Month: August 2003

On occasion, I write a response that’s a little too large for the word limit imposed by my commenting system. Which may be just as well, since the commenting system only works about two thirds of the time anyway. What I’d wanted to do is respond to Sharon’s comments about the California recall election, about which we seem to very much disagree. She’s called it “an inspiring reflection of the dignity, efficacy, discretion, and altruism displayed by our political system…” I’ve said on numerous occasions that I think it’s a very bad idea and will just end up causing more problems for the state and set a troublesome precedent. But Sharon makes a good point when she asks in response to this post (and to my reply to her earlier response):

Which works better: A system that depends on the intelligence, altruism, and foresight of individuals, or a system that prevents individuals from further curtailing our rights?

Here’s what I wrote:

I’m not suggesting you should agree with every aspect of an elected official’s agenda. Or that you should be discouraged from actively disagreeing with that agenda and fighting it at any and every level. I’m not suggesting that the current system is perfect or that its problems shouldn’t be addressed. Or even that government shouldn’t be smaller. I’m just suggesting that recalls aren’t the answer and will likely do much more harm than good. I don’t think our being fed up with government makes all but doing away with it a good idea.

I do not think a system of perpetual recalls (which is what we might stumbling into) is a system that prevents individuals from further curtailing our rights. In fact, I think it’s the very opposite. I think that, when a majority of voters decide such-and-such is the right person for the job, I think it’s wrong for special interest groups, the wealthy, or the opposition party to say, no, we don’t think so, we’re runnin’ a recall.

It can be argued, pretty easily, that Gray Davis hasn’t done a good job. But the move to recall him isn’t about that. California’s recall election is not about giving the people back their voice in state politics. It’s about political opportunism, prompted by a wealthy Republican who didn’t win the last election and his professional petition gatherers. And the recalls suggested in Nevada and here in Pennsylvania (where it’s currently unconstitutional) aren’t about addressing poor performance or misconduct; they’re about an opposition party that’s upset it lost, plain and simple.

Does throwing a state into disarray really help? State and federal government have a lot to answer for — by no means am I saying, “Oh, they’re imperfect, but let them be and just elect somebody new next time.” — but I’m still of the opinion that we need government. That there are very real issues that we elect people to address. California has serious budgetary problems. Is electing someone wholly unqualified to address those problems going to help the state in any way?

If Schwartenegger is elected and somebody with a little money doesn’t like him, should he be recalled next year? Should whoever replaces him be recalled? When does it stop? You know, not everything government does is bad. They may have failed us in some areas, and maybe it should be smaller and more locally owned, but we do rely on our elected officials for certain necessary jobs and services.

I understand your concerns, and I’m not asking you to agree with anyone’s agenda. I’m not even asking you to agree with me. I’m just asking: how does keeping politicians in a constant state of powerlessness help address abuses of power? How does grinding government to a halt help government to function better?

Grr. When all your representatives are busy, put me on hold. Please don’t ask me to try again later and then hang up on me.

Especially if, every time I call, I have to enter my account information and PIN.

Why do I think the California recall is a bad idea? Well, I tried to explain myself here, but I think this and this go a long way to explaining it, too.

Like Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who the state Republicans are trying to recall, “I believe someone who holds office should only forfeit that office if they’ve done something tremendously irresponsible or heinous, or if they’ve broken the law.” But why do the House Republicans want to change Pennsylvania’s constitution to allow a recall? Because he’s had the audacity, as House Republican spokesman Stephen Miskin says, to try and advance his agenda.

Tom Tomorrow quotes Charles Donefer, who writes:

If the recall wins and Tom DeLay can redistrict Texas in an off-year, then you can essentially kiss functioning political institutions goodbye for a generation. I’m not blowing things out of proportion here; I’m being completely serious. We used to have elections and redistricting at regular intervals. In between these political events was the actual governing, which is, depending on how you think, why you get elected in the first place or what you do to convince voters to re-elect you. Either way, there was a time to fight political rivals over who had control and a time to fight them over budgets, laws and the rest of the business of elective office. If redistricting or a recall election can be called at any time one party thinks it can improve its standing, then there won’t be time for governing. Right now, the Texas Senate isn’t doing the people’s business, they’re sniping at one another from across the state line – business has ground to a halt in that body.

You shouldn’t think that these are isolated incidents either. Democrats won’t stand for being on the defensive any longer. Already, there have been threats to redistrict Republicans out of Democrat-controlled states. If recalls go forward in other states, a Republican Governor could be in similar trouble very soon. I don’t think that Republicans know what they’re messing with.

Sure, we laugh at those silly Californians and make lame Terminator jokes about Schwarzenegger’s campaign, but is it worth it? I’ve been amused by the Recall Bush website and joked that Gary Coleman should use this as his campaign poster, but ultimately I think recalls do little to address the real problems of a state, but instead just make actual governing all but impossible, as Donefer says.

I ask again: when you don’t like an elected official’s policies, isn’t the normal course of action voting for someone else in the next election? Shouldn’t it be?

Taco Bell asks “Who says you can’t buy votes?” (Found through This Modern World.)

Walk into any Taco Bell in California between now and election day, and a beef crunchy taco will count as a vote for Arnold Schwartenegger. A chicken soft taco will be a vote for Gray Davis. And a grilled stuft burrito will be counted as a vote for “one of the other 134 candidates”. Schwartenegger is crunchy beef; Davis is chicken soft; and everyone else is just stuffed in there. Why, it’s almost like that thing they call humor.

I’d just like to mention again that I think this California recall election is a very bad idea.

I think there are three options: it’s going to rain, there’s an unexpected solar eclipse going on, or it’s the end of the world. This being State College, PA, my money’s on the rain. Although end of the world’s always a possibility.