Recalling Democracy
By: C.E. Westphal

                One of the biggest issues in American politics today is the California recall, for more or less obvious reasons. Californian electoral politics are a microcosm of the political situation in national politics; massive deficits, failing schools, and judicial turmoil to name only a few.  Far worse, they show how big personalities and bad politics have made California and America a political laughing stock.

                With 135 candidates on the ballot some would say that in many ways this recall election is democracy at its best, however it also shows why our Founders were wise in avoiding a pure democracy in America. Yes, because of California law there are 135 candidates on the ballot whose views run the entire political spectrum. Remember though, people vote heavily on factors as simple as name recognition instead of actually taking the time to do a thorough investigation of a candidate’s political views. So the trick to winning is to air a witty commercial that makes everyone remember your name. That means that someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger has exceptional name recognition, while Arianna Huffington (Independent - www.votearianna.com) and Peter Camejo (Green - www.votecamejo.org) do not, which is probably why they are earning no more than 4% of the popular vote. 

                When I first heard about the recall effort it was merely politics as usual to me, and I questioned whether or not it would succeed since it has only ever failed against Governors (attempted 31 times since recalling elected officials became legal in California in 1911), but now that the recall is underway I thought it would be time for me to express my opinion on the matter. First off, it’s completely legal under Article II, Section 13-20 in the California Constitution, although I certainly doubt that they’d view the recall as fair if they were on the bad end of it. One thing is for certain though, no matter what the issue, either side will complain the same when the tide turns against its favor. 

                Secondly, recalling Gray Davis because California’s economy went south is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of in recent electoral politics. The Republicans had the legal right to do what they did, but that doesn’t make it right, no more than if the Democrats did it. If you elect an official for four years, they stay for four years unless they are impeached for breaking the law or violating their office. Why do we need extra measures on elected officials? Davis did not break the law by being a Governor incapable of fixing the economy and failing to prevent energy companies from cheating Californians. All of California, the citizens, the politicians, the bureaucrats, and the business owners let themselves be cheated by failing to come to a decision on how to produce more power, and the energy barons capitalized on it. Extremist Greens didn’t want anything short of a return to a pre-industrial society while money hungry corporations desired a nuclear powered California, and since neither side could compromise, the energy companies took advantage of the people with inadequate power and Gray Davis either didn’t, or couldn’t do a thing. No one knows which so far. Furthermore, if Americans removed every Governor for not fixing their state’s problems immediately, then there would be 44 states paying between $53 and $66 million for recalls of their own, and all of that in the midst of an economic catastrophe. 

                Thirdly, considering the circumstances, I think it is fantastic that Californians can vote for a multitude of candidates who stand for a multitude of issues. I wish Oklahomans could do that. In Californian politics though, it is remarkably dumb that there are four Greens when there could be one, fifty Republicans when there could be one, and forty-two Democrats when there could be one. Multiple parties are good because it fosters democracy, debate, and in my opinion it is the basis for a just Democratic Republic, however when you have infighting between candidates when a party is trying to establish dominance in an election, that party’s platform is doomed to failure when facing a more unified opposition. Huffington should try to get the endorsement of the other thirty-one Independents running, just like Camejo should be the only Green, Cruz Bustamente the only Democrat other than Davis, and so forth.

                I won’t guess who will win because popular opinion in California changes more often than the names of African countries. Recent polls have varied on the question of Davis’ recall by as much of a difference as 20%. One recent poll showed 60% of registered Californians in favor of a recall on Davis, while an LA Times poll conducted in early September found only 47% in favor of a recall. These numbers could change of course. Perhaps when Californians get to the polls and see 135 names on the ballot they will rethink the whole recall and just keep Davis? It makes for simpler voting. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and Bustamente are the clear front runners, though the results of an election vary from poll to poll. Bustamente’s platform is essentially the same as Davis’; tax the wealthy and the corporations to pay off the debt. It is uncertain who will win between Bustamente and Schwarzenegger, but since both have a comfortable double digit lead over the other candidates they should only have each other to worry about for the time being. 

                When it comes to Schwarzenegger it doesn’t take a political scientist to realize that he is not a conservative Republican in the least, and that shows how desperate the Republicans are to win back ‘Reagan’s California’. This brings up the subject of how the California election differs from national politics. Instead of Democrats being forced to compromise on their scruples in order to attract popular support, the Californian Republicans have to do it instead to gain a Governorship. In national politics, the Democrats had to vote for a war in Iraq, two tax cuts, and so forth to fit a character type that would impress the American public enough to hold their position. But now the Republicans are forced to support a man who espouses forms of gun control, civil unions for homosexuals, medical marijuana, and many other ‘liberal’ ideas that would make Rush Limbaugh die of a massive aneurism. In fact, it appears that Schwarzenegger’s only conservative ideas are his fiscal plans, which might be why the Californian Republicans are endorsing him. He’ll push their fiscal platforms of neo-Reaganomics (good ‘ol trickle down economics - a flat tax form of tax cut for the people and tax cuts for corporations so they increase their “employee volume”), and yet he doesn’t have the power to seriously affect the social aspects of Californian society. It just remains to be seen if a Governor Schwarzenegger can pass any legislation with the Californian Congress firmly in Democratic hands. Over all, I doubt that Schwarzenegger has any semblance of a plan based off the way he talks. He never directly answers a question, and he only gives vague accounts of what he is going to do and then touts around his new staff. But I’d vote for him because, hey, nothing bad has ever come out of Austria!  Right?  RIGHT?     

                 My personal opinion of Schwarzenegger as governor coincides with the young Californian who hit the Austrian with an egg as he arrived at California State University for a speech on September 3^rd.

                And in the last case of this recall stupidity, some of Bill Clinton’s former staff have tried to use the recall as a way of attacking Bush by comparing him to Gray Davis and asking Americans to recall the President. Needless to say Clinton’s former employees are desperately in need of jobs. Please go to www.bushrecall.org and let them know if you’re hiring. Apparently losing the 2000 election was such a sudden blow to these people that they forgot to update their resumes.