, Fresno and the San Gabriel Valley. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/12/EDV812RJMK.DTL).
A stronger argument against Prop 11 was that states that have adopted the commission process (for example Washington State) have not seen an easing of partisanship. This may be so. But reforming the processes should lower the amount of horse trading that goes on between members to draw districts designed to keep each other safe.
In 2011 we will see how successful Prop 11 is. If it is successful, Prop 11 should give Californians more moderate representation that will work to solve the state’s problems and not just to score points off the other guy. If it doesn’t work, we won’t be much worse off than we are.
California is the cradle of other movements that have swept the country. If Prop 11 is successful, a redistricting commission may be coming to state near you.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sarah Palin Kicks at the Door of History
“Today I announce that I will seek and I will win the presidency of the United States of America.”
- Dan Quayle announcing his candidacy for President of the United States in April of 1999. He withdrew after placing 8th in the Ames Iowa straw poll in August of 1999.
As Sarah Palin considers kicking in doors the Almighty may have left cracked for her, she should hope that He oiled its hinges as well. The history of failed Vice Presidential candidates who went on to win the big prize is short.
The only failed Vice Presidential candidate since 1865 who went on to be elected President was Franklin Delano Roosevelt (VP Candidate in 1924 with John W. Davis who lost - big time – to Calvin Coolidge). In the same period of time only two Vice Presidents won the presidency without first ascending through the death of their President – Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush.
FDR, Nixon and Bush each broke through in extraordinary circumstances. After 1924, FDR went on to serve successfully as Governor of New York. Running a major state during the onset of the Great Depression proved his executive skills to the nation. Nixon’s monomania kept him in the game. PepsiCo put him on its payroll so he could travel and rebuild his image. Eight years after losing to JFK, he was able to take advantage of a split in the Democratic Party to narrowly win election. George H.W. Bush won running on the accomplishments of a very popular incumbent. He also had the good fortune to run against Michael Dukakis who, until John McCain ran in 2008, was the most incompetent Presidential candidate since Alf Landon.
These circumstances are not in place for Sarah Palin.
Why do Vice Presidential candidates and Vice Presidents have such a hard time rising to the top? There are several factors they have to overcome to win.
First, Presidential candidates do not pick someone who is strong enough to overshadow them. VP candidates are picked to shore up a weakness or bring in the support of a targeted constituency. In the late 19th and early 20th century this would be a political machine, and/or someone well known in a region distant to the main candidate. In modern times the VP is picked to appeal to a narrow constituency who view the Presidential nominee with suspicion, or to fill a perceived gap in their resumes. Thus Gore was picked by Clinton and Biden by Obama to provide an air of DC competence and experience that an outsider would need to succeed in Washington. George H.W. Bush chose Quayle and McCain chose Palin to improve their standings among conservatives who distrusted them. In no case were these candidates chosen because the Presidential candidate looked at them and said “they can be President.”
Second, a Vice Presidential candidate’s role is to protect the Presidential nominee by doing the ticket’s dirty work and paying the political price for it. This enables the Presidential nominee to glide above the fray. By the time the campaign is over the VP candidate’s reputation is damaged and his or her political capital is spent. If they lose they have little opportunity to regain that capital. Generally speaking they are out of office and have few ways to rebuild what they lost.
If they lose but have an office to go back to, like Bob Dole did after 1976, their previous campaign comes back to haunt them when they run again. In 1996, Dole tried so hard not to be the biting attack dog that he was when he ran with Gerald Ford, that he made himself uncomfortable and never looked natural.
If their ticket does win, they do have that opportunity to repair their image and rebuild political capital. But running as a sitting VP is a double edged sword. If the incumbent keeps them at a distance and out of the loop they won’t be seen as experienced enough. This was one of the problems Nixon had when he ran in 1960. Bush ’41 also had this problem, but was lucky in that the Dukakis campaign was as inept as Regan was popular.
If you are involved in the incumbent’s administration you have to run on his record. Walter Mondale and Al Gore had this problem. Both men had to lug around all the baggage their President loaded on their bandwagon. Neither could overcome unpopular aspects of the Carter and Clinton administration.
Palin and Quayle share a third factor. By the time their VP campaigns were over, they were (and are) seen as a punch line of a joke. Each had opportunities to overcome this perception, but both blew it through simple lack of skill and self-awareness. Whether it is Sarah Palin standing in front of a turkey rendering machine in action, or Dan Quayle ensuring a spelling bee contestant adds that pesky silent “e” at the end of” potato,” those moments will define them throughout their lives. Once Americans start laughing they never stop.
So Palin is kicking on a door that probably will remain closed. No matter how hard she kicks by flying around the country fundraising, campaigning, and giving speeches, history shows she is more likely to follow in the footsteps of Dan Quayle than in those of FDR.
- Dan Quayle announcing his candidacy for President of the United States in April of 1999. He withdrew after placing 8th in the Ames Iowa straw poll in August of 1999.
As Sarah Palin considers kicking in doors the Almighty may have left cracked for her, she should hope that He oiled its hinges as well. The history of failed Vice Presidential candidates who went on to win the big prize is short.
The only failed Vice Presidential candidate since 1865 who went on to be elected President was Franklin Delano Roosevelt (VP Candidate in 1924 with John W. Davis who lost - big time – to Calvin Coolidge). In the same period of time only two Vice Presidents won the presidency without first ascending through the death of their President – Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush.
FDR, Nixon and Bush each broke through in extraordinary circumstances. After 1924, FDR went on to serve successfully as Governor of New York. Running a major state during the onset of the Great Depression proved his executive skills to the nation. Nixon’s monomania kept him in the game. PepsiCo put him on its payroll so he could travel and rebuild his image. Eight years after losing to JFK, he was able to take advantage of a split in the Democratic Party to narrowly win election. George H.W. Bush won running on the accomplishments of a very popular incumbent. He also had the good fortune to run against Michael Dukakis who, until John McCain ran in 2008, was the most incompetent Presidential candidate since Alf Landon.
These circumstances are not in place for Sarah Palin.
Why do Vice Presidential candidates and Vice Presidents have such a hard time rising to the top? There are several factors they have to overcome to win.
First, Presidential candidates do not pick someone who is strong enough to overshadow them. VP candidates are picked to shore up a weakness or bring in the support of a targeted constituency. In the late 19th and early 20th century this would be a political machine, and/or someone well known in a region distant to the main candidate. In modern times the VP is picked to appeal to a narrow constituency who view the Presidential nominee with suspicion, or to fill a perceived gap in their resumes. Thus Gore was picked by Clinton and Biden by Obama to provide an air of DC competence and experience that an outsider would need to succeed in Washington. George H.W. Bush chose Quayle and McCain chose Palin to improve their standings among conservatives who distrusted them. In no case were these candidates chosen because the Presidential candidate looked at them and said “they can be President.”
Second, a Vice Presidential candidate’s role is to protect the Presidential nominee by doing the ticket’s dirty work and paying the political price for it. This enables the Presidential nominee to glide above the fray. By the time the campaign is over the VP candidate’s reputation is damaged and his or her political capital is spent. If they lose they have little opportunity to regain that capital. Generally speaking they are out of office and have few ways to rebuild what they lost.
If they lose but have an office to go back to, like Bob Dole did after 1976, their previous campaign comes back to haunt them when they run again. In 1996, Dole tried so hard not to be the biting attack dog that he was when he ran with Gerald Ford, that he made himself uncomfortable and never looked natural.
If their ticket does win, they do have that opportunity to repair their image and rebuild political capital. But running as a sitting VP is a double edged sword. If the incumbent keeps them at a distance and out of the loop they won’t be seen as experienced enough. This was one of the problems Nixon had when he ran in 1960. Bush ’41 also had this problem, but was lucky in that the Dukakis campaign was as inept as Regan was popular.
If you are involved in the incumbent’s administration you have to run on his record. Walter Mondale and Al Gore had this problem. Both men had to lug around all the baggage their President loaded on their bandwagon. Neither could overcome unpopular aspects of the Carter and Clinton administration.
Palin and Quayle share a third factor. By the time their VP campaigns were over, they were (and are) seen as a punch line of a joke. Each had opportunities to overcome this perception, but both blew it through simple lack of skill and self-awareness. Whether it is Sarah Palin standing in front of a turkey rendering machine in action, or Dan Quayle ensuring a spelling bee contestant adds that pesky silent “e” at the end of” potato,” those moments will define them throughout their lives. Once Americans start laughing they never stop.
So Palin is kicking on a door that probably will remain closed. No matter how hard she kicks by flying around the country fundraising, campaigning, and giving speeches, history shows she is more likely to follow in the footsteps of Dan Quayle than in those of FDR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)