August 31, 2003

Addressing Our Weakness

In an entry that includes a nice mention of this site, Hugh Hewitt hits an issue that I have been grappling with. Are we talking about all the right things? I've been turning this over in my mind each morning as I review the day's news and try to figure out ehat to present to you. Although I hit the recall story early and have been fortunate enough to ride it to a point where my blog is noticed by people I respect, 6 weeks before the election, I'm running out of stories. The Oui story bores me and has been done to death and once you point out that Mecha may not be as benign as Cruz suggests, that story is done too. What am I missing, I wonder, as blogging slows to a trickle.

Hewitt also spotted this problem and suggests the answer to the question:

But now the criticism: The underlying story of the recall remains largely unexplored by all media, new and old. That story turns on these questions: Is the California legislature churning out a large number of new and very radical statutes, judging by the standards at work in the other 49 states? Does the California legislature appear to have even a minimal grasp on economics, or does it seem to act as though there is no such thing as a business climate? Do special interests dominate Sacramento to an extent unparalled in other state legislatures, with the result that enormously unbalanced legislation is arriving on Gray's desk (and has been for five years) without the ordinary moderations enforced by two-party rule? These and similar questions should be the foundation uponb which all recall reporting is done, but no serious look at them has occured in any of the state's major media.

Now I may not be able to properly address these questions but I think it is the direction in which we should all be heading.

Posted by Justene Adamec at August 31, 2003 10:07 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I've been experiencing the same malaise. The Oui story is vaguely interesting, not in and of itself, but because of how people are reacting to it - gay activist groups complaining, for example, or people who supported Clinton castigating Arnold for womanizing, are interesting illustrations of the stupidity of politics in which party loyalty outranks intellectual integrity. But in general the recall has just stopped being interesting.

Posted by: aphrael at September 1, 2003 12:34 PM (Permalink)

I, too have been thinking that the recall is more of a symptom than a cure, and that the media are ignoring the real story.

It is a documented fact that electoral districts in California and most other states are gerrymandered to such an extent that only a small minority of elected offices are actually up for grabs in any given election. Both major parties like it this way because the majority party is almost guaranteed to retain control and the minority party is guaranteed enough presence to retain a voice. (The majority party also likes to have a large but virtually impotent minority to immunize themselves from accusations of one-party rule while pushing their agenda.)

In my opinion this comfy little arrangement virtually guarantees voter apathy and cynicism, as evidenced by chronically low voter turnout. It also gives rise to excessive polarization because only the true believers in each party bother to vote, especially at the primary level. Voter apathy in turn gives special interest groups with money inordinate power because they can effectively choose the candidates and frame the debate. This breeds further apathy among average voters because people feel that the whole process is rigged (which it is) and that their vote doesn't count (which in large measure it doesn't ).

Most importantly, under the system that currently prevails, electees do not perceive that they are accountable to the people, but rather to the special interest groups who got them elected. Hence all the radical legislation Hugh Hewitt refers to. This non-responsiveness to the voters might be why Californians are increasingly resorting to initiatives to get the laws they want on the books. Term limits don't fix the problem because the party of the term limited pol merely puts up a candidate who's a clone of the outgoing one and maintains the status quo.

In this environment, the recall election is a singularity in which the normal rules don't apply. The interest groups' power and influence are diluted because of the wide open field and the short campaign season and because the apathy cycle has been interrupted. Look at the public interest it's generated! Sure, it's a circus, but it's also an indication that the people are extraordinarily dissatisfied with the status quo. Wise politicians of both parties should be shaking in their boots, because if all of a sudden there's a voter turnout of 80 percent instead of 30 or 40 percent, the political equation changes drastically. Especially if the enthusiasm of the average voter carries over to the next general election.

Posted by: ExRat at September 2, 2003 10:34 AM (Permalink)
Post a comment









Remember personal info?