Pre-Packaged Politics

“This is your movement, this is your effort to end poverty in America.”

These words resonated throughout Pauley Ballroom on Tuesday night, October 25, as John Edwards addressed a packed crowd about getting involved in the war on poverty in the United States. UC Berkeley was just one of the former U.S. Senator and Vice Presidential Candidate’s ten stops on his Opportunity Rocks Tour around the country. Edwards is encouraging college students to take a stand and do something about poverty.

However, one thing was clear on Tuesday night: this “plea” to fight poverty was more than just a political stance. It was part of Edwards’ political strategy to help gain momentum for his 2008 presidential campaign. While he did not come clean about running for president, his attacks on the Bush administration and the war in Iraq were good indicators of his intended political future.

That being said, there are many similarities between John Edwards and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both politicians are doing certain things now to potentially help them come election time in the near future. Edwards is promoting fighting poverty on college campuses and Schwarzenegger is throwing a statewide special election. While these two maneuvers are different from each other, both are alike in that these politicians are making the issues our issues. By getting the people more involved in and connected to the issues, they are hoping that more people will participate in politics and support them.

So, will this strategy work? For Schwarzenegger, whose popularity seems to be continually dropping, the statewide special election on November 8 will be a good indicator of how he will fare in reelection. For Edwards, however, only time will tell. With the next presidential election being three years away, Edwards has got to make more of a lasting impact on the electorate in order to be a contender in 2008. Both of these politicians have proved that no matter the issue at hand, there are only so many political strategies to use. Good luck, gentlemen.

Down With Politicians!

It seems that when all else fails, ignore the politicians.

That appears to be the common mantra these days among our nation's major political figures.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2005, I had the opportunity to listen to Senator John Edwards speak at UC Berkeley on poverty. Engaging and polite, Edwards spoke on the face, color, and nature of poverty in the United States, highlighting the failure of the Bush administration to provide for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the psychological success of the War on Poverty policy from former President Lyndon Johnson's administration.

Edwards revealed his personal side to the audience when he admitted that though he may have been successful, he didn't do it alone.

"I did not get here by myself," he insisted, listing his education, relative wealth, and supportive parents as reasons for his success. From there, he pointed to the need of the impoverished for the same, if not increased, external help from the rest of America to aid them in their daily struggles to succeed in this society.

"Where is America?" Edwards quipped several times throughout the evening, citing the need for the United States to step up its efforts to eradicate poverty from society. "Where is our voice?"

Cue Edwards' solution to the poverty problem: raise the minimum wage, integrate racially segregated neighborhoods, build good housing for all, stop cutting education funds... and ignore the politicians.

"We can't wait on them [politicians] anymore," Edwards stated, a statement which received applause from the audience, consisting mainly of Cal students. Throughout the evening, Edwards continued to defend America's need for young people and college students such as ourselves get involved in community service for poorer neighborhoods.

Despite the division in party lines, several of the assertions that Edwards made on Tuesday night were an echo of the statements Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made this past Monday on October 24, 2005 during a forum for California's November 8 special initiatives election.

"Let's give the power back to the people ... not let the politicians go in the back room, slap each other on the back and smoke a stogie," Schwarzenegger insisted, and made similar statements several times the rest of the evening.

Ironic though it may be that it's politicians asking the people to take power from them, it makes sense considering that both Edwards and Schwarzenegger are considering running for election soon, with Edwards in the running for the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate and Schwarzenegger campaigning for reelection in California's next gubernatorial race. With the coming elections, both candidates seem to feel the need to relate to the people on a personal, rather than political, level - and if that means bashing their fellow political leaders, so be it.

In comparing their styles, Schwarzenegger and Edwards appear to be at ease with crowds, giving off an easy-going, down-to-earth attitude while up at the lectern. Both are good at elicting applause from the audience, and both do well handling mobs of adoring fans: immediately following the conclusion of his speech, Edwards was surrounded by a large group of audience members eager to snag a photo shot with the Presidential hopeful; Edwards remained calm and composed, and what glimpses I could get of him through the crowd showed a smiling and cheerful man comfortable with the attention. Finally, both have physical fitness and, dare I say it, handsomness on their side: Schwarzenegger built his movie career around body building, after all, and judging from the comments I heard from a few female fans of Edwards standing nearby in line to the event, Edwards is one good-looking guy, too.

Two Cents: Apathy Pays

It is easy during my consideration for each of these Propositions to get caught up in all of the opinions and reports within my own blog, Initiative Madness. Though somewhat tilted to the left, the blogs by my classmates are varied and resourceful, not to mention thought-provoking and insightful. However, to break out of my habit, I decided to investigate the blogs written on the same topic but by a new crowd. The interesting, though sometimes limiting, thing about blogs is that to bother to maintain one, most people must be strongly opinionated on their subject matter. Political blogs are hardly an exception to this rule. After sifting through many vehement and often fairly unsupported reports, a special election blog by a reliable news source was an exciting find. This brings me to a recommendation of the San Francisco Chronicle 2005 Election Blog as an additional source of information and opinion about the November 8 ballot Propositions.

Thanks to my quest to focus on Proposition 75, the posting entitled "Governor: Unions derailing California" caught my eye. The report stuck mostly to facts, quoting the Governor's anti-union stance and aim to blame various state issues on the actions of unions. It resorted to personal commentary only in reflection at the end of the blog. But it did not emphasize the discrepancy that I myself found most startling. In those quotations, the Governor makes outright claims against unions. However, on his campaign homepage, he aims to sell Proposition 75, appealingly dubbed the "Paycheck Protection" Proposition, as beneficial for the unions and "based on the premise of fairness." How is it that the Governor expect this glaring hypocrisy to be overlooked? Probably due to the fact that many (if not the majority of) voters fail to gather sufficient information about each special ballot Proposition.

The reassuring aspect of Proposition 75 is that its outcome is not absolutely decisive about the allocation of union money. Whether we stay loyal to the current system or implement the proposed change, each union member retains an individual decision. The change concerned in Proposition 75 is simply a matter of the default setting of union spending. As of now, it takes effort on the part of the union member to NOT have the union determine the spending of their membership contributions. Proposition 75 would make effort on the part of the union member necessary to HAVE the union determine the spending of their membership contributions. The reason that such a trivial matter, that is which condition is the fall-back condition, is worth arguing over is also due to the lack of participation in politics by the average union member. Whether in the instance of researching the truth about the content of a Proposition or bothering to designate the control of union membership money to the union or oneself, apathy pays. That is, it pays the Governor...

Two Cents: Whose Right is it Anyways?

With all of the rancor going on lately about who gets what from Proposition 75, it easy to lose sight of Prop 75 itself. This initiative is a seemingly sincere call to unite the workers of America - the teachers, the firemen, the police, and the nurses, among others - and give them even more power to combat the evils of capitalism that they face, even, allegedly, from within their own union organizations. Its premise - require that union members be allowed to opt-in to contribute their dues to their union's political causes - seems like a pretty decent, worker-friendly initiative.

The problem is that it's not. Darrel Steinberg from VoteNo75.com provided an interesting insight into how paradoxical this claim of "workers' rights!" is in light of the reality of this initiative:

They [Republicans] claim to want limited government. Yet, they propose a ballot initiative that imposes government intrusion into how private organizations collect dues from their members and participate in politics.

Essentially, Prop 75 is an intrustion by the state government of the rights of a private organization to administer its finances. Ironically, Republicans, the ones who are most adamant about the rights of private organizations to work free from government regulation, are also the ones most adamant about passing this initiative.

What's going on here? Why target unions specifically? Is this really about rights?

I think not. Like many of the iniatives on the ballot, Prop 75 has a definite conservative agenda. Republicans know that by passing this iniatitive, not only do they score a big one for the government by getting more control over those irksome unions that are constantly getting in the way of big business with their calls for unnecessary things like worker protection and decent pay, they also get to diminish the voice of union members within their own unions. That is to say, funding for union political funding will undoubtedly be diminished as a result of this initiative, which means that unions will have even less power to defend the rights of their members in general - which means even fewer calls for a decent amount of state funding for institutions such as hospitals and schools.

Two Cents: Part of the "Team"

As a registered democratic voter and self-proclaimed left-of-centrist, I find Governor Schwarzenegger’s campaigning not only amusing, but just plain silly sometimes. Case and point: the new Animation found on the Join Arnold Website. This cartoon depicts two union bosses stealing money from a helpless school teacher. As the bosses drive off, their license plate shows the amount of money union bosses are pouring into their campaigns to fight reform. Oh and do not worry, this total is updated daily.

So when I joined Arnold’s Team (and “Publicly” committed my “support” for Governor Schwarzenegger and his efforts to “Reform and Rebuild California”), I expected to be joining a mailing list for the sole purpose of learning about his campaign’s opinions of the November 8 initiatives in order to report on them more fairly. Little did I know I would be inundated by e-mails with enough brainwashing tactics to write a book. In the six days I have been on the Team, I have received four e-mails; one welcoming me to the team, one reporting news about the campaign, and two informing me of the additions of new media to the website.

Some of the information I have received actually seems helpful for the standard Schwarzenegger-ite to learn how to vote along their party lines, such as the link to the campaign’s TV ads and their handy voter guide.

What is still standing in my way of actually taking the Governor’s campaigning seriously is the plea by the Governor to “Dust off your disco ball and throw a 70’s House Party”. According to the Governor’s website, “People across California are throwing 70s House Parties to show off their support for Arnold’s reform agenda. We want you to as well”. All you have to do is send the Governor an e-mail and he’ll send you “a special DVD with a message from [himself], voter guides, bumper stickers, brochures and all the necessary materials to throw a fantastic party.” So if I sign up, do I get hors d’oeuvres and streamers, too?

In the past week I have seen some good things from the Governor’s campaign that have helped me to understand and even sympathize for his side a bit more than before. However, I don’t think I will be able to take Governor Schwarzenegger’s campaigning completely seriously until he does.

Two Cents: Why Abandon a Winning Strategy?

I have always found it interesting that elected officials often do not retain majority support for their actions once they are in office. It seems so straight forward to me: if your proposed course of action wins you a majority vote, follow that course of action and you will retain majority support. That makes sense, right? But apparently not to a great deal of politicians. So when Bruce Cain, professor of political science here at University of California Berkeley, mentioned that the Governor himself has abandoned a "winning strategy," my ears perked up.

The well known Bell Curve of voters' preference evidences the fact that most voters fall in the mid range of political affiliation. Resultantly, the successful candidates are usually not too far from moderate, though favoring to some degree the politics of their affiliated party. This was true of the moderately Republican Schwarzenegger who California elected, but not so true of the radically traditional Republican Schwarzenegger who is currently holding office. Since, as Cain puts it, "People are not looking for solutions that are imposed from one side of the spectrum or another," why would this shift toward the far right come about? Especially just as the Governor is dependent on public support in the special ballot election?

Cain offered three possible explanations. The first has to do with one of the Governor's advisors, Mike Murphy. He is a political and media consultant who played a huge part in Schwarzenegger's 2003 campaign. He has a great deal of influence over the Governor and a history of great state success, and could be partly to blame for Schwarzenegger's unconventional shift farther right. The second theory, in my opinion, holds more weight. The Governor does a great deal of decision making by committee. It is possible that in trying to keep everyone happy and cater to each individual in such a large group, Schwarzenegger amended his ways so many times that his original tactics are no longer in sight. Also, this reform would most likely develop to the right since his advisory board is presumably largely Republican. The last and most harsh possible explanation is one of personal short comings on behalf of the Governor. With little or no governmental background, Schwarzenegger's political thinking is probably unconventional and unsophisticated. Elected based almost solely on public appeal, perhaps the Governor is convinced that the public will love him no matter what. Please, please let's prove that this isn't the case...

Two Cents: An Unconventional Governor

This past Tuesday, October 4, 2005, I got to schmooze with the brilliant and the articulate at a neat little dinner and political/journalism discussion with Bruce Cain (a political scientist at UC Berkeley), my freshman seminar class, and quite a few journalism graduate students. These grad students were really something. One of them even brought her daughter to the dinner, and considering that if all goes well, I'll be a grad student myself in a few years, it was a bit... daunting to realize that that could be me. With a kid. WITH A KID. I can't even see what I'm going to do tomorrow, let alone in the far-off years of grad school, and I certainly can't imagine married life and/or children.

But I digress. Grad students are pretty cool, and when Bruce Cain opened up the floor for questions, these grad students asked some really interesting questions, and Cain had some equally interesting answers. I remember one answer in particular, and that was Cain's comment on how previous gubernatorial incumbents lose public ratings because of things that happen to them, whether it be a recession or a natural disaster or whatever. Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, causes things to happen to him - and his increasingly low ratings may indicate that perhaps his actions aren't always the most advantageous.

In short, Schwarzenegger, as Cain noted, is an "unconventional governor." He's been unconventional from the start - I mean, what other political figure has gone from one of Hollywood's biggest movie stars to replacement for a recalled California governor? It was his "unconventionality" that won him the recall election, but can his unconventional moves as governor, such as his current special election, bring him reelection?

I say it's doubtful. It was unconventional popularity among the people that helped Schwarzenegger shine, but once the initial infatuation to the movie star died down, hostility towards the governor's new (and sometimes costly) plans - and to the governor himself - increased. With his approval ratings so low, and with so little support for the special election, I just don't see how this special election will help Schwarzenegger win another one in office. As interesting and as fascinating at this special election with its initiative madness is, it is definitely a costly experience, and I'm not sure if Californians are too happy with the idea of spending on an election they don't approve of.

Two Cents: What’s in a name?

The wording of an initiative has a direct impact on its success in an election. According to HealthVote.org, “Many voters lack the education, reading skills, or time to fully understand ballot initiatives.” When I recently received my Sample Ballot and Information Pamphlet for the November 8 Special Election, all I had time to read were the very simple, very brief descriptions of each proposition provided in the pamphlet. Few voters are going to take the time to read the full definitions, arguments, and rebuttals for each proposition. Many voters will vote on each initiative based on first impressions, when they read about it probably two minutes before they cast their vote.

Because of this lack of knowledge about an initiative, voters are often swayed to cast their vote based on the title of a proposition. On August 4, 2005, The Mellman Group released a survey about prospective Proposition 76 Poll Results. The survey found that in July, when the name of Prop 76 was “The School Funding. State Spending. Initiative Constitutional Amendment”, “Just 28 % of voters said they would vote yes on the initiative, while 39% said they would vote no, and 33% were undecided." When asked in August, when the new ballot label for Proposition 76 was “The State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment”, “The new initiative wording has the support of just 28% of voters. […] Moreover, today a 51% majority oppose the initiative.”

Subliminal messages placed in initiative titles, such as adding the word “Limits” behind “School Funding” for Prop 76, often sway voters into casting their vote for or against an initiative. No book can be judged by its cover, just as no initiative can be judged by its title. Voters should not vote blindly and unfortunately they are sometimes tricked into voting for something they do not support, simply because the title of the initiative is misleading.

Try not to fall into this name trap when you go the polls on November 8.

Proposition Promises

Thanks to advertisements opposing Proposition 76 for this fall's special election, the history of the related Proposition 98 has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the general public. To recap, in exchange for a promise of escaping budget cuts in the future and being reimbursed for current cuts, the teacher's union made a deal with the Governor that would help him to reduce California's deficit. They sacrificed two billion dollars last year, only to be disappointed this year as cuts continue and no reimbursement is in sight. Though well intentioned, Governor Schwarzenegger's apologies on the matter are not restitution enough, and this failure to follow through has brought a number of issues into question. Perhaps the most pressing of these issues is that of how realistic his promise was in the first place. Did he truly believe that it would be possible to rectify the budget that greatly in one short year? And, if this aim was unrealistic, does the same hold for his other intentions?

There are many analysts that claim that the improvement necessary to so greatly reimburse the teachers would be nearly impossible to achieve in a single year of budget redistribution. In order to do so, the best strategy would incorporate the elimination or suspension of tax expenditures. Schwarzenegger's campaign promise to make education a high priority was not actualized through such measures and now casts suspicion in reference to his other platforms. It is impossible to conclude for certain whether Schwarzenegger truly believed he would be able to honor his promise to the union or if he never intended to fulfill this optimistic goal. Either way, it would be surprising for the schools to grant him another mercy like their deal over Proposition 98.

Enter Proposition 76. Without good graces to fall back on, the Governor has introduced a proposal to create his own terms for educational funding. He will no longer have to convince anyone of the crisis the budget is in, ask for favors, or cut deals. Instead, he will be able to declare fiscal crisis himself, remove funding as he so chooses, and never make promises about the future, realistic or otherwise. That is, he will be able to do all of this if Proposition 76 is passed.

Partisan Cuts

In an effort to reduce state spending, Proposition 76 "grants the Governor substantial new authority to unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations." This "new authority" allows the Governor to:

(1) declare a fiscal emergency based on his or her administration’s fiscal estimates, and
(2) unilaterally reduce spending when an agreement cannot be reached on how to address the emergency.

Once the Governor declares a fiscal emergency, the Legislature must be called into special session. From there, the Legislature is given little over than a month to write, vote on, and enact legislation for the purpose of resolving the fiscal emergency that the Governor called. If the legislature cannot enact a new law in time, then the Governor is given the authority to use his own judgement to reduce state spending.

What this all means is that Prop 76 gives an unprecedented amount of power to the Governor to spend or save as he will. In a perfect world, this would not be a problem, for the Governor would be a bi-partisan, all-knowing leader with fair judgement when it comes to finances. Of course, it's not a perfect world, and Prop 76 gives a single person too much subjective power over the state's wallet. California's declared fiscal emergencies and, consequentially, the financial areas that will receive cuts, will depend entirely on who the Governor and his party is at the time of the declaration.

In addition to that, the Governor is not held accountable to anyone for where he spends or cuts California's money. He's certainly not entitled to notify the Legislature, one of the people's only sources to advocate change through. His power overrides the Legislature, thus undermining California's system of checks and balances.

It is interesting to note that while some, such as the League of Women Voters of California hold a similar stance, others, such as Daniel Weintraub from the Sacramento Bee, warn that rejecting this proposition, with or without its implied constitutional amendments, means the inevitable: raised taxes.

Cutting School Funding Within Our Means

Proposition 76, the State Spending and School Funding Limits initiative, would do a number of things with the intent of trying to solve the state’s budget deficit.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office of California the main provisions of this initiative are an additional state spending limit, budget-related changes, school funding changes, and other changes related to things such as transportation funding and loans to other state funds. This initiative would also give the Governor greater power over appropriating the state-budget and would even give the Governor ultimate power of the budget in the case that the state legislature could not come to an agreement or in the case of an emergency.

Supporters of this initiative, headed by Governor Schwarzenegger, refer to it as the “Live Within Our Means Act” because of its limits on state spending. As the budget deficit continues to grow and grow each year, this proposition would hamper the ability of the state to spend more money than it actually has and to add to the growing deficit. Supporters also believe that these limits would help “fix the broken system in Sacramento” and “rebuild California”.

Opponents of this initiative, headed by Alliance for a Better California, refer to it as the “Cuts School Funding Act”, in reference to the contempt for Proposition 98. Passed in 1988, this proposition “guaranteed kindergarten through community college education a minimum amount of state and property tax revenue each year.” That guaranteed amount “is largely based on the health of the state’s economy,” according to EdSource. The problem with Prop 98 is that fund allocations can be tampered with in order to give less money to the education system. Opponents feel like the state is “shortchanging” the education system and “breaking [their] word to our schools and kids” by not respecting the “voter approved minimum level of school funding”. Prop 76 would give the Governor even greater power to cut school funding and disregard the provisions of Prop 98.

Something needs to be done about the budget, but perhaps the answer should not lie in the Governor’s hands alone. Proposition 76 may or may not hold the answer to our state’s economic problems, so we all need to evaluate it before adding it to our constitution.