Happy Birthday to Jason Mewes, 39.
I'm still pretty far behind on everything after travel (and especially after a travel day), but here's some good stuff:
1. Matthew Cooper and Garance Franke-Ruta have some of my favorite advice during a fast-breaking story: slow down a bit; what we know about the NSA story and about Edward Snowden may still change dramatically, so no need to conclude anything yet.
2. How California's top-two primary is evolving, from Seth Masket.
3. And I haven't read it yet, but I've heard that Rich Yeselson on Taft-Hartley and the past and future of unions is this week's must-read.
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Curse of Pat Brown? of Richard Nixon?
Reading Kevin Drum today about how Californians hate all their pols got me thinking about just how pathetic their pols have been -- not in the Senate, where I think both of California's Senators are perfectly good pols, or in the House, where they've produced several outstanding Members, but at the statewide level. Or, more specifically, their gubernatorial candidates. OK, granted, this is mostly subjective, but, that's not going to stop me. I lived in CA through three elections for governor, well, as I said, I think that Diane Feinstein is a pretty good politician. Mostly, though, it's been a lot of hacks and nonentities. That includes winners (Gray Davis, George Deukmejian), losers (Bill Simon, Phil Angelides) and Browns (Jerry, Kathleen, Jerry again). I can't say I know anything about Houston I. Flournoy, even whether he was a good political scientist, but I think I'm on fairly safe ground in saying that as a pol, he wasn't exactly a heavyweight. Tom Bradley, maybe? I suppose I'd think differently about him (and some of the others) had he won, but then again that can cut both ways, can't it?
I don't know...as I said, it's subjective, but I don't see any Bill Clintons there, or Mario Cuomos, or Tommy Thompsons, or Jeb Bushes. All of whom have various weaknesses, but all of whom have or had excellent reputations as pols, whatever one thinks of their ideology. (One of the Iron Laws of Politics, by the way, applies here: all governors with national reputation are thought to be overrated by their actual constituents, who think that if the rest of the nation only knew what we know...).
Now, Pat Brown, everyone agrees, was first-rate. I'll skip over Ronald Reagan -- he certainly wasn't a nonentity, but if you think he was a good pol, start the string after him; if not, start it after Pat Brown. At any rate, it's been at least a very long time since California had a governor who was well-regarded, and most of the losing candidates didn't really get anyone very excited, either.
I have no idea why California doesn't produce good governors. Expensive campaigns? Screwed up political system (the initiatives, the supermajority-requiring budget, the other initiative-imposed constraints)? Something about the way the parties are organized? I suppose they haven't had any disasters on the scale of Rod Blagojevich or Evan Mecham...hmmm, that's a good question: how many states have had a governor either resign in disgrace, wind up in jail, or both over the last, say, fifty years? Just off the top of my head, we have IL, AZ, NJ, NY, OH, LA, all in the last few years.* Can anyone top Arizona, with two? I'm sure I'm forgetting some; feel free to leave them in comments.
No, that's not California's style; the poster boy California governor since Reagan is, in my opinion, clearly Gray Davis. Dull, never had any enthusiastic support to begin with, reelected anyway because the opposition was even weaker, and then disposed of and forgotten as soon as people were able to do so.
*Want to be clear about one of these, New Jersey: that Jim McGreevey was gay was no disgrace, but stepping down because of an affair does constitute "resigning in disgrace."
I don't know...as I said, it's subjective, but I don't see any Bill Clintons there, or Mario Cuomos, or Tommy Thompsons, or Jeb Bushes. All of whom have various weaknesses, but all of whom have or had excellent reputations as pols, whatever one thinks of their ideology. (One of the Iron Laws of Politics, by the way, applies here: all governors with national reputation are thought to be overrated by their actual constituents, who think that if the rest of the nation only knew what we know...).
Now, Pat Brown, everyone agrees, was first-rate. I'll skip over Ronald Reagan -- he certainly wasn't a nonentity, but if you think he was a good pol, start the string after him; if not, start it after Pat Brown. At any rate, it's been at least a very long time since California had a governor who was well-regarded, and most of the losing candidates didn't really get anyone very excited, either.
I have no idea why California doesn't produce good governors. Expensive campaigns? Screwed up political system (the initiatives, the supermajority-requiring budget, the other initiative-imposed constraints)? Something about the way the parties are organized? I suppose they haven't had any disasters on the scale of Rod Blagojevich or Evan Mecham...hmmm, that's a good question: how many states have had a governor either resign in disgrace, wind up in jail, or both over the last, say, fifty years? Just off the top of my head, we have IL, AZ, NJ, NY, OH, LA, all in the last few years.* Can anyone top Arizona, with two? I'm sure I'm forgetting some; feel free to leave them in comments.
No, that's not California's style; the poster boy California governor since Reagan is, in my opinion, clearly Gray Davis. Dull, never had any enthusiastic support to begin with, reelected anyway because the opposition was even weaker, and then disposed of and forgotten as soon as people were able to do so.
*Want to be clear about one of these, New Jersey: that Jim McGreevey was gay was no disgrace, but stepping down because of an affair does constitute "resigning in disgrace."
Monday, May 3, 2010
Take the Initiative...Please!
OK, I apologize for the subject line. But:
Kevin Drum points to an LAT article on the upcoming California elections and blames the mess out there in the Golden State on "how completely screwed up the political culture in California is."
I think that's wrong. The problem in California isn't political culture; it's the rules of the game. Government by initiative is just a very foolish form of democracy, one that is very good at providing excellent career opportunities in electioneering but very bad at producing sensible government, or even in the sorts of collective decision-making that democracy is supposed to have. Of course, it's fair to say that California's initiative process is an artifact of its long-ago progressive political culture, but now its just a mess that no one likes or wants. Last I heard, constitutional reform efforts in California were going nowhere again, but as reluctant as I normally am to support radical rules changes, the state really needs radical rules changes.
Kevin Drum points to an LAT article on the upcoming California elections and blames the mess out there in the Golden State on "how completely screwed up the political culture in California is."
I think that's wrong. The problem in California isn't political culture; it's the rules of the game. Government by initiative is just a very foolish form of democracy, one that is very good at providing excellent career opportunities in electioneering but very bad at producing sensible government, or even in the sorts of collective decision-making that democracy is supposed to have. Of course, it's fair to say that California's initiative process is an artifact of its long-ago progressive political culture, but now its just a mess that no one likes or wants. Last I heard, constitutional reform efforts in California were going nowhere again, but as reluctant as I normally am to support radical rules changes, the state really needs radical rules changes.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
No, We're Not All California
Rules matter. Ezra Klein's WaPo column today warning that the United States is doomed, because of party polarization, to wind up with a California-style budget crisis ignores the rules differences between California's budget process and that of the federal government, and in doing so makes claims that just aren't correct.
The two rules that matter in California are the supermajority legislative requirement for a budget (which Ezra mentions), and the initiative. Neither is present at the national level: there's no initiative, of course, and anything budget related can and is passed using the majoritarian reconciliation rules.
In California, initiatives, beginning with Prop 13, have tied the hands of elected officials, leaving only bad choices available even if all legislators are sincerely seeking a good deal. Basically, any interest group can attempt -- and many have succeeded -- in protecting their piece of the budget from compromise, by writing an initiative that, if passed, did so. There is no remotely comparable element to federal budgeting.
Meanwhile, most serious changes in the budget since 1980, and if I recall correctly all initiatives to lower the deficit, have been attempted through reconciliation, and are therefore not subject to the filibuster. And remember: while polarization means that it's less likely to pass something with bipartisan support, it also means that it's more likely to pass something if all it takes is a majority.
I do think Ezra has a bit of a point about the debt ceiling, although I don't think he's correct that raising the debt ceiling has always had bipartisan support -- if I recall correctly Republicans voted against raising the debt ceiling when Democrats controlled Congress, even under Republican presidents, although they didn't filibuster it. Let's see...here's a strict partisan vote in 2006 to raise it, 52-48: the Dems voted no but didn't filibuster. In 1990 and 1985 the debt ceiling was involved in brinkmanship over deficit reduction, with various people threatening to deny the ceiling increase unless their deficit concerns were met. So it might be new for the minority party to simply filibuster the debt ceiling, as opposed to either voting no or using their votes to bargain for something substantive. But, again, the debt ceiling increase can be included in a reconciliation bill, so if the Republicans insist on that strategy the majority has access to a procedure that will prevent a crisis.
Ezra's bigger point is that:
Yes, the American system has a bias in favor of the status quo, and in favor of incremental and piecemeal change over radical and systematic reform. That was true in the partisan 19th century, it was true in the far less partisan 20th century, and it's true now. As frustrating as that is to those who want change, it doesn't mean that we're about to see California on the national level.
The two rules that matter in California are the supermajority legislative requirement for a budget (which Ezra mentions), and the initiative. Neither is present at the national level: there's no initiative, of course, and anything budget related can and is passed using the majoritarian reconciliation rules.
In California, initiatives, beginning with Prop 13, have tied the hands of elected officials, leaving only bad choices available even if all legislators are sincerely seeking a good deal. Basically, any interest group can attempt -- and many have succeeded -- in protecting their piece of the budget from compromise, by writing an initiative that, if passed, did so. There is no remotely comparable element to federal budgeting.
Meanwhile, most serious changes in the budget since 1980, and if I recall correctly all initiatives to lower the deficit, have been attempted through reconciliation, and are therefore not subject to the filibuster. And remember: while polarization means that it's less likely to pass something with bipartisan support, it also means that it's more likely to pass something if all it takes is a majority.
I do think Ezra has a bit of a point about the debt ceiling, although I don't think he's correct that raising the debt ceiling has always had bipartisan support -- if I recall correctly Republicans voted against raising the debt ceiling when Democrats controlled Congress, even under Republican presidents, although they didn't filibuster it. Let's see...here's a strict partisan vote in 2006 to raise it, 52-48: the Dems voted no but didn't filibuster. In 1990 and 1985 the debt ceiling was involved in brinkmanship over deficit reduction, with various people threatening to deny the ceiling increase unless their deficit concerns were met. So it might be new for the minority party to simply filibuster the debt ceiling, as opposed to either voting no or using their votes to bargain for something substantive. But, again, the debt ceiling increase can be included in a reconciliation bill, so if the Republicans insist on that strategy the majority has access to a procedure that will prevent a crisis.
Ezra's bigger point is that:
Ever since Newt Gingrich partnered with Bob Dole to retake the Congress atop a successful strategy of relentless and effective obstructionism, Congress has been virtually incapable of doing anything difficult because the minority party will either block it or run against it, or both. And make no mistake: Congress will need to do hard things, and soon.It's true that something new happened in 1993-1994, and that Republicans now are emulating that cycle. But it's not at all true that it's unusually hard for Congress to do "anything difficult" now. It's always been hard for Congress to do difficult things. Polarization, even with the filibuster, doesn't necessarily make hit harder. After all, Congress and Bill Clinton did achieve major deficit reduction in 1993, and Congress and Barack Obama have passed an historically huge stimulus this year, and will almost certainly pass a health care bill that eluded decades of previous Congresses.
Yes, the American system has a bias in favor of the status quo, and in favor of incremental and piecemeal change over radical and systematic reform. That was true in the partisan 19th century, it was true in the far less partisan 20th century, and it's true now. As frustrating as that is to those who want change, it doesn't mean that we're about to see California on the national level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
