Gay Marriage in California: 2010 vs. 2012

The NY Times looks at the politics of gay marriage in California, particularly the question of whether the movement for marriage equality should focus on trying to change the law in 2010 or 2012. My feeling is very clear: wait until 2012. One major person involved, David Bohnett, put it well:

“The only thing worse than losing in 2008,” he added, “would be to lose again in 2010.”

Which might very well happen. Nothing much will have changed over those 2 years. The only reason to try again in 2010 is that many people are still seriously pissed off about losing in 2008. But anger is a dangerous motivating factor in politics. It's occasionally useful as well, but this debate is supposed to be about love and marriage and commitment, not beating conservatives.

There is no practical or political reason to try again in 2010, and some very good political and practical reasons why not to. There may not be enough money available, which would increase the likelihood of defeat. If this cause loses in 2010, it ain't gonna happen in 2012. And probably not 2014.

Conservatives are fighting gay marriage for many reasons, but one reason in particular is unique to this time period: this is one of the few culture-war issues where conservatives have won more victories than they have lost in the last few years. Conservatives have lost most other culture-ware battles: civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, abortion, separation of church and state, environmentalism, sex and marriage generally. Conservatives won the economic debate - sort of - when Soviet Union collapsed, but that's long past. About the only culture war issue conservatives have been winning consistently of late is about gun control.

As much as I would like to see gay marriage become legal in California, I don't think there's much chance of it happening in 2010. Time is on our side. That's good and bad. Good, because we know we will ultimately win. Bad, because the "ultimately" part requires patience.

Voting in California today

There are elections today in California. Some of them are the regular assortment of scattered special elections, runoffs, etc. Those are all location-specific; no statewide offices are at stake. There are several propositions, however, 1A through 1F. They are mostly dealing with the budget - that would be the dysfunctional California state budget that is a huge mess in many ways.

I am a hardcore political junkie, but I have been trying to avoid this one. The cause is not hard to figure out; California law requires a two-thirds majority to pass the budget. Republicans, who are in the minority and probably will be for the foreseeable future, dig in their heels and resist any kind of compromise on cutting spending and/or raising taxes. It doesn't help that our governor is a Republican; there is very little love lost between him and the Republicans in the legislature. Most of them consider him a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

We have a massive budget deficit that I have been trying hard not to think about. Most of the propositions are band-aids over this mess. I voted for most of them, because we have to fund certain things. But I really didn't want to.

Democrats and Republicans are basically playing chicken. Neither wants to blink first. Democrats don't want to cut spending, and Republicans don't want to raise taxes. Republicans think they can win this because they hate government already, so they figure if the state goes off a cliff, they will be proved right.

I, of course, think Republicans are being stupid. A large majority of Californians are Democrats; this sure ain't gonna make them feel better about the Republican party. Republicans probably think that they're well-positioned to hold onto the governor's office in 2010, because they have a couple of very rich candidates running. But Arnold is only there because of a quirk of history. He won election because Gray Davis was one of the least charismatic politicians in California. Then Arnold won reelection because his next competitor - I don't even remember the guy's name - was even worse. Arnold is not just the most famous Republican governor in the country, he is one of the most famous Republican governors in the history of the country. If these initiatives fail, which it looks like they will, he will look even more like a failure than he already does, and he ain't doing well. This will be yet another black mark on the Republican party.

I think the Republican Party has miscalculated what will happen if too many things really do get cut. I think a lot of anger is going to boil over, and it is going to be directed at them.

Polls close in less than 10 minutes. Turnout is expected to be extremely low. We live in interesting times. I think I'm going to be checking out Calitics.com a little more often for the next few months.

California Has A Budget - Barely

The state of California finally passed a budget a couple of days ago. It's not a pretty sight; there are lots of cuts, and some increases in taxes. Republicans fought the taxes very hard, and demanded cuts in social services and education. For example, the California State University system (which is the second-tier system, below the University of California, but above community colleges) is going to lose 10,000 students. That's just mind-boggling.

Apparently the Democratic leaders in the Assembly and Senate worked together well, which is good. Arnold did a reasonably decent job, but he's also part of the problem; he slashed the vehicle license fee when he came into office, which is part of why we're in the mess that we're in. Arnold has a seriously dysfunctional relationship with most of the Republican party. He doesn't like them, and they don't like him. He's very much a RINO (Republican In Name Only). I think could have been a very good governor if he had had political experience before he was elected. As it is, he's been learning on the job, which has not been an entirely positive experience for the citizens of California. He also doesn't really have a base to mobilize.

Republicans hate paying taxes because they don't see themselves as getting anything in return. They see taxes as going to support poor people in the inner cities. They see money for education going for liberal professors who are critical of Republicans. They see money for drug rehabilitation going to criminals who threw away their chances to be good citizens, and now only deserve jail.

Not all Republicans think this way, obviously, but enough of the ones in the California legislature do to wreak havoc on the state budgeting process. These idiots even negotiated some tax cuts for businesses. That's just absurd. Tax cuts for businesses when we are cutting education? If I were a responsible business owner, I would be furious. I would like a tax cut to hire new people, but what I really need are educated employees. And educated customers who have enough money to buy my products.

A big part of the problem is that the state has become almost ungovernable. A two-thirds majority is required to pass the budget. There are some good leaders in the legislature, but they're very new; Karen Bass, the Speaker, has only been in that position since May. Why? Because of that utterly idiotic idea, term limits. I think term limits is one of the stupidest ideas in the history of politics, but we're stuck with them for now. We don't have the leaders that we used to, guys who had been around for a long time and who could broker deals quickly. Term limits become a self-fulfilling prophecy; voters are angry at their legislators, so they impose term limits, which limits their legislators ability to do their jobs, which makes the voters even angrier. Someone needs to put a stop to this madness.

There may be some good things to come out of this. As Rahm Emanuel says, "Never waste a good crisis." One of the reasons this was finally passed was that one state senator, Abel Maldonado, traded his vote for a promise to open up primaries. It would mean that the top two vote-getters in a primary, regardless of party, would face off in a general election. This takes the power out of the hands of the parties, and puts it in the hands of voters. The hope is that it will reward more moderate candidates, because independent voters would be more likely to vote for them. The parties, of course, hate it.

This is yet another - how many more of these do we need? - example of Republicans failing to come to terms with the exhaustion of their anti-tax ideology. Republicans used to be the party of good management. They have long since abandoned that. They aren't managing, they aren't governing, they're just reacting. Our next governor, let us pray, will be a Democrat with even bigger Democrat majorities. Never waste a good crisis. Particularly if the crisis is in your opposition's electoral strategy.

We are so desperate for more intercity rail here in CA

Calitics has a good summary of the state of intercity rail here in California. Suffice to say that we are bursting at the seams, and the immediate future doesn't look great. Also, there isn't all that much hope, as long as we have the current administrations in Sacramento and Washington.

It's a little odd that Arnold has not been better on this issue, because he has pushed hard to improve California's infrastructure. I think Arnold is the right kind of Republican at the wrong time. On social issues, he's great, but on fiscal issues like this, he is hamstrung by being part of the Republican party in this day and age. Putting money into something like intercity rail should be a no-brainer for Republicans, because it's about efficiency. Moving people by rail is by far the most efficient means of doing so. And every businessperson understands that you have to invest in your business, you have to make capital investments, to stay competitive. In the current environment, tho, Republicans simply assume that government is bad, and, if liberals are in favor of it, then that makes it even worse.

I don't like writing in those kinds of stereotypes. I don't like reducing my political opponents to caricatures. But that seems to be how the GOP is working these days.

There's an old saying in politics that people don't rebel unless they have some kind of hope. That's why Obama's message of hope is not just empty rhetoric. He won't be able to change the game until he's actually in office, but if he can get those people riding on a standing-room only train to think that maybe there is a possibility of making this all work better, then they might mobilize and act in concert with him, and with one another.

GOP in CA trying not to be losers

Two of the last five Republican presidents were from California. This state used to be fairly conservative. Someone once explained to me that Richard Nixon was very effective exploiting Communism in the 1950's because Californians were worried about being invaded by China. I thot that was ridiculous, until I realized the historical context. In the 1950's, America was just a few years away from fighting a war across the Pacific, with Japan, and across another ocean, the Atlantic. And communist China was a close ally with the Soviet Union. So worrying about fighting a war against the Russians in Europe and against the Chinese across the Pacific (and with the Russians across the Pacific) was a very real threat. I'm sure it's one reason there is a huge naval base in San Diego, and why there are still lots of aerospace and defense companies in LA.

Both of those threats, of course, are long gone, even though China is still technically communist. And California is now much less conservative. The Republican party in California has never really recovered - it's in pathetic shape. The only powerful Republican is the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he's in office because of his personal star power, not because of the state GOP. Which he barely gets along with.

Some Republicans are trying to change this. George Skelton in the LA Times writes about a new group being formed, California Republicans Aligned for Tomorrow, or CRAFT. A number of prominent moderate Republicans in CA - yes, they exist - are finally unhappy enough with the right wing that they are doing something about it. How different are they? Try to imagine this coming out of Dick Cheney's mouth:

"We need to run more women, more Asians, more Latinos and other ethnic
candidates," [GOP consultant Kevin Spillane] says. "White men are a distinct minority in this state. Clearly, a conventional Republican -- a WASP male -- is at a serious disadvantage. The ideal candidate is someone Latino or Asian, someone different."

Wow. Multiculturalism finally gets to the Republican party.

Skelton doesn't go into the issue that this inevitably raises - how do the conservatives feel about this? Probably about the same way that Kos feels about the DNC - as if they are betraying the true faith. This is just the beginning of this phase of the cycle. Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, but the issue is not the issues - it's the personalities of the candidates. Democrats will resolve this peacefully and, hopefully, gracefully, soon. The conflict within the GOP is just beginning. This group will inevitably score its share of victories. But making Republicans electable in California? Good luck on that one, guys.