| Let me start, in a roundabout way, by addressing the question of whether this result is far worse than the budget agreement agreed to in February and put to the voters in May.
I thought at the time -- and said and wrote -- that I thought that this was a closer question than people on Calitics said, because the prospect was that the professional politicians were right that whatever deal was ultimately adopted would be worse. (Of course, at that time, we didn't know how much the deficit would grow.) I'm not one to accept a party line on things; I have to be convinced. But over time I was convinced that the May referenda were a bad deal -- despite the substantial likelihood of this sort of ultimate outcome. The main reason was that while the ultimate budget package might do more short-term damage, the changes made particularly by Prop 1A were likely to embed themselves in the Constitution and prove as lasting as Prop 13. This next year might be worse, but the prospect for progressive governance down the line would be better.
As a result, I did two substantive things: (1) helped lobby against the Party's endorsing Prop 1A at the April Convention and (2) debated my widely beloved state party Regional Director, John Smith, several times in the hostile territory of Democratic Clubs in southeast LA and northern Orange Counties. (By the way, I strongly endorse doing so. How many people here ventured into hostile territory to fight Prop 1A, not counting the Convention itself?) John said, pretty bluntly, that something like this would happen and that people who were arguing that we should go back and get a better deal were doing so out of some combination of cockeyed optimism and ignorance. My response to him was that even if the deal turned out badly, at least its effect would not be permanent. I argued that it would place us on a better footing to pursue a structural reform agenda (about which he and I and most of us here agree.) He said that the changes in Prop 1A would be undone in later initiatives anyway and that I didn't appreciate how bad this year's budget would be.
They were good debates. I thought I was right then; I still think that I was right. But part of thinking that I was right is not in effect regretting that I had taken that stance because the results were so much worse than anticipated (per Robert) or, worse, because I didn't understand the structural advantages available to our Republican opponents (per David.) I did understand that things would probably work out this badly, due to those structural disadvantages, and until reading these past few stories I would have sworn that Robert and David and the rest of the people here did so too.
If this is "far worse" than February's proposal, it is largely because the deficit has nearly doubled in size (I don't have the precise figures at hand) from the problem that we were trying to address back then. Calling it "far worse" without brandishing that caveat high is bad politics -- it suggests that we gambled about the May election and lost. Furthermore, if you really believe that a major problem with the May referenda was the permanence of Prop 1A, then this isn't actually "far worse" because it leaves open the path to eventual progressive governance, without adding yet another Prop 13-like impediment, the semi-soft budget cap, in our path.
If that isn't reason enough to reject the notion that our position now is "far worse," then it invites the inference that we just didn't foresee this outcome -- in which event we're as Pollyannaish as our opponents in the party sneer we are. Well, my sense is that we did see it coming, that Arnold's advantage from having a superior BATNA ("Best Alterative To Negotiated Agreement") was always clear to us, but that the advantages of (1) avoiding permanent hobbling of progressivism and (2) avoiding complicity -- for the benefit of 2010 races and future progressive reforms -- in what would be a horrible budget outweighed that prospect. Frankly, we can't stop Arnold from torturing the California citizenry of 2009-2011 -- but we could (and did) stop him from reaching out beyond his political grave to torture the citizenry indefinitely beyond that. We always knew -- at least this is how I presented it to people in southeast LA and northern Orange counties -- that we'd have more pain this year and that, quite frankly, people would die due to the upcoming budget. The advantage -- which was a victory in May and remains a victory now -- is that the changes to the system aren't permanent, though of course the scars (meaning the deaths, injuries, lack of education, etc.) will be.
We chose the better of bad options. That needs reiteration -- now.
Would members of the Calitics Board go back and change their actions in April and May, knowing this result? If not, say so and say why. If not, then what we ended up with is not "far worse."
What it is is disgraceful. What it is is an impetus to explaining what has happened to the public and to action. Some commenters are asking the right questions: how do we leverage what has been imposed on our party -- and I hope that Democrats at least make a show of letting this pass only by a bare majority -- into public understanding of and revulsion towards both Arnold's means and ends?
The rap on progressive activists is that all we do is kvetch like children about how we're not getting what we want. This is the time to commit to giving that notion the lie -- or to accept it. This is a gut check. Do we argue, based on handwaving that ignores the discrepancy in BATNAs, that things could have been different if our reps had just held fast? Or do we hold that we did the right thing last spring regardless?
What we should do now is:
(1) Push for as few Democrats to support this budget as possible. This is and should be seen as a Republican budget against which Democrats stood as strong as possible. We'll lose -- I don't know what happens if we don't lose, though I and many others would like to know -- but at least we'll go down swinging.
(2) Drive home in enormity of what Arnold has done. People still don't get it. They're going to get it, though, and we need to make sure that he owns this baby and that Republicans in 2010 own it with him.
(3) Consider supporting a recall. I don't want Arnold out there making next year's budget. A recall may not work, but it will be an expression of popular revulsion at a time that it has been richly earned.
(4) Continue calling for federal intervention. The rest of the country will eventually understand that dropping an anvil onto our corner of the ship of state will ultimately hurt them as well. This is a recession-producing budget. The federal government can fix that and help reverse its negative effects on the economy -- but the price should be regime change (just as with GM) and structural reforms.
(5) Do a better job of telling the story. California citizens by and large can't yet "imagine the real" here; Arnold has successfully, with the complicity of the media, positioned himself as a reformer with results. We have all sorts of ammunition -- from his awful proposals to his awful results to his awful tactics (like raising his "reform" concerns only at the last minute) -- to use here; let's discuss how to frame it.
(6) Don't apologize; don't profess ignorance. I expect that Robert will reject the notion that "this is far worse" constitutes an implication of regret at prior actions and that David will reject the notion that "I've finally found the formula" isn't a true profession of ignorance. Well, guys, I'm telling you: that's how it comes off.
This is a disaster, but not a surprise. This is the second-worst option we had, passing Prop 1A being the first-worst. Everything we say now has to be put into that context -- or else, this result becomes Exhibit A in proving that bloggers are just ignorant hotheads who just want to complain. That is the battle that we are fighting now. |
