CA Voters Should “Recall” Why Prop 22 Was Abandoned

In 2003, California held a statewide circus known as the Gubernatorial Recall election. That election actually considered two questions … Yes or No, should their sitting Governor, Gray Davis, be recalled? … And, if Yes, who of the 154 candidates should replace him? The slate of candidates included Actors, a Lieutenant Governor, a State Senator, Business People, a Porn Star, a Comedian, etc., etc.

In the lead-up to this election, it seemed likely that Davis would be recalled. This gave the Republicans the opportunity to capture the Governorship of the nation’s most populous State from the Democrats. In my opinion, it was unnecessary emphasis on this that led the California Republican Party to make a tragic error. Dana Rohrabacher, the U.S. Congressman for the California District I lived in at the time, took the lead in the party’s effort to support Actor/Businessman Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was obvious that this endeavor was founded on Schwarzenegger’s popularity, making him most likely to garner the plurality of votes needed to be Davis’ replacement. It was just as obvious that, for the group led by Rohrabacher, the subject of “Who is the best Gubernatorial Candidate for the future of the State?” took a back seat to the issue of popularity. To many, the answer to the question of “Who is the best Gubernatorial Candidate for the future of the State?” was State Senator Tom McClintock. He seemed to be very clear on every issue, as it pertained to what was needed from a California Governor for the present and the future. However, he wasn’t widely known in the State and he is far from being a flashy politician. Of course, it’s impossible to say that, if Rohrabacher’s efforts had been invested in McClintock, he would have won and the Republicans would still have secured the California Governorship. As you know, Schwarzenegger became “The Governator”. However, since McClintock received more votes than any Republican besides Schwarzenegger, it seems quite feasible that, with the Rohrabacher group’s support, McClintock could have won the Governorship.

So, since that circus took place nearly five years ago, what’s its importance now? Especially, at a time when the political “hot topic” is the May 15, 2008 Headline - California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban - i.e. The overturn of California’s Year 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 which, by a vote of 61.4% in favor, prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Of course, there’s ongoing heated debate on this issue. I’m not writing to add to that fire. I will say that there are people who are dear to me on both sides of this matter and my prayer is that we all can keep our related discussions, no matter how inflamed, from singeing those treasured relationships. I’m not even writing to address the matter of seven unelected officials forsaking the will of 61.4% of the California Electorate … though that seems pretty obviously wrong to me. I’m writing to address the matter of choosing style over substance – i.e. in 2003; the California Electorate let themselves be led to choosing popularity over ability. The current political “hot topic” just helps to illuminate that folly and its result … You may end up with just what you asked for, a likable “leader” who isn’t able (or willing) to respond in a way that reflects the will of those he represents. Specifically, in a statement responding to this California Supreme Court ruling, Governor Schwarzenegger simply said that he respected the ruling and did not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it. By contrast, State Senator (and now, U.S. Congress Candidate) Tom McClintock said, "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a travesty of judicial activism and is based not on California law - which is crystal-clear - but on the social views of the individual justices. Fortunately, the initiative process allows voters the opportunity to overturn this ruling by adopting the Marriage Protection initiative this November," McClintock said. "I intend to do everything in my power to campaign for this initiative."

Certainly, the outcome of the 2003 California Recall Circus isn’t unique, in terms of a population choosing style over substance, leading to travesty. As with most things, the best example is in the Bible, when Israel demanded a King. They first chose Saul, described in 1 Samuel 9:2 as “… a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.” … He was a good-looking tall guy who was a disaster, as King. On the other hand, David, Israel's first great King, who God instructed Samuel to anoint to replace Saul, was initially not included with the sons of Jesse who Samuel was considering. He wasn’t even present … as the youngest and the least, he was the one assigned to be out in the field, shepherding the flock.

So, what can we learn from this? Obviously, though we were given the “choosing style over substance” lesson in Saul and David, thousands of years ago, in Israel, it seems we still haven’t fully learned that lesson. Hopefully, the voters of California are learning from the results of their having elected (and reelected) “The Governator”. But, I no longer live in California so I’ll leave that to present-day Californians. My hope is that we will apply this lesson to what lies before us, as a nation. In the current Presidential campaign, as in most political campaigns, there is much to consider, in terms of what is style and what is substance. I’m not going to tell you, here, which of the Presidential Candidates I see as having more substance. With this, I just want to encourage you to seriously consider the matter of “a population choosing style over substance, leading to travesty.”

It ain't over 'til ... it's Beginning?!

Iowa Caucuses?! Wyoming Caucuses?! New Hampshire Primary?! Now there are some events Figgie and I have had trouble getting our minds around! I don't think we could really understand it without doing something like moving to Iowa and participating in the caucuses directly. Since I moved away from the Midwest 30 years ago and have no desire to return, that's not likely to happen.

Although we don't fully understand these events, we sense something a bit quaint about them and perhaps, somewhat fitting, in approach, for those localities. Otherwise, they seem rather archaic and good examples for our nation's need to revamp our approach to Presidential Elections, if we truly want to have a representative government.

Before getting into the things we'd like to see changed, we should point out that there are some good qualities of the current process that we would like to see retained ... no need to "throw out the baby with the bathwater". One of these qualities is that a Presidential candidate who isn't more wealthy than Solomon or who doesn't already have a national reputation can get a place on the Iowa caucus stage and establish themselves as a credible contender. It reminds us that what Jimmy Stewart portrayed in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is still attainable ... an average, down-to-earth person, doing their level-best to represent their average, down-to-earth fellow citizens.

With that said, though there are some good qualities of the current process that we would like to see retained, there are many aspects that we believe greatly miss the mark, if a representative government is the goal. At the beginning, are the Iowa Caucuses and their impact on the Presidential Election process in other States. The State we live in considered canceling this year's Presidential primary, usually held in May, to avoid the great expense of an event that would be meaningless by the time it was held. So, its been moved up to February 19th and if the political pundits have their way, it may still be a meaningless event. That doesn't seem right for a representative government. Why should fewer than 100,000 Iowa Republicans and fewer than 200,000 Iowa Democrats have such sway over the 300 million of us living in the U.S.?

So, we see the Iowa Caucuses as a flawed beginning to the current process. Certainly, there are many other flaws in the process, sorely needing change. But none is greater than the flawed process at the end ... the Electoral College. To us, there's nothing even quaint about this. Its just archaic. Maybe it made sense for the first generation of U.S. Americans but it just doesn't fit today. We were keenly aware of this during the last Presidential Election, when we lived in Orange County, CA. Many, outside of the immediate area, are surprised to learn that Orange County is the "reddest" county in the nation. At least it was in the last Presidential Election ... that's right, more people, per-capita, in Orange County, voted for President Bush than in any other county in the nation. And yet, not one Elector, representing the State of California in the Electoral College cast a vote for President Bush. If you're saying "So what?!" so far, consider that the population of Orange County is over 3 million. That's a greater population than in 20 States, DC and four U.S possessions. Even if your car is still sporting a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker and you're pleased to know that the "reddest" county in the nation went unrepresented in the last Presidential Election, you have to admit, that doesn't seem right for a representative government.

So, what do we recommend, as the "flawless alternative?" Frankly, we don't have a complete plan to suggest and if we did, it wouldn't be "flawless" ... none will be. But, we think what we've pointed out here are clear examples of the acute need for change. We see this as an ideal opportunity for the sort of thing we pointed out in our posting entitled Rediscovering America's Strength - i.e. moving from the politics that just pit one candidate against another, based on their differences, to the politics of courageous leaders with the common sense to embrace the synergy of the best of our differing ideas. Unlike the first generation of U.S. Americans, we have the infrastructure in place to support a vastly improved Presidential Election process. The lacking key ingredient is having the political leaders with the courage to step up and promote a different and better process instead of finding ways to utilize the flaws in the current process, as leverage for their special interests.