Oh, California Oct 24th 2002 >From The Economist print edition
The Golden State has become a one-party haven. It's not a pretty sight ACROSS America, political power rests on a knife-edge. A slight slip could switch control of the Senate, or of the House, or of numerous governors' mansions. The result of this gridlock, Americans are so often told, is politics of the basest sort. Caution and defensive negativity are the order of the day. Big issues go unaddressed while political troops snipe at each other in gruelling trench warfare. Political life in a "50-50 nation" regresses to a tenacious battle of primitive loyalties. Could politics be any worse? Well, for one in eight Americans, it is. California, the richest, most populous, most dynamic state in the country, definitely does not have 50-50 politics. Its public life lacks even the semblance of balance-and it stinks. California's Democratic governor, Gray Davis, is cruising towards re-election with a ten-point lead, according to the latest poll. Both senators (neither of whom is up for re-election this time) are Democrats, as is the bulk of the congressional delegation. Thanks to gerrymandering by the Democrats, the entire state can muster only one competitive congressional seat-the one currently occupied by Gary Condit, a disgraced Democrat who is retiring. State government is equally one-sided: the Democrats have comfortable majorities in both houses. Just one statewide office is held by a Republican. And the result of this marvellous consensus and unanimity? It is hard to think of any piece of legislation that Mr Davis will be remembered for, other than a muddled attempt to solve the electricity crisis. There has been little reform at the state's dreadful schools and none at its hospitals; transport is worse than ever and voters are seething at the possibility that their water, like their power, may one day dry up. Enthusiasm for politics is even lower than it is in the rest of the country. The only flurries of interest come when laws are forced on the politicians through ballot initiatives raised by frustrated interest groups. The absence of political tension has also limited outside interest in the state. To be fair, George Bush's campaign did lob $13m worth of advertising into California in a last-minute salvo in 2000; but Al Gore still carried the state by 12 points, and Mr Bush's administration has paid little heed to California's wishes since then. He did not support Bill Simon, Mr Davis's opponent in the Republican primary-and has kept his distance since. The domination of California by Democrats is not a reward for their own talent. It is the result of the collapse of the state's Republicans. Mr Davis is as unpopular as a governor has ever been. His poll numbers have stuck around their current 41% for months, and as many as one in five Californians have still not decided whom to vote for. This gives the Simon campaign a fragment of hope (one apparently rogue poll showed him only three points behind). But even if the race narrows, it ignores the point: with an energy crisis, a horrendous budget deficit and a reputation for mixing money-raising with law-making, Mr Davis should surely be the one desperately trying to catch up. His relative comfort stems from a pre-emptive defence by his Machiavellian campaign manager, Gary South. The Democrats spent $10m during the Republican primary attacking Mr Bush's choice, Richard Riordan, a former mayor of Los Angeles, for supporting abortion; the Republican die-hards duly voted for Mr Simon, a political novice who is against abortion. But even this scam, on reflection, seems more a testament to the California Republicans' boneheadedness than Democratic cunning. When Jeb Bush intervened on behalf of Janet Reno in the Florida primary, trying to oust the more electable Bill McBride, those legendarily intelligent Democrats (remember the old ladies who voted for Pat Buchanan by mistake in 2000?) saw the ruse a mile off and picked Mr McBride. At any rate, Mr Simon cannot have disappointed Mr South. A first attempt to get his campaign airborne crashed when a jury found his family firm guilty of fraud. That judgment has been reversed, but now Mr Simon has made a slight fool of himself in a debate with Mr Davis, brandishing what he claimed were photographs of the governor illegally soliciting campaign contributions in his office. It turned out that the photographs had been taken in a private house. The problems go much deeper than Mr Simon, a worthy sort who simply seems to have been promoted beyond his political abilities. The recent state Republican convention in Anaheim showed how little the California party has learned about Mr Bush's compassionate conservatism. Barely bothering to go through the motions of appealing to minorities, the roster featured a series of middle-aged white men. Meanwhile, at the back of the hall, a talented young black assembly candidate from south Los Angeles complained that he had got no help from the party. In Texas, he would have been on the podium. Bring on the Terminator in 2006 And the consequences of more one-party rule? Mr Davis's "pay-to-play" system will continue to operate, with the governor raising money by promoting himself to businesspeople as a necessary bulwark against the regulating radicals in his own party. Mr Davis, who should never be underestimated, may use the cash to have a crack at the presidency. The big hope for the state focuses on the 2006 race, when Mr Davis is term-limited and when a new campaign-finance law he has just signed kicks in, making it much harder to raise money from outsiders. Two Democrats, the state attorney-general and the treasurer, both hope to carry forward funds from easy re-elections this year. Meanwhile, Arnold Schwarzenegger is edging back into contention for the Republicans-his attributes being not just his muscles but also his money. In the future, thanks to the new fund-raising law, Californian politics may become the exclusive domain of the very rich-which may be a better thing than being the exclusive domain of one party. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:jacob@;excaliburfilms.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:18 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Election Day! hmm... Can I vote in a different state? :) At 10:14 AM 11/5/2002 -0500, you wrote: >who's the least obnoxious. A business man with no experience in running the >state government and whose company has been indicted for fraud, or a >professional politicians who'll do quite a lot for campaign contributions. > >larry ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
