Category Archives: Readings

Students: Your Enemy is Sacramento

25 Wednesday Nov 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Now what do you do?

After decades of gradual fee increases, the latest ‘deal’ struck by the UC regents to raise fees an unprecedented 32% has finally crossed the line. A world class education–essential for the success of yourself, your state, and your nation–is slipping away from California’s social contract.

Since realizing the inevitable last fall, you’ve walked-out, sat-in, and spoken-up. The outrage–real outrage–on UC, CSU, and Community College campuses is palpable. In fact, your reaction has received global media coverage. Of your massive protests last September, the UK Guardian first wrote of the “shock” it sent throughout the capitol, and then it described the students and faculty as “meaning business.”

So the die has been cast. The state of California has crossed the rubicon. Sacramento wants your education back.

What do you do?

You’ve blamed the UC Regents and the CSU Board of Trustees–suspicious of how readily they accepted the cuts and questioning of their compensation, you want answers. You’ve blamed the governor–for heaping the fallout of California’s colossal dysfunction onto the shoulders of its children, and for seeming aloof from the plight of California’s students. You’ve blamed the state legislature–for doing its best to undermine your education, and for allowing nearly every other function of the state to grind to a halt on its watch.

But something about these enemies doesn’t stick.

The regents and the trustees are only reacting to what’s coming down on them from the State Capitol, and their compensation alone doesn’t come close to closing the hole.

The Governor too is hamstrung. Even in good economic times, he and the legislature only control about 20% of the budget. The rest is ‘locked-in’ by the spending priorities and restrictions by the political movements of yesterday.

The legislature is a tempting target…but wait. Fees have increased during periods of Republican control and Democratic control; when liberals were in charge of the legislature and when conservatives were in charge; in good economic times and bad. You have every reason to believe that you will continue to receive less education for more money no matter who wins what election where or when.

No, the fee hikes, the layoffs, and the furloughs (like the IOU’s, the prisons, and the water) are bigger than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and they are certainly bigger than either the regents or the board of trustees. For this reason, you and your fellow students have been visibly frustrated trying to find the right target for your wrath, the most effective avenue for your collective action.

Should you look to Sacramento? Today, at this very moment, the Capitol exists in a state of controlled-anarchy. Every lobbying firm and every interest group scavenges whatever it can from the public body; the feast has no strategy, no master plan, and no guiding principle. The beast has shown itself capable of devouring water systems, prison systems, roads, bridges, and the social safety net, and now its hungry for the greatest university system in the history of our species. The monster cannot be tamed or captured, and its gluttony is ravaging us all.

Then it hits. The problem is Sacramento. Your enemy is Sacramento.

What do you do? When who controls the legislature or the governor’s mansion has largely ceased to matter, and when the system and all its parts has become so fundamentally committed to destroying everything you love–from your parks to your health to your education–where do you turn? Do you tinker around the edges? No. You get a new system.

Last month, a coalition of advocacy groups called Repair California, finalized and submitted two ballot measures to do just that, by calling California’s first constitutional convention in 130 years. If the measures succeed at the ballot we would be enabled to scrap the old system and build a new one, one that learns from other states and reflects the California of tomorrow. No other reform proposal offers such an opportunity, not even close.

I don’t know about you, but I refuse to accept the status quo and what it’s doing to us. It’s time for us to seize our future. California needs you. This movement needs you. Visit http://www.RepairCalifornia.org.

Pondering the Power of a Constitutional Convention

24 Saturday Oct 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Picture 4Repair California has offered a limited Constitutional Convention as the best opportunity for the people of California to step forward and reclaim their state government.  While the movement has the support of 70 percent of voters, as well as thousands of volunteers and many public leaders, some naturally express skepticism.

Constitutional conventions have been common throughout U.S. history, but California has not had one in 130 years.  This extraordinary lapse of time without a serious citizen-review of government could understandably breed fear.  Indeed, such trepidation accompanied the lead up to many of the 232 successful state Constitutional Conventions.  For instance, in the 1963 black & white documentary of Michigan’s Constitutional Convention, held in that year, the narrator aptly summarized this unease:

“There had been fears the convention would be too conservative; fears that it would be too liberal; fears that it would be racked by politics…Pro-labor or pro-farmer or pro-business. Favoring the present, trapped in the past, lost in the future…”

Yet Americans are optimists with a propensity to overcome their fears and to emerge from trial and ordeal stronger than before – just as they did in 1963 Michigan, and just as they have done during each of the 232 state constitutional conventions in U.S. history.

Furthermore, a sober analysis of some of the most recent constitutional conventions demonstrates that these fears consistently fail to materialize.  When reviewing recent state constitutional conventions it becomes clear that when given the chance, the American people see this venue as something beyond regular politics, and they seem naturally inclined to check partisanship at the door for the sake of carrying out the people’s business.

Constitutional conventioneers have proven particularly willing and capable of making the type of important compromises and decisions that commonly elude regular legislatures.  The 1978 Hawaii Convention established term limits for state office holders, and required the legislature to produce an annual balanced budget.  Delegates to the 1970 Illinois Convention actually took power from the state capitol and delivered it to local governments, closer to the watchful eyes of the voters.  Michigan’s 1963 convention resolved the thorniest of issues:  reapportionment for legislative districts.

The ability of delegates to agree on common-sense reforms is often explained vis-a-vis the fundamentally different incentives driving convention delegates vs. regular politicians.  Among these are party politics, delegate demographics, and the unique nature of the constitutional convention venue itself.

First, constitutional convention delegates aren’t driven by re-election.  As such, delegates aren’t burdened by the incentive to appease a particular party’s activist base, raise money or secure endorsements.  For similar reasons, delegates have no electoral incentive to cower from important decisions.

Second, Constitutional Convention delegates are often “outsiders.”  The Repair California delegate selection model brings in an equal number of experts and everyday Californians as voting delegates, but prohibits individuals who serve in a state-level elected office, their staff, lobbyists, employees or businesses that rely on state government.  This mimics the approach of several states, including Montana.  According to the official history of Montana’s 1971 Constitutional Convention:

“The delegates brought none of the acrimony and bitterness to the Convention that sometimes develops between seasoned politicians with preconceived positions on major state issues.  Thus, the delegates were able to approach the principle issues before the Convention in an objective manner, and they also avoided a good deal of the pressures to which legislators are subjected.  The probable unforeseen result…was a constitutional body relatively free from influence and dedicated to basic changes in Montana’s constitutional framework.”

Finally, conjuring images of powdered wigs and founding fathers and mothers, Constitutional Conventions occupy a special place in the American psyche; a place Americans have historically proven unwilling to spoil with partisan bickering and electoral posturing.

After describing the fears which had preceded Michigan’s march towards its 1963 Convention, the documentary went on to explain how Michiganders eventually reconciled their fears.

“The convention…was not an assemblage of angels.  It was a convention of men and women.  Taking the best it could agree on for our time and for our people…This was the process.  Sometimes calm, sometimes not so calm.  Either way, it was the people’s way.  It was the way of a free democracy.”

A Brief History of the California Constitution

18 Tuesday Aug 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

California-Constitution-1920-1080

 

THE California State Constitution is one of the oldest state constitutions still in use today; it’s 130 year history defined by revision, amendment and reform. The constitution’s long life, coupled with numerous partial-reform efforts, has resulted in what is today the world’s third longest constitution. With 512 amendments, the Constitution of California is eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution and has been criticized as “a perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be”1 and derided for being “more about legal technicalities than principles; an embarrassment for an otherwise cutting-edge state”.2

Statehood
IN 1848 the United States acquired California from Mexico under the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. When a gold discovery at Sutter’s Mill the following year sparked the famous California Gold Rush, the U.S. Congress acted swiftly to grant California statehood. Lacking an effective territorial administration for its rapidly growing population, California’s leaders were pressed to draft a workable constitution. With the backing of Brigadier General Bennett Riley, California’s military governor, 48 delegates convened a Constitutional Convention in Monterey. After final ratification, the delegates submitted the constitution to Congress and on Sunday, September 9, 1850, California was admitted to the Union as the 31st State.

Heavily based on other state constitutions, the 1848 California Constitution proved inadequate to meet the long-term needs of the flourishing new state.3 Political leaders tried to amend the document via constitutional convention and the amendment process, however, during the 30 years which followed statehood, all three constitutional convention ballot proposals failed to win voter support and, of the many constitutional amendments proposed, only three became law. Finally, in 1877 the state legislature again submitted the question of convening a Constitutional Convention to the voters, this time it passed.

THE Constitutional Convention of 1878-79 produced California’s second constitution. Although technically surviving into the modern era, the document has done so weighted down with over 500 amendments and having been put through a 12 year revision process from 1966 to 1974. Although state constitutional conventions have been commonplace throughout U.S. history, the circumstances surrounding the 1878 California Convention resulted in features which would distinguish California’s constitution from other states. Convened amidst economic upheaval, the 1878 convention had an unusually strong focus on social and economic reform. As a result, whereas most constitutions limit themselves to detailing the broad legal principles on which future laws are to be made, the 1878 constitution instead addressed many subjects normally considered statutory in other states.4

In the decades after 1879, between its focus on statutory measures and legislative amendment, the California Constitution began to swell. California’s 1911 adoption of direct democracy through the ballot initiative and referendum gave citizens and interest groups the power to amend the constitution through individual initiatives. By 1930, the California constitution had grown to over 65,000 words (by comparison, the Constitution of the United States has about 4,500 words).5 The increasingly unwieldy nature of the document led to wholesale revision efforts, and on separate occasions in 1898, 1914, 1928, and 1929 the legislature put the question of a constitutional convention to the voters, where each time the measure was defeated. Finally, in 1935, voters approved convening a Constitutional Convention. However, in the midst of coping with the Great Depression, a convention was never convened.

Reform and Failure
FOLLOWING WWII, constitutional conventions surged in popularity as citizens sought to modernize obsolete and outdated state constitutions. Since 1945, Constitutional Conventions have been held in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Rhode Island.

Meanwhile in California, in 1947 the state legislature authorized a Joint Interim Committee to draft a new constitution. They were to be assisted by an Advisory Committee which counted among its members two ex-governors, constitutional experts, and representatives from a variety of major political organizations and interest groups.6 With such an illustrious and knowledgeable group, real constitutional reform seemed assured. However, interest groups were able to limit the work of the committee to simply eliminating obsolete language.7 As it became clear the committee had no teeth, public interest faded. Although most of the Joint Interim Committee’s final recommendations were approved by both the legislature and the voters, the recommendations amounted to little more than reducing the constitution’s length by about 14,000 unnecessary words. Even with the cuts, by the late 1950’s the California constitution had grown to over 80,000 words with 350 amendments, making it the second most longest in the country.

In 1959, a body of citizen representatives called the California Citizens Legislative Advisory Commission turned its attentions to constitutional reform. The commission recommended (and voters eventually
approved) measures to empower the legislature to propose substantial constitutional revisions in addition to individual amendments.  The legislature responded by appointing a new special body responsible solely for constitutional reform: the Constitution Revision Commission.

Over the course of almost a decade, the Constitution Revision Commission of 1964 to 1971 brought about some of the most substantial reforms of California’s constitution since the convention of 1878.  The commission’s members included lawyers, educators, businesspeople, labor leaders, civic leaders, and others, along with a dedicated staff.8 Proposition 1-A, a key amendment element of the commission’s work, authorized major refurbishments of California’s system of governance. Voters accepted many other amendments drafted by the commission as well, addressing various constitutional improvements and simplifications.  However, when it came to several particularly significant and controversial topics, such as budget reform and the amendment process, the commission found itself deadlocked between competing interest groups and was consequently unable to make significant recommendations. By the end of the process the Constitution Revision Commission, much like the Joint Interim Committee before it, had accomplished little more than reducing the length of the state’s constitution.

During the 1990’s Governor Pete Wilson appointed the second Constitutional Revision Commission.  Convened at a time of economic recession, the bipartisan group  had a specific mandate: examine the most controversial aspects of the constitution reform and suggest reforms.  Pointing out that the state possessed more than 7,000 units of government and over 32 million residents, yet was governed by a constitution written when the population was closer to 800,000, the commission argued that major substantive constitutional changes were needed.  In 1996 the commission released a list of constitutional recommendations aimed at improving accountability and responsiveness of government, eliminating barriers to efficiency and flexibility, and assuring that the state kept its fiscal house in order by maintaining a balanced budget.  However, by the time the commission issued its final report California’s economy had recovered, the pressure to immediately act faded, and the commission’s work was ultimately neglected.

“The People’s Way”
CALIFORNIA’S financial system had become so fragile and so complicated that  few expected it was capable of weathering a sudden crisis, such as deep and prolonged recession. The twin arrivals of the housing collapse and the banking crisis of 2008-2009, and the recession which has been left in its wake, has proved more than enough to bring California to the brink.
The scope of the failure has been spectacular. In April of 2008, even before the banking crisis was in full swing, the Governor announced a once-unimaginable budget deficit of $20.8 billion for fiscal year 2008-2009, which took Sacramento a record 80 days past the budget deadline to reconcile. However, after the budget’s eventual passage, Sacramento was immediately forced to grapple with the $24 billion projected 2009-2010 deficit, which immediately ballooned to $26 billion on midnight July 1st, on what has become the inevitable moment every year when the budget becomes past-due.

The collapse has reaped disastrous consequences on the state. At 11..6%, California’s unemployment rate is among the nation’s highest. Following California’s issuance of IOU’s to creditors to pay its bills, California’s bond rating was lowered to just above “junk” status. California’s public schools, once the nations best, long ago fell towards the bottom and are about to become even more crowded and even less well-equipped.

A May 2009 article appearing in The Economist magazine described California’s need for a new constitution as “both necessary and likely” and went on to mention the state’s thousands of overlapping government districts and marvel: it’s a “surprise anything works at all”.9 Today, calls for fundamental reform of the constitution have been revived amidst record deficits, record budget delays, and the state government’s record-low job approval rating. The system has proven incapable of reforming itself, and citizens have begun to explore ways to reform the system from the outside. When Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was asked by the LA Times to comment on the push to call a Constitutional Convention, he called the effort “the only hope that I have”.10

Political dysfunction at the state level is not a new phenomenon. On numerous occasions throughout US history citizens of particular states have decided, when faced with such problems, to take the government back into their own hands.  During the 1963 Michigan Constitutional Convention, Wayne State University produced what has since become a classic black and white documentary about American democracy. At the closing moments of “Michigan Can Lead the Way”, the narrator editorialized:
“There had been fears the convention would be too conservative; fears that it would be too liberal; fears that it would be racked by politics…Pro-labor or pro-farmer or pro-business…Favoring the present, trapped in the past, lost in the future. The convention had been all of these, it was not an assemblage of angels. It was a convention of men and women. Taking the best it could agree on for our time and for our people…This was the process. Sometimes calm, sometimes not so calm. Either way, it was the people’s way. It was the way of a free democracy.”

——————-

1 E. Dotson Wilson and Brian S. Ebbert. California’s Legislature (Sacramento: California   State Legislature, Office of the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, 1998), 16.
2 Lascher, Edward. “It’s too easy to amend California’s Constitution.” Editorial. Los Angeles Times 4 Feb. 2009. 15 July 2009 <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hodson4-2009feb04,0,983208.story>.
3 Lee, Eugene C. “The Revision of California’s Constitution”. California Policy Seminar Brief, Vol. 3, No. 3. (April) 1991): 1.
4 Lee, Eugene C. “The Revision of California’s Constitution,” California Policy Seminar Brief, Vol. 3, No. 3     (April 1991): p. 1.
5 Lee, Eugene C. p. 2.
6 Lee, Eugene C. p. 3.
7 Hyink, Bernard L. “California Revises its Constitution”. The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3 (September 1969): p. 640.
8 Lee, Eugene C. “The Revision of California’s Constitution,” California Policy Seminar Brief, Vol. 3, No. 3     (April 1991): p. 4.
9 “The Ungovernable State”. The Economist, May 14th 2009. http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649050
10 Goldmacher, Shane. “Schwarzenegger threatens to shut down state government.” Los Angeles Times, June 11, 2009. Accessed July 20, 2009. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/11/local/me-arnold-budget11

California’s Constitutional Convention Town Halls

18 Tuesday Aug 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

e2.JPGWHEN motley crew political organizations from all over the state and political spectrum bring traveling town hall meetings to San Francisco, the civic minded would be well-advised to attend. Repair California is one of these crews, and last Tuesday they brought their push for a limited Constitutional Convention to The City by the Bay.

Composed of such seemingly disparate groups as The Bay Area Council, a business led-public policy organization, the Full-Circle-Fund and the Courage Campaign, an education advocacy group and progressive grassroots organization respectively, Repair California makes for an odd bird. Nevertheless, despite the very real differences between the interests these groups represent, two powerful forces have conspired to forge their unity: the complete collapse of California’s government and the strategic conviction that the situation in California has become so perilous they are willing to bet their time, energy, and yes, money, on the proposition that a representative sample of average Californians can do better.

At the risk of digression the following must be said. Tuesday night’s California Constitutional Convention Town Hall filled the PG&E auditorium to capacity and yet was about as anarchic as a Norman Rockwell painting (Complete video of the event here and here). This impression would have gone completely unnoticed if not for the rather caustic health care town halls currently underway across the country. The speakers addressed the enormity of the task before them with an eloquence matched only by the dignity of the evening’s participants, young and old, liberal and conservative, as they lined up to ask what were almost without exception well-thought-out insightful questions. This sentiment was echoed by Peter Schrag, former editor of the Sacramento Bee and longtime chronicler of California’s woes, who wrote on the California Progress Report, “What was most striking about the Repair California group and the people who’ve come to their meetings is that they seem both so ordinary and yet so thoughtful.” One couldn’t escape feeling it. This is the way town halls are supposed to go.

First at the podium was the Full Circle Fund’s Jeff Camp and his terribly depressing presentation on California’s public education over the past three decades. The cliff notes history of California’s public schools goes something like this. Until the 1960’s schools were funded almost exclusively through property tax revenues. “This worked great…” deadpanned Camp, “for wealthy communities”. The US Supreme Court eventually found this system violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and school funding was modified to be more equitable. Years later, proposition 13 completely reversed this system by amending the state constitution so that all property tax dollars would go first to Sacramento (and put through the legislative sausage making process) and then distributed back to the locals from whose pockets the money originally came. It should come as no surprise that, over time, fewer and fewer dollars were coming back. The challenge for Convention delegates would be to ensure that more powers of the purse are devolved back to local governments without leaving schools in poor neighborhoods to completely fend for themselves.

Jim Wunderman, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council, immediately began by recognizing that the same type of dire presentation on California’s schools could be done for the state’s responsibilities across the board: water, prisons, transportation, etc. After speaking at nearly all of these events, Wunderman spends little time describing the scope of the failure, apparently confident that Californians don’t need a weatherman to tell them its raining. Wunderman instead focuses his message not on why California should be reformed, but why a Constitutional Convention would be the best way to do it.
There are three ways to reform California’s government: through the legislature, through the ballot initiative, and through a Constitutional Convention. The first method, the “insider” strategy, has been completely disregarded by nearly everyone; the capitol is far too polarized to agree on any sort of meaningful reform, and politicians have precious few incentives to come to compromises.

The second option, the ballot, is deeply flawed for at least one big reason. California’s government is so broken, its problems so numerous, it would take “Proposition A-Z” to fix. Such a campaign would be prohibitively expensive, and interest groups which benefit from the status-quo could easily pick them off one-by-one. That leaves the Convention…
As of this moment Californians do not have the right to call for a Constitutional Convention. Only the legislature, through a 2/3 vote, can propose one. When you think about it, it’s a rather glaring deficiency for a system that supposes the people are the government. Repair California has therefore developed a “offer-voters-power-and-challenge-them-to-seize-it” strategy to push for two ballot initiatives: one to amend the constitution to give people the power to call a convention, and another to actually call the thing.

Stephen Hill, director of the Political Reform Program at the New America Foundation, described the proposed idea of choosing delegates via a representative sample of Californians selected at random from a master list built from jury pools, the DMV, and voter registrations. “One thing I’d like to say about these citizen bodies is that they’re actually being used across the United States”. Hill referred specifically to the enormous New Orleans citizen-delegation which was convened to break through a political stalemate over the city’s post-Katrina rebuilding plans. The delegation was comprised of 4,000 people spread over 21 cities and linked by every facet of modern networking technology. “When you read about what occurred, it is truly impressive because they were able to find common ground”. Hill explained the surprising successes of this citizen-delegate model to the fact that delegates do not bring self-interest tainted by the partisanship and incumbency. “What you find is that when average people come together they check their partisanship at the door.”

Progressive activists, good-government watch-dogs, and business leaders…the breadth of Repair California’s coalition, already large, promises to become a colossus. And it better be, because the task is equally enormous. While California continues to loose its edge, you can bet that someone in Sacramento is winning big, and this entity is not going to go quietly into the night. As Schrag put it “The chore isn’t just to restructure the state’s dysfunctional system of government, but, as [Repair California] knows, to re-create citizenship in a state that now has much too little of it.” Such language tends to make Sacramento shudder. All the more reason to keep repeating it.

The only thing we have to fear is the status-quo

15 Wednesday Jul 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

AS Californians begin demanding fundamental reforms to their state government, business-as-usual hunkers for a fight.

califailnia

Benjamin Franklin was said to have quipped that doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result was the definition of insanity. Dr. Franklin, welcome to Sacramento. Where despite the shame, humiliation, and human suffering caused by California’s horrific budget catastrophe, proponents of doing the same thing have unleashed a campaign of fear against convening a Constitutional Convention, and in doing so have rushed to the defense of the status quo.

In a June 18 Op-Ed appearing in the Capitol Weekly, a union official representing the State Building & Construction Trades Council essentially called on Californians to fear their neighbors.

“Think about the person you know – a relative, friend, neighbor, colleague – whom you disagree with the most. That person may well be in a jury pool and could be selected. Is that the person you want spending the next several months…deciding how California should be run?”

This is not an argument against a Constitutional Convention, its an attack on the entire pantheon of American values, from trial by jury to universal suffrage.

And yet, this is only slightly more hysterical than the rationale given by a coalition of 6 taxpayer groups opposing a Constitutional Convention because of “fears that the process can and will be hijacked” by special interests, oblivious to the fact that special interests rule the entire roost right now.

While it is clear that those on the far-left and far-right fear a Constitutional Convention, and believe you should fear one too, their rationale is not so clear. For example, are they afraid that citizen guided reforms will make California’s schools the worst in the nation? They already are. Do they fear pan-generational neglect of our water infrastructure? That has already happened. Are they afraid that millions of poor children will suddenly go without healthcare? We’re already there. That our beloved state parks will close? That our prisons overflow? Done and done.

Just last week a colleague of mine gave a teary-eyed account of the real cost of the ruined California government. Driving with his two small children, they passed a elementary school weighted down with chains and shackles. The marquis read:

“Sorry, no summer school. Budget cuts. Have a great summer.”

As we approach the moment of truth, we expect the fear mongering will only increase. This is unfortunate because history teaches us that when you give citizens the responsibility to reform their government, the American people rarely disappoint.

When Illinois voters called for a Convention in 1968, delegates drafted a short document that established basic rights, established the “Home Rule” principle that gave cities and counties more control over their own resources, and created what is all-around considered to be a model constitution.

Likewise, Michigan held a Constitutional Convention in 1963 that brought it into the modern era. Hawaii alone has convened two Con Cons since 1960. All told, there have been 232 State Con Cons in US history. In each of these and other states, Constitutional Conventions are regularly debated on the merits of the moment and by the facts on the ground, not by fear, mistrust, and misinformation.

During the 1963 Michigan Con Con Wayne State teamed up with Michigan State University to produce what has since become a classic black and white documentary about American democracy. At the closing moments of “Michigan Can Lead the Way”, the narrator summarizes the experiment:

“Perfection is never an outcome of human enterprise. There had been fears the convention would be too conservative; fears that it would be too liberal; fears that it would be racked by politics…Pro-labor or pro-farmer or pro-business…Favoring the present, trapped in the past, lost in the future. The convention had been all of these, it was not an assemblage of angels. It was a convention of men and women. Taking the best it could agree on for our time and for our people…This was the process. Sometimes calm, sometimes not so calm. Either way, it was the people’s way. It was the way of a free democracy.”

For California, doing nothing and expecting different results is the worst option of all. And defending the status quo is not only scary, it’s insane.

Why ‘BEAT-L-A’ is a Great Chant

04 Thursday Jun 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BeatLAAFTER visiting an opponent’s home turf, franchise partisans often slather their experience with words that conjure daring and adventure, like “going behind enemy lines” or “surviving the lion’s den”. We are a nation of armchair warriors; bombast and overstatement come naturally to us and without much hesitation.
And so it was when I, a lifelong blue-blooded Dodgers fan new to San Francisco, home of the hated Giants, steeled myself for a season of treacherous crusades into the hornet’s nest (this type of language is especially necessary to combat the fatigue inspired by the yawn-inducing name of San Francisco’s AT&T Park or Pac Bell Park or Corporate America Park whatever it is this year).
And so it went: standing in line for my first Dodgers vs Giants game in San Francisco, I was cajoling with the enemy when he confided “We’re not really lions up here”.
No kidding.
The concession stands served wine, gourmet foods, and hot chocolate topped with whipped cream. Instead of hurling beer, the fans (about a third of whom were on my side anyways) informed me of their disapproval of my association with the enemy through their softly intoned “Boos.”
However, whenever the drama of the game intensified, especially in the later innings, this placid gathering of the Bay Area fandom erupted in blood curdling unity: “BEAT L-A! BEAT L-A!”
I have always assumed the BEAT L-A chant was pioneered by San Francisco Giants fans. I can remember being a child and hearing it suppurate from time to time, just below the melodious hum of Vin Scully’s play-by-play.
It now exists beyond baseball. For example, “the chant” apparently follows the Lakers everywhere. And perhaps, if LA Times sportswriter Chris Erskine’s recent article “Don’t Beat LA, Join us!” is any indication, “the chant” has made its final, most insidious insertion: into the heads of LA fans.
Erskine writes: “It’s as if we’ve become the Evil Empire, or the shiny Russian dude in ‘Rocky IV.’ In the near corner, Los Angeles. In the far corner, the world. Beat L.A.!!!!!!!…Why not New York? Why not Orlando?”
I think, however, Erskine is giving our fellow sports fans way too much intellectual credit.  Los Angelenos should rest assured: what’s driving the nation’s fans to drink themselves silly on BEAT LA! juice probably isn’t ideological, and it sure as hell isn’t moral outrage (when did LA replace San Francisco on that charge?). No, we LA fans just have to own up to it: BEAT LA has gone viral because it’s simply a great chant.
It’s three syllables (A must ever since stomp-stomp-clap of Queen’s We Will Rock You).
It’s clear and to the point (the slightly cringe-inducing “S-F SUCKS!” chanted by Dodgers fans always leaves the back of the mind asking the phrase to be completed. Suck what, exactly?)
And, most importantly, it’s childishly easy for inebriated sports fans to scream. The first syllable, ending in the consonant “T”, is a perfect set up for the second syllable, the two part “eh-L” sound. And to finish, the ending of the “eh-L” sound leaves the tongue in a perfect spot to launch into a hard “A” sound (think Oh-LAY!).
Just saying it makes you want to clap. “Beat L-A” blurts out with ease compared to the mealy mouthed “Beat-N-Y”. And really, do we even need to discuss the ghastly and quad-syllabic “Beat-Or-LAN-doh”?
Rest easy LA. You’re not my favorite city, (that distinction belongs to my adopted San Francisco) but you are home to my favorite team. So don’t take these attacks personally, it’s not your fault that Freddy Mercury conspired with the mechanisms of English to doom LA’s prestige in arenas everywhere. But ask yourself this: do you really need to look cool to Or-LAN-doh?

The Campaign Begins

03 Wednesday Jun 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

photo

“The current system neither has nor deserves advocates.”

-James Madison on the US Government under the Articles of Confederation

On Wednesday, May 19, concerned citizens from across the state formally unveiled a plan to repair California’s broken system of government by calling for a State Constitutional Convention. Since the announcement, our in-box and website have been flooded with support from across the political spectrum and the campaign has received valuable, high-profile media coverage.

The effort was on the front page of the New York Times, was given an official endorsement of the Los Angeles Times, and thanks to some intrepid bloggers, we found out that almost all of the candidates for Governor have endorsed the Constitutional Convention. (This follows a great story in The Economist, which was published in more than 200 countries)

Last week’s press conference brought together a politically diverse group of supporters to call for fundamental reform. A special thanks to Democratic State Senator Mark DeSaulnier and Republican Assemblyman Brian Nestande, who agreed to try to place two propositions on the ballot through the power of the legislature. While they have a near impossible task, we all appreciate their patriotism. If they are unable to succeed, we will use the initiative process to convene a Constitutional Convention.

If you have not already done so, be sure to visit our newly revamped website at www.RepairCalifornia.org . There, you can locate events near you, access multimedia, host a meeting, and view recent media coverage. In addition, you can also join our ever-growing facebook cause, Repair California: Call a State Constitutional Convention. There, you can contact and share ideas with other supporters, comment on popular threads, and suggest links. Be sure to invite your freinds to help this campaign go viral.

Again, this campaign would not be possible without the dedication and concern of regular Californians. Check often for updates, and stay-tuned for further notices on this historic campaign.

VIVA LA CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC!

24 Tuesday Mar 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Case for a California Constitutional Convention

1999_0324

It won’t be Philadelphia, 1788. But after the Golden State’s current fiscal oblivion, a constitutional convention could prove to be much more than simply the least-bad-solution.

“WHEREAS Mr. Dickinson foresees apocalypse” uttered an irascible and rotund Paul Giamatti, “I see hope”. Giamatti’s character then launched into one of the most powerful scenes of the award-winning HBO mini-series John Adams, convincing the congress at Philadelphia that Independence from Great Britain was not simply just, but fully within the realm of the possible. Abuse under the crown had matured Independence into something much more powerful than a right; it had become a duty.

Thankfully, California’s current predicament is not quite so perilous. (Understatement noted). However, like the patriots of Philadelphia, we too have reached a watershed moment in the Golden State, one we cannot afford to ignore. The government of the Great State of California is a failure. The only “moderate” position left is to pull-the-plug, pronounce it dead, and rewrite it from scratch.

BY ALMOST ANY RUBRIC, California is well-positioned to take advantage of the 21st century. We are the most energy efficient state in the union and the most diverse in both economics and ethnic makeup. We are a cultural icon, international destination, and oceanside paradise. We are home to world-class universities, cutting edge corporations, and the most “green” conscious people in the country; for leadership on global warming, the world looks to the US, and the US looks to California. However, far from a lubricant to prosperity, the organ of the state has become its chief barrier.

The exact culprits, however, are no mystery, nor are they even that complex; indeed, they can be counted with one hand. First, California’s budgetary procedure; Second, its political organization; Third, its relationship with local governments; and Fourth, its ballot initiative process. Four fundamental issues, simple as salt.

BUDGET REFROM

Perhaps no failure is as severe or as consequential as California’s bizarre and extraordinarily useless budget process. For a state that is as large as a medium-sized european nation (and unlike one in that it cannot print its own money), budget disorder can be catastrophic. Luckily again, the reason is not hidden: it takes a 2/3 vote of a deeply polarized legislature of novices (more on that later) to pass a budget.

The 2/3 budget rule is destructive. Historically, democracies have reserved supermajority votes only for matters of extraordinary importance and/or rarity, such as the amendment process for the US Constitution. The idea is to slow the people down before passions drive them to alter the fundamental workings of society. In contrast, could there be any other state function less extraordinary, less radical, and more routine than setting a budget? The budget process is treated like an amendment process, and the annual budget-battle significantly undermines the efforts of the state’s public and private institutions from making the sort of long-term strategic thinking needed to remain competitive in a globalized economy.

Critics will argue that the 2/3 hurdle is required to keep state-spending in check. This is wrong for two reasons. First, and most obvious, the 2/3 hurdle was patently useless in preventing our current crisis. Second, even the “reddest”, most fiscally conservative states in the union don’t have a 2/3 requirement. In fact, California is one of only three states to employ one. If it’s too strict for Texas, why in the world would we want it in California? The 2/3 rule is a useless means to restrain spending at-best, a threat to the state’s solvency at-worst.

Sensible budgetary reforms include replacing the 2/3 threshold with a 55% one, and by making the budget biennial instead of annual. The untold story of California’s mismanagement is that, because of the state’s size, budget battles consume most of the legislature’s time. Making two-year budgets would help free lawmakers to focus on other issues, like how to make the state more attractive to businesses and how to solve the state’s acute housing shortage.

POLITICAL REFORM

California’s political structure produces ideologically extreme politicians who bear little resemblance to the populace at-large. Voters partially addressed this problem by passing redistricting reform on the 2008 ballot. Redistricting, however, will likely fall short of its promises because it doesn’t address the core problem, which is that the districts are extreme because primary voters are extreme. Since so many (about 25%) Californians are neither Democrats or Republicans, the two major parties are controlled by fringe activists which keep their crop of candidates ideologically “pure”, which in-turn keeps these moderate, decline-to-state voters out. Politicians pander and answer to the most extreme of the extreme. Surprise, surprise: the legislature is consumed with gridlock and a quarter of voters are effectively disenfranchised.

Division is one thing, but pettiness and partisan obsession quite another. An open primary system could fix this. It works by including all candidates from all parties on a single primary ballot. Voters would then vote for their favorite candidate, and the top two vote-getters would face off in a general election. This would force nominees from ideologically distinct regions to compete for moderate voters in ways they currently do not have to. An open primary would also promote competitive elections, even in truly “safe” zones, by allowing two members of the same party to face-off in the general election. In places like San Francisco, where GOP candidates haven’t a chance, this would help keep incumbents attentive to their constituents and engage more people in the process.

Again, it must be stressed this is not an extreme solution, nor is it a partisan power-grab. Seventeen states, from Hawaii to Mississippi, have some form of open primary. Judging from our current debacle, we would be wise to consider alternatives.

Finally, it must be stated plainly: the term-limit experiment has been a disaster. We have a state the size of a nation, governed by perpetual novices. And yet, no term-limits have ever been imposed on lobbyists, nor could they. The people’s representatives are hamstrung by the state’s draconian term-limits, and the main beneficiaries are the interest groups headquartered across the street from the capitol, in whose laps legislation now falls and whose presence is eternal.

Term-limit reform strikes at an even deeper key. When punishing one’s democracy, there comes a moment of truth when the punisher must decide whether or not he/she is still indeed a democrat at all. Despite the occasional frustrations, Churchill’s observation that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, still rings true. Democracy is a messy process with irreducible levels of corruption which are to be expected. But after three decades of abuse, it’s time to reinvest our efforts in improving our democracy instead of lashing it.

STATE-LOCAL FISCAL REFORM

When it comes to alternative energy, the biggest hurdle is a logistical one: How do you transport energy from where it is created to where it is consumed? The farther energy travels, the less of it there is when it arrives to its final destination. A similar problem afflicts state-local relations in California.

Locally cultivated revenues, like property and sales taxes, are transmitted first to Sacramento where they are subjected to bureaucratic and political extraction, and then sent back to localities to fund programs. If this sounds fishy, then you understand it perfectly. To make matters more complicated, because the state budget is always late, government entities like schools and police and fire stations have developed the tortuous ritual of annual lay-offs when the money runs out, followed by annual re-hirings when the budget finally passes. Hardly a liberal or conservative issue, this fiscal masochism screams for common sense.

BALLOT INITIATIVE REFORM

California’s ballot initiative was instituted during the progressive reforms of the early 20th century as a means for the people to bypass a legislature dominated by railroad interests. That the birth of the ballot initiative is so closely tied to “big rail-road” is pleasantly instructive: today, the former is properly used to the same extent the latter still even exists.

Because entrenched interests have adapted since its passage, the ballot initiative has been corrupted and co-opted by the sort of interest groups it was meant to circumvent. Too-few signatures are required to prevent any well-funded group from appealing complex issues to ill-informed voters, while the state has grown so much since its passage in 1911 that it’s still far-too-many signatures to be of any use to the average citizen. In addition, because the ballot initiative is so broad, voters can, and do, engage in citizen-budget-voodoo whereby they demand services while simultaneously refusing to pay for them. As a result, state government is a contradicting patchwork of rules, regulations, and priorities, which require an equally complex system of smoke and mirrors to maintain.

The ballot initiative is a cornerstone of direct democracy and should be preserved. But it must be reformed. Increase the signature threshold and require every measure which calls for spending to specifically cite where the revenue will come from. Make them answer: what will we tax, or, what will we cut? Good Government 101.

THE CALL for a new constitution is one that transcends ideological lines. The right of the people to change or abolish their government has no partisan monopoly, and a constitutional convention can be held in a way to prevent it from digressing into a partisan quagmire. Since the legislature is unlikely to call for a convention themselves, it’s up to the people to rally: by amending the current constitution via ballot initiative to allow citizens to circumvent a broken legislature (as the initiative was intended) and to directly call a constitutional convention.

The push for a California Constitutional Convention is neither drill nor pipe-dream. In fact, the momentum is on our side. Not only does it enjoy support from Governor Schwarzeneggar, but also from the Bay Area Council, the League of Women Voters, and Common Cause. It has been endorsed by the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as by numerous other op-Ed pieces in the LA Times and the Fresno Bee. The consistent failures of the state government have begun to threaten California’s citizens, businesses, and global standing. Luckily, in America we are the government, and per tradition, we have more than a right to abolish or alter that government when it fails, we have a duty.

For more information click here or visit repaircalifornia.org

Whispers of Revisionism: The Lincoln Legacy

11 Wednesday Feb 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

abe_lincoln

TWENTY SEVEN hours from now will mark the 200th year since the birth of Abraham Lincoln. The nation’s weeklies and newspapers and television networks have prepared numerous specials and tributes to mark the occasion. In Newsweek, literary journalist and the biographer of both Thomases–Jefferson and Paine–Christopher Hitchens contributes “The Man Who Made Us Whole“, while in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln’s political hometown, a slew of authors, biographers, and historians are to gather to remember the Great Emancipator.

Observances of the Lincoln bicentennial will manifest across the land in a myriad of ways. Debate, however, will be quietly humming in the background.

Enough time has elapsed since the life and times of our 16th president that his legacy has noticeably fogged. Be reminded that 1930’s New York City used to play host to annual Lincoln-Lenin parades and that Lincoln was often compared to Christ in the generations immediately succeeding him. Contrast this to the more contemporary reactions to the sound of Lincoln’s name overheard at parties the past several months, “I heard he didn’t really care about slaves” “Wasn’t he, like, actually a racist?” or even a curt “Overrated”.

A woefully inept history curriculum has wed the rusting of time, and their progeny are predictably ill-at-ease with the facts of their forebears.

Most of the hesitancy regarding Lincoln-praise are at least on account of the right reservations. Nobody wants to be seen praising provincial bigots. But a provincial bigot Lincoln was certainly not. There exists a particular quote from Lincoln’s failed 1858 Senate bid, which produced the storied Lincoln-Douglas debates, which Lincoln detractors most often site to support their claims of his racism:

“[The negro] is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment…”

The first part of this sentence must be viewed simply as a bland statement-of-fact; black America was not to achieve legal equality until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and not to realize actual equality until noon, January 20th, 2009 (some would respectfully disagree). It is the second part of the quote from which controversy springs forth, that the man of African descent is “perhaps” not the moral and intellectual equal of the European. Perhaps–a key watchword, and to ignore Lincoln’s use of it is to let cynicism blind one to their better senses, for, judging by what comes immediately next in Lincoln’s speech, he was using this supposition to deliver the point to the white populace, many of whom subscribed to the racist creed: that racist sentiment was, indeed is, no justification for violating the principles of the Declaration:

“…But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.”

Of the more serious critiques of Lincoln, none is more legitimate than the dubious expansion of the power of the federal government which occurred under his administration; power which was ceded by the states and which Washington not only never returned, but continuously exploits to acquire more power. Lincoln’s presidency removed people’s patriotic identity with their state and olay-ed it onto the nation-at-large.  Hitchens points out the linguistic evidence for the shift: that it was not until after Gettysburg that people began to say “the United States is…” rather than “the United States are…”. On the success of Lincoln’s ability to transform the country from a loose confederation into one nation, indivisible, there could not exist an example more profound in its simplicity.

To States’ Rights fundamentalists, the Lincoln moment represents the United States’ fall from grace; from humble and virtuous republic to the centralized and immoral behemoth our founders warned against. With a callous indifference to the facts, Republican Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) insists that it was Lincoln who brought war on the south rather than the other way around:

“[Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”

Click here for a Civil War timeline

Congressman Paul’s opinion requires a very surgical interpretation of American history. Most importantly, it requires ignoring all the founders who were not Thomas Jefferson. To ascribe creating a small central government as the “original intent” of all of the founders is incorrect, and John Adams, the “Lion of Independence”, was opposed to such a confederation, as was Alexander Hamilton and even– “Father of the Nation” –George Washington himself. Furthermore, Jefferson indeed may have preferred a small federal government. However, far from being his “original intent”, that was his follow-up answer to the bigger question which predated independence: one nation, or many?

While they were divided over the scope and design of the new government, the founding patriots were unanimous in their desire to keep the new states united.  The lines of debate from the continental congress and the federalist papers are evidence enough that the founders were, first-and-foremost,  “intent” on preventing the colonies from crumbling into an American version of Europe, whereby various independent powers would consume the continent in endless war.

The thirteen original states had been established as colonies to an empire, thus had developed economic systems independent of, and often antagonistic to, the interests of the other states. Nothing characterizes this divide better than the southern profligacy of the slave system. For the sake of uniting such disparate interests under a single flag, the founders were forced to establish a stronger central authority than many, namely Jefferson, philosophically approved of.

On slavery, Jefferson wrote that he “trembled” for his country when he reflected that “God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever”. When that justice awoke, the nation was punished not simply with civil war, but with the development of the centralized-state many founders feared no doubt, but feared less than dismemberment itself. 

Divided at its birth by two incompatible systems lead by two incompatible interests, the civil war came. “Both parties deprecated war”, Lincoln said in his second inaugural address, “but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish…”.

One nation, indivisible: the founders’ intent, Lincoln’s legacy, and our inheritance.

Thanking Darwin, Again

09 Monday Feb 2009

Posted by in Readings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

charles_darwin_aged_51-11

“I not only think we will tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to.”

—Willard Gaylin

IT IS THE DESTINY of the human race to overcome human nature. Thus spoke Nietzsche’s Zarathustra some hundred twenty years ago. But the idea that our species can and should be improved is much older still, and after a half century lull, the debate has returned to the fore. In an opinion piece appearing in Scotland’s Sunday Herald, scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins writes why “Eugenics May Not Be Bad”. Withholding his explicit support for the controversial theory, his thesis is simply that a debate on eugenics is long overdue.

“Eugenics” as the logo for the 1921 Second International Eugenics Conference billed it, “is the Self-Direction of Human Evolution”. Advances in science notwithstanding, the basic idea is perhaps as old as civilization itself; ancient Prussian, Fan, and other aboriginal societies are said to have engaged in primitive eugenics and Spartans used to dump “unfit” male newborns on the steppes of Mount Taygetus. However, such archaic attempts at selective breeding were doomed to fail without two modern developments: the centralized state and the science of genetics.

Eugenics was given new life after the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species seemed to validate the tenets of selective breeding. Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin’s, became an early exponent with a paper titled “Hereditary Genius”, in which he argued that human “talent” and “genius” were hereditary, and without social policies to prevent interbreeding of the classes, society would suffer from what he termed “a regression towards the mean”.

It comes as no surprise that men such as Galton, born into the upper class of a 19th century England defined by its primitive class system, tended to equate themselves, their bloodlines, and their habits with “talent” and “genius” (note the explicitly un-Americanness of the enterprise; eugenics leaves little room for the sanguine phrase “created equal”).

It also comes as no surprise that Richard Dawkins would be interested in rekindling the debate. Dawkins, himself a Briton, is a brilliant man who strongly believes in the promise of science and reason, and who is famously contemptuous towards religious thought (he would probably object even to the pairing of the words). At times, however, Dawkins comes dangerously close to mimicking the intellectual hubris of his Oxford predecessors, including Galton. For instance, Dawkins believes atheists should abandon the moniker and refer to themselves as “brights”, a label Christopher Hitchens dismissed as “conceited” and “cringe-inducing”).

What may come as a surprise was that a chief opponent of eugenics—also known as social Darwinism—was Charles Darwin himself.

Darwin rejected eugenics on political grounds as a deeply illiberal concept requiring of the state an unacceptable assumption of power. Darwin also rejected eugenics on scientific grounds. Darwin expressed a lack-of-confidence in the ability of science to conclude which traits were worthy of promotion, which were not, and to predict what kind of social damage would be wrought by the sudden absence of millennia old behavior. Sedentary talents—philosophy, art, music—are impossible to quantify in terms of social value, and are not necessarily genetic: Sean Lennon is no John Lennon, and before you blame the screeching genetic influence of one Yoko Ono, it must be said the Julian Lennon (from a previous marriage) is also no Beatle.

Most importantly, Charles Darwin also rejected social Darwinism and eugenics on moral grounds. It was true, he said, that advances in medicine and economic prosperity ensured the survival and reproduction of the weakest, laziest, most unintelligent among us, and he even conceded that this was probably “injurious to the race of man”. Nevertheless, within that same race, natural selection has also included the instinct for sympathy and compassion which we cannot reject without the “deterioration [of] the noblest part of our nature…To neglect the weak and helpless” he said, could only come with an “overwhelming evil”.

Darwin would marvel at the scientific advances which have occurred since his 1882 passing. And yet, despite the lessons of Gregor Mendel’s peas, regardless of the discovery of the double helix, even in the face of the stunning progress at the Human Genome Project, the ethical question remains exactly the same: if we had the power to modify our species in significant ways, should we do it?

No matter the question, honest and open debate is always the right course of action. However, Richard Dawkins is wrong to think the quiet regarding eugenics is due to fear, intimidation, or inquisitiveness. In actuality, there is no debate simply because we’ve already had it, and in that debate, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins’ hero, came out categorically against.

Darwin’s work is a marvel of scholasticism, genius, and hard work. It upended established thought and for that alone deserves our continued recognition. This February 12th, 2009, we celebrate what would have been Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. What better way to carry on the tradition of the storied scholar than to scrutinize the opinion’s of today’s established thought, starting with those who claim his mantle? Judging from Dawkins’ latest post, he’s asking for it. We should oblige.