California’s Governance Troubles Provide a Mirror for the Rest of Us — If We Are Willing to Recognize Systemic Dysfunction

17 January 2011

Broken political systems don’t come with warning labels

Recognizing the warped governance box we’re trapped in can be difficult. Especially when we are (i) given to denial and (ii) tempted by the easy way out that consists of blaming other people for messes we have contributed to.

California serves as (a) an indicator of national dysfunction on the systemic political level and (b) as a criticism of the shallowness of prevailing opinion regarding the causes of that trouble.

California — look deep, or don’t look at all — otherwise the lesson taken will be wrong

With Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s era in California now ending, some have taken to cataloging his purported failures, as if they were his alone.

Joe Matthews’ review, published in the Los Angeles Times, more insightfully points to systemic problems that thwarted the pragmatically-minded governor at every step. In areas the Governor had control, executive orders or those requiring simple majority legislation, he did well.

But on fiscal and budgetary matters, Schwarzenegger suffered defeat after defeat.

Schwarzenegger tried everything, and nothing really worked. The tax cuts and spending he supported made the deficit worse. His borrowing added to the debt. Republican lawmakers blocked most revenue increases, and Democrats and the unions blocked cuts.

California voters, who love free lunches and hate tough medicine, approved his deficit borrowing in 2004 but rejected proposals that might require sacrifice, including a spending cap, a rainy day fund and a tax increase extension.

Skinny finger of blame — or should we use all fingers and a thumb?

Matthews observed that the Governor’s critics, on both ends of the political spectrum, are inaccurate when they personally fault him for these failures.

Virtually everything his critics accuse him of not doing is something he tried.

In fact, those most critical of the governor — public employee unions and taxpayer groups and the politicians they elect — are far more responsible than this governor for the state's broken governing system.

And the same polls demonstrating voter dissatisfaction with Schwarzenegger's performance also show that voters do not understand their own culpability — that they, via waves of ballot measures, have made much of the budget mess themselves.

Here's the hard truth. Nothing worked for Schwarzenegger because the system itself doesn't work.

So what is systemically wrong with California (and by analogy with the rest of us)?

Matthews finds three causes for systemically ingrained governance failures in the state:

(i) the legislative requirement for two-thirds majorities in money matters,

(ii) an election districting system that prevents competition, and

(iii) voters’ financial irresponsibility as expressed via a rigid initiative system that regularly adds tax and spending policies, which can’t be fixed afterward.

Even here, he concludes that Governor Schwarzenegger did not drop the ball

Governor Schwarzenegger tried to address these systemic problems with proposals for redistricting, top-two primaries, and a constitutional convention.

Matthews’ perception of the Schwarzenegger era matches my own — we’d best look at “us” as the core of the problem, rather than “them”

Mr. Matthews concludes that the real questions regarding Schwarzenegger’s era have to do with our behavior. Smarts, fame, and experience in leadership cannot help, when the system won’t allow it to.

The Governor’s legacy is that he tried everything. Having tried everything, his alleged failures in governance actually point the finger at a broken system, not a leader with dramatic shortcomings.

Seen in that light:

[H]istory may look upon Schwarzenegger as a governor who pushed us down the painful path to fixing our governance crisis. And his failures may be seen for what they were. Heroic.

But how does California’s ridiculous system apply elsewhere?

Deliberately slanted election districting applies to every state.

The need for legislative supermajorities applies in some states, especially on budget issues, and is a now perennial problem on everything in the United States Senate. The Senate filibuster rule effectively means that the Senate repeatedly prevents Congress, as a whole, from getting necessary things done.

Most basically, the self-entitled, “gimme money and no taxes,” voter problem applies universally.

Conclusion

The problem is greedy, short-sighted us.

PeteFree.com

California’s Governance Troubles Provide a Mirror for the Rest of Us — If We Are Willing to Recognize Systemic Dysfunction