Jonah Goldberg has as low an opinion of Gray Davis as I do, and as practically every other Californian does, but he has the right idea on this recall business:
it's my sincere belief that American democracy and republicanism will be severely damaged if Californians are allowed to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.Goldberg thinks Californians should be "punished" for this foolishness though I don't quite see how. If a foolish electoral result is its own punishment, I guess that would go for a foolish recall as well. Of course, the problem with that is the buck would never stop anywhere, though that's sort of the basic idea of the whole recall concept anyway. A number of sore losers in the California GOP simply can't admit that they nominated the wrong guy, and address the situation by resolving to nominate a real, electable candidate next time. Even if, as they claim, they're not sore losers but rather concerned citizens trying to right a grievous wrong for pure and noble reasons, they sure look like sore losers. They do. Even to a lot of people who want Gray Davis out badly enough to sign the petition anyway, and who will shed no tears when his worthless political carcass is paraded through the streets. This impression is especially acute given that the defeat was so obviously a self-inflicted, own-goals type of thing. They're not doing themselves any favors here: it's a political error fully in keeping with the folly of nominating Bill Simon in the first place. But why learn from your mistakes when you have access to the funds to purchase a do-over?When former New York City Mayor Ed Koch was asked to run again during his successor's disastrous term in office, Koch replied, "No! The people threw me out, and now the people must be punished." Whether Koch knew it or not, he grasped one of the most fundamental principles of democracy and republicanism: Everyone should pay the price of mistakes made at the ballot box.
Californians stupidly elected Davis in 2002, but now they refuse to suffer the consequences...
How much courage do you expect to get from our politicians when the polls in effect have binding consequences? What happens when low poll numbers serve as chum in the water for every opportunistic politician and activist group who wants to take down an elected politician who makes unpopular but necessary decisions? The answer is simple: he won't make unpopular decisions in the first place. He will lick his finger, hold it up to the wind and spend his term being led by the often fickle, inattentive and selfish voters rather than trying to lead them.
Punishing voters for their poor decisions is vital because that's the only thing that imbues voting with any significance... If voters think they'll get a "do-over" if it turns out they made a mistake, voting really won't matter that much.
Any teacher will tell you that students don't show their best effort if they know the test or the term paper won't be graded. Any teacher will tell you that students -of any age -won't hand in their reports if there isn't a serious deadline and serious consequences for those who miss the deadline.
The same thing holds true for elections. The date itself is insignificant, but it's vital that a firm date is set. And, if you vote wrong or miss the vote entirely, you can't have a do-over or the whole thing becomes meaningless.
The recall is not only a terrible idea in theory. It's also a joke in practice, and neither "side" comes off well. The streets are lined with pro-recall and anti-recall signature mongers, nestled amongst all the other petition people. And let's just say these spokesmodels don't often reflect well on whatever side of "the cause" they happen to be pushing. It's more fun talking to the "gimme a twenty white boy" guy at the ATM. People sign just to get rid of them, and because talking to them is preferable to talking to the Green Peace people as they don't ask you for money. (I'm not sure, but I have the distinct impression that some of these petition pushers offer both options-- at least I'm pretty sure I was asked to sign a pro-recall petition by the same guy who had asked me to sign an anti-recall petition a couple of days earlier. I could be wrong about that, though.) Once I overheard a petition dude tell his captive audience that the petition was to keep "right wing Republican fundamental Christian" (!) Arnold Schwarzenegger out of the White House (!) It is likely that whoever wins the recall will do so having received a tiny fraction of the number of votes that even the loser was able to get the first time around, which I guess is kind of the point as well. Democracy in action, eh? I'll say one thing: we are indeed our own punishment, joke and punchline rolled into one.
(via Daily Rant.)
UPDATE: Of course, as Matt Welch points out, it would be a tragedy to allow this sorry state of affairs to pass us by without attempting at least a little mischief, even if only the barest slap, in return. If protest voting is your thing (and in this recall there really isn't any other kind) you could do a lot worse than voting for Hank. He may be a single-issue candidate, but it's an issue about which many care passionately. And really, to continue the theme of quoting early '80s So. Cal. hardcore bands, how could Hell get any worse?
Posted by Dr. Frank at July 7, 2003 09:24 PM | TrackBackAh, but let's not shy away from the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for misconduct this provides us:
http://www.laexaminer.com/newarchives/002522.html
Heh heh, Matt, you're right. Misconduct rules. When we do it. It's bad when they do it. ;-)
Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 8, 2003 03:25 PMBut it is not misconduct. The Californians, stupidly or wisely, have a provision for recall in their laws. If it is there, it can be used. If it can be used, what better time to try it out than on a governor has presided over a series of disasters? The problem for democracy, if any, lies in having this provision available in the first place. If using it causes all Hell to break loose, then repeal it. The states are supposed to be laboratories of democracy. We are about to see a pretty good experiment, like in a Roadrunner cartoon where Wile E. Coyote pours some stuff into a test-tube and it blows up in his face. But, hey, its their state. They're responsible for it. And, we could be wrong and the recall thing could work out fine. I hope we get to find out, if only to see Gray Davis pack his bags and go away.
Posted by: Lex at July 8, 2003 05:30 PMI'm no fan of Gray Davis, but you have to say that this recall business is as un-democratic as it gets.
The voters chose Davis for better or for worse, to be the governor for the next four years. While I despise Davis and disapprove of his plan to solve the "budget crisis" I think the mandate of the people issued in November of 2002 should be upheld. What seriously pisses me off is that only 897,158 signatures on the recall petition is all that is needed to waste taxpayer money to hold a recall election.
7,424,799 people voted in the last gubernatorial election. Of those, 3,039,021 voted for Davis' main opponent. It should be EXTREMELY easy for ANY recall effort to gain 897,158 signatures when there are over 7 million registered voters in California's elections.
897,158 is only 3% of California's population and only 12% of those that showed up and voted in the last election.
Furthermore, I shared the "Hank for Guv" stuff with my co-workers here at the Bee, and they ate it up!
Posted by: Bryan at July 9, 2003 12:01 AMLex, I agree that it's the recall provision itself, at least as it currently stands, that is the problem. No need to wait to find out, though-- I think it's officially already messed things up pretty good. Issa and co. have acted irresponsibly in my opinion, whether you want to call it "misconduct" or not.
Clearly, and sadly, such people can't be trusted with the key to the cabinet containing the detonator for the electoral demolition device; eventually, of course, the solution will be to hang the key on a higher peg, which is what will probably happen. The capper, of course, is that it's highly probable that the recall election will take place and that Gray Davis will "win" and stay in. Worst-case scenario. All damage: no silver lining.
Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 9, 2003 02:10 AMIt's good to see that most of the people opposing the recall are consistent in that they follow their argument to its only logical conclusion: the recall provision in that state's constitution ought to go away.
I do not care much whether Davis is recalled (I don't like him but I see no reason why he "deserves" to be recalled) but I have to agree with Lex. If it's there, it can be used, what's the problem? We'll see. If it works out bad, maybe the recall provision should be repealed, but what bothers me is that people are using this as an argument for voting to not recall Gray Davis, which it is not. Again: if it's there, it can be used, it's an option. "Don't exercise an option which is freely available to you because you never should have had that option in the first place!" is not an argument likely to appeal to many voters.
What's really perplexing is how this can be viewed as "undemocratic", for a bunch of people to go and freely vote on something. Un-republican, perhaps, but not "undemocratic". For example, Bryan is completely incorrect when he says: "The voters chose Davis for better or for worse, to be the governor for the next four years." That is false.
The voters chose Davis to be governor for the next four years, **and for him to govern according to whatever rules are set out in the state constitution**. (The latter provision wasn't necessarily on the ballot next to Davis's name, but it is implied, or should be.)
Well guess what? The state constitution provides for that little thing known as a "recall". Oppose that state having that in its constitution if you will (though I don't see it as quite the distastrous time-bomb that others seem to), but the idea that it is some kind of wicked perversion being foisted on California is ludicrous. It's been written there in that state's constitution for everyone to read for many, many years!
Posted by: Name: at July 9, 2003 07:27 PM"The voters chose Davis to be governor for the next four years, **and for him to govern according to whatever rules are set out in the state constitution**."
Did Davis break any rules? Yes, he cares more about fund-raising than anything else, but is that against any rules in the state constitution? If it is, why isn't he just impeached?
The way I perceive this recall is of sour grapes and those with ambitions stirring up a lynch-mob mentality. Davis is in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think that Darrell Issa, Bill Simon nor Ah-nold would have done any better with what he has to work with.
I guess what I meant by "undemocratic" is the way that the recall provision is set up now.
The required signatures on the petitions should be much higher to reflect some sort of majority of eligible voters, rather than a small fraction of them.
Posted by: Bryan at July 9, 2003 08:48 PM"Did Davis break any rules? Yes, he cares more about fund-raising than anything else, but is that against any rules in the state constitution? If it is, why isn't he just impeached?"
No, he didn't "break any rules" that I'm aware of. (He may have, but I'm not aware of it, and I don't think the pro-recallers are making that argument, not successfully anyway.) But I don't think there's any such requirement in the first place, in the state constitution, for a governor to be recalled. As far as I know the repeal provision doesn't spell out exactly what makes it "ok" for the voters to want to recall someone.
But keep in mind that I am not arguing that He Should Be Recalled. I don't care one way or the other; actually, I almost end up (perversely) feeling sorry for the guy because I think he's being unfairly blamed for much that is not his fault. But, I am arguing that there is nothing "undemocratic" or otherwise illegitimate about recalling him. Nor does it (as you said) violate the will expressed by the voters in 2002, because what they expressed was NOT "please let Gray Davis be our governor no matter what for 4 years" but rather - implicitly - "please let Gray Davis be our governor **under the state constitution**". And again, that constitution for better or worse contains a recall provision.
"The way I perceive this recall is of sour grapes and those with ambitions stirring up a lynch-mob mentality."
Yeah, me too, pretty much. :-)
"I don't think that Darrell Issa, Bill Simon nor Ah-nold would have done any better with what he has to work with."
Me neither.
"I guess what I meant by "undemocratic" is the way that the recall provision is set up now.
The required signatures on the petitions should be much higher to reflect some sort of majority of eligible voters, rather than a small fraction of them."
You probably have a good point there. Best,
Posted by: Name: at July 9, 2003 09:25 PMName, you're quite right that the inadvisability of having a recall provision that is so easily exercised is no kind of argument for voting not to recall Davis. However, I think the decision to exercise the option, in these circumstances, is foolish and reflects poorly on those who are doing it. Many legal moves are foolish. And I still agree with Jonah Goldberg that blurring the finality of regularly scheduled elections is a bad thing, for the reasons he adduces.
I can imagine circumstances where a recall or impeachment of a governor might be warranted. But the normal election cycle ought to stand as the voters' opportunity to render a verdict on a governor who is merely an incompetent bum. In our agonistic system, each opposing party is responsible for playing its cards as best it can, trying to make its case, and living with the result, for good or ill. I think there is a great deal of sense in this arrangement. If all you need to subvert the process, to contrive a chance to replay your poorly-played hand, is an unpopular winner and a couple of bucks per signature, I think that is indeed bad for democracy as well as for the republic.
Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 9, 2003 11:40 PMGood points, Frank and Name.
Thanks for listening to my concerns.
Posted by: Bryan at July 10, 2003 05:45 PM(I apologize for the multiple posts, but I can't edit my original)
I'm interested in what you guys think about this guy's letter(appeared in Modesto Bee on July 10):
"Remember, you read it in The Bee first. There will be no recall of the governor. Shortly after the required signatures are validated and certified, the governor will resign. The lieutenant governor moves up a notch, the Democrats keep the office and the Republicans get what they had when they started the recall -- nothing.
The new governor cuts some deals with both parties, looks good when the election comes around and the Republicans will face the difficult task of defeating a very popular Hispanic governor.
JIM CATALINE
Stockton"
This thread is played out I guess but I just noticed your (as usual, infuriatingly sensible and reasonable) response Dr. Frank. What the hell kind of punk-rocker is so damn reasonable anyway?? What gives you the right? Pick one!
I suppose that voting to recall Davis may reflect poorly on the voter (according to your/Goldberg's concerns, which again, are nothing more and nothing less than arguments against having a recall at all). But it depends on one's reasons for doing so. Viewed rationally the vote in question is "should the current governor Gray Davis be replaced by one of these guys, yes or no? (list of Guys follows)" The argument that voting "yes" reflects poorly on the voter is (i assume?) predicated on the notion that wanting to replace Gray Davis with One Of Those Guys (under these circumstances, whatever that means) is irresponsible. But IMHO it may or may not be, depending on who those Guys are and which of them would be the likely winner.
Say that, oh, Dianne Feinstein (not that I'm a huge Feinstein fan, but..) puts her name in the running. Polls on the day before election day show her winning, in the event of a recall, handily, within three margins of error. If you're a voter on that day, and you believe those polls, and the statistics buried in them, your choice is now between "keep Davis" and "a 99+ percent chance of replacing Davis with Feinstein".
It's not clear to me why that would be irresponsible or why voting yes would reflect poorly on the voter.
Posted by: Name: at July 12, 2003 01:54 AM
Name, when I said "irresponsible" I was referring to the architects of this recall effort (Issa and the CA GOP.) As for the individual voter, I really don't know what the right course of action is. Speaking for myself, I'm sure I couldn't bring myself to vote for Davis whatever the circumstances, but I don't see any other good options either. Basically, I think there are *no* desirable outcomes to this. (The one I would have preferred-- no recall, Davis continues to moulder in office and complete the process of alienating every man woman and child in the state, the CA GOP grows up and nominates a sensible candidate who easily wins next time around, and Davis recedes into political oblivion-- is no longer a possibilty.)
Davis has built his career on propagating the idea that no matter how bad he might be, the alternatives are all scarier. It's weird how successful he has been with this tack, given a hatred for him that is pretty much unparalleled (in my experience of observing such things, anyway.) The GOP helped out mightily in his hour of need by nominating an unknown political novice and crooked weirdo who had loser written all over him. Practically anyone could have beaten Davis. They picked the one guy who couldn't, over good guys and viable candidates Dick Riordan and Bill Jones.
That's probably what will happen here: Issa and co. have somehow managed to make themselves look even worse than than the rotten status quo. Davis will probably squeak by, as he always does. The CA GOP will, as always, be emboldened by failure (because it can be spun as slightly less of a failure than the previous one) and willl continue to collaborate with the Democrats in torpedoing any moderate Republican candidate before he gets to the gate. So it goes.
Bryan, that scenario seems smart, but I just can't see Davis resigning. I think he believes he'll make it, and he's probably right. He hardly has anything to lose anyway. His poll numbers couldn't get any lower and resigning would be the end of him-- I don't see him as the kind of guy who would fall on his sword for the "good of the party" or as a purely humanitarian gesture.
Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 12, 2003 04:17 PMThe recall is a fiasco--primarily motivated by Rep and Dem interests. It would be a wonderful day if the voters of CA stepped out in force as the trendsetters they are reputed to be. What a coup to have the recall race concluded with the election of an Independent candidate. I'm considering voting for Arianna Huffington for just this reason. She'll be bogged down by training for the first 6 months, but imagine if she had the opportunity to change one significant injustice during her abbreviated term!
Sign me a PartyPooped Republican
P.S. Voters should be punished for voting? I can't help but think that some of you sit back and comment rather than get up to the polls to make a difference. I was against the recall, but a recall provision allows a correction of an error--if Hitler was in office would you say, you're stuck with him "for better or worse?"
Posted by: PartyPooped at August 8, 2003 06:26 PM