During the gubernatorial recall campaign, I wrote in this column
that Arnold Schwarzenegger would probably win the election and that
the most likely outcome would be that the Democratic controlled
legislature would most likely try to ensure that he would fail. I
was only partly right.
During the gubernatorial recall campaign, I wrote in this column that Arnold Schwarzenegger would probably win the election and that the most likely outcome would be that the Democratic controlled legislature would most likely try to ensure that he would fail. I was only partly right.
It appeared for a while that the Democrats would utilize their control of the Legislature to make Schwarzenegger look bad. The rhetoric from state Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, was decidedly antagonistic.
However, two things happened which changed that. One was a very public backlash against the governor’s budget proposals as they affect citizens with a disability and the funding of local emergency services.
The other was the willingness of the Arnold to take his show on the road, in effect reminding those democrats that many were from districts that had voted for him. These two facts gave everyone a reason to seek a compromise. A disastrous use of partisan political power was avoided.
However, make no mistake, politics is about power as much as it is about money. The major political parties appear to be more concerned for power than they are for the policies that they preach. This was ably demonstrated by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, in the San Francisco mayoral election.
Mayoral elections, even in a city as large as San Francisco, are nominally non-partisan. But that is not the way things work. When interviewed on KPIX by Hank Plante, Pelosi made it clear that it was all about power.
To quote here exactly: “I respect the Greens and the enthusiasm that they bring to the political process. However, the fight in this country is between the Democrats and the Republicans. In order for the Democrats to prevail we have to be strong. Having the mayor of San Francisco be a Democrat is important to us.”
Then Pelosi brought in the big guns to ensure that a Democrat won a non-partisan election. Both ex-president Clinton and ex-Vice President Gore were paraded through town to give their endorsement for a candidate that they probably never heard of until Pelosi picked up the phone. Still, I have heard that more Democrats voted for Matt Gonzales than for Newsome and that it was the Republican vote that made the difference.
It is obvious that this election has sent shivers through the Democratic Party in California. It has demonstrated that an attractive candidate from a small party has a real chance of getting elected. Following close on the heels of the gubernatorial election in which many Democrats crossed party lines to vote for Schwatzenegger, it gives the appearance of a party in disarray, disconnected from the voters and increasingly vulnerable to the loss of their power.
Several high profile Democratic office holders, including state Controller Steve Westley and ex-Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta are supporting a new “open primary” initiative. This initiative would allow voters in a primary to cast their vote for any candidate, regardless of the voter’s party affiliation. Only the top two candidates would have their names on the general election ballot.
Given the way that the state Legislature has gerrymandered election districts in California, this could easily pit two Democrats or two Republicans against each other in the general election. It would also ensure that the Greens, the Libertarians and all of the other small parties would have no chance under the open primary laws. This, despite that fact that the San Francisco mayoral race proved that a member of a smaller party is capable of winning an election.
While the rhetoric associated with this initiative claims to remove party designation from the primary ballot, it still allows candidates to secure party endorsement and campaign with that fact. It does not, as the supporters claim, make the elections more democratic. If enacted this initiative would ensure that the support of the political party, along with the financing that this brings, will take place behind closed doors out of public view.
The small parties, often assured of losing, are free to bring forward new ideas. They can speak from the heart and not from the a pollster’s script. In the gubernatorial election, the Green Party’s Peter Camejo finally gained access to the debates and conducted himself well. He brought forward the point that the richest quarter of our citizens spend a smaller percentage of their income on taxes than do the poorest quarter. This fact was so challenging that the only major daily newspaper in the state to have the courage to mention this point was the Mercury News. If the small political parties are silenced, who will tell the truth?
If any of you are approached to sign this initiative position, I hope that you walk away. If, by chance this does make it to the ballot, I would hope that any who still believe in the way of democracy will vote “no.”
“I find I have a great lot to learn – or unlearn. I seem to know far too much and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am getting on.” – Charles Rennie Mackintosh
