Posted on 11/14/2005 9:02:02 AM PST by NormsRevenge
In 1945, Winston Churchill was swept from office in a devastating election defeat just days after leading England safely through World War II. As he watched in morose silence as the results rolled in, Clementine sat beside him, patted his knee and said, “If you ask me, Winston, it’s a blessing in disguise.” Churchill growled, “At the moment, madam, it is very well disguised, indeed.”
I’m not going to pretend that Tuesday’s election was anything other than what it was: an unmitigated and stunning defeat of some of the most basic principles of good government ever put to a vote: that government should live within its means; that politicians shouldn’t chose who gets to vote for them; that teachers should demonstrate sustained competence before they’re granted lifetime tenure; that public employees have a right to decide for themselves what candidates they’ll support with their own money; and that parents have a right to know if their teenaged daughter is undergoing an abortion.
Nor am I going to pretend that the election can be easily dismissed as a fluke. It was a major setback in the cause of reform and a major victory for the government unions that are now ascendant, emboldened and unchallenged in their domination of our political and legislative process.
There are many lessons to be learned and to be learned well. But as Mark Twain warned, “We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits on a hot stove-lid; she will never sit on a hot stove-lid again--and that is well; but also she will never sit on a cold one anymore."
I have always said that it is naïve to believe that the same legislature that got California into its mess is going to get it back out. The Governor learned this during the first year of his administration, when, despite a few cosmetic and incremental successes, no serious reforms survived the legislature and the state’s finances continued to deteriorate (masked by a $15 billion infusion of borrowed money).
The governor ultimately had no alternative than to bring this impasse to a head and appeal directly to the people. He could have maintained a façade of bipartisanship, contented himself to tinker at the margins, put forth pleasing half-measures while the state’s deficit continued to mount – but he chose finally to confront the state’s condition boldly and forthrightly. And he knew that to do so, he had to confront the government unions responsible for that condition.
Should the election have been called sooner, when civic attention and the Governor’s popularity were at an all-time high? Could the reforms have been better selected, framed and crafted? Would a clearer presentation of these issues have prevailed?
Those shoulda-coulda-woulda questions are important ones and I don’t begrudge the pundits who are now raising and answering them. But they should be tempered by Teddy Roosevelt’s observation that, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again (because there is no effort without error or shortcoming), but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause…”
Now the watchword is “compromise,” but through all this soothing rhetoric there is a hardened reality: the government unions are now in a stronger political position than ever and no “compromise” will escape the Capitol without their seal of approval. And that means the state will continue to drift upon the course that has already brought it to the brink of insolvency, until the next crisis awakens voters.
Elections are decisive moments in time that record a snapshot of public judgment, but they are conducted in a dynamic world where events can quickly reshape the political landscape. If the fundamental course of the government is not changed – and the government unions have an intense self-interest and demonstrated ability NOT to change – crises will visit California with increasing frequency and intensity. In such an environment, the politics of the state could shift very rapidly.
Whatever the Governor does in response to the election, it is imperative that he levels with the people on the actual fiscal condition of the state and that he is very clear and uncompromising in presenting the solutions that must ultimately resolve it. And when watered-down and meaningless changes are all that emerge from the legislature, he must resist the temptation to proclaim them as anything more.
We humans are creatures of habit. We instinctively resist change and engineer our institutions of government to resist it as well. Change occurs in a society only after the necessity for it finally overcomes our own resistance. That is why serious reforms only come in a state of agitation – and why the recall succeeded in 2003, while the reforms to consummate that recall failed two years later. The recall proceeded while the public perceived a crisis and the reforms were attempted when they did not.
When the next crisis comes, the Governor will find a new appreciation among Californians for what he was trying to do in this election, and a more receptive electorate to do so in the next.
Like I said I'm not smart enough nor worthy enough to discuss anything with you.
At age 67, I learned a long time ago not waste energy with certain people. The thread/stage/platform is all yours.
uhhh.. I am not in misery and I am not complaining. I don't like the fact that the Democrats are driving the state into the ground. But instead of complaining about it, I vigorously oppose them.
I hope you enjoy where you live as much as I enjoy living in Southern California. I'm staying, you left. I won't make a moral judgment on you for leaving, although you seem to be judging me for staying.
Search your feelings Luke. Are you really happy where you are?
You say you vigorously oppose them...what exactly do you do besides post on FR and curse at the TV?
We needn't wait for any 'next' crisis, the one we already have will be sufficient to bring California to it's knees.
"Most of those so called California conservative critics, who didn't vote and stayed home in a temper tantrum are those who perceive themselves as the Pure Walk on Water Conservatives. They had rather bitch about something in their lunacy than do something about the problem. They spend more time stabbing Arnold and GW in the back than eliminating liberals."
The spoiled brat syndrome: My guy lost; that SOB that won ain't gettin no support otta me!
You're replying by a comment by tophat that doubts that conservatives "stayed home on Tuesday" out of disgust for Arnold. In your reply, you state that such (staying home, uninspired due to Arnold's RINOcity) is exactly what conservatives did. Which is true? Did they stay home, as you say, or did they NOT stay home, as tophat believes? I genuinely don't know (you'd have to be some sort of elections statistician), but you can't both be correct, can you?
We live in a very conservative area of California and went to vote around 6:30PM after work. We compared this to the day we voted to recall Gray Dufus and found our voter precinct bustling with folks anxious to vote . . . that turned out to be a head fake as to the overall turnout. It's very disheartening.
Just like the time honored liberal tradition of "sore-loser-ism." Really disgusting. We should be ahamed of such low turnout.
Hildy, I will not be far behind you.
I'm getting out, too.
Just haven't selected the exact spot yet, but I do like AZ.
The TerminatedShe may have been pushed out as Hewlett Packard's CEO earlier this year, but Carly Fiorina is now being touted by some Republicans as a possible candidate for lieutenant governor of California. Some aides to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are seeking to soften his image in the wake of the stinging defeats of his ballot initiatives at the polls last week. Backed by Maria Shriver, the governor's wife, they see Ms. Fiorina as an instant ticket to changing the Republican Party's image in the state and providing the governor with an attractive, moderate running mate as he enters the 2006 election cycle.
The 50-year-old Ms. Fiorina is certainly no political shrinking violet. Earlier this year, she urged the Bush White House to eschew any restrictions on trade, warning they would backfire and damage American competitiveness. "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore," she told a Congressional hearing. "We have to compete for jobs."
There's only one problem with plugging Ms. Fiorina, a political novice, into the lieutenant governor's race. The leading candidate in the GOP primary is State Senator Tom McClintock, a darling of California conservatives, who won rave reviews for his principled race for governor in the 2003 recall election. Trying to muscle Mr. McClintock aside would alienate the conservative voters and volunteers that Mr. Schwarzenegger needs for his own re-election effort. Voter apathy was a primary reason for the drubbing that Mr. Schwarzenegger's reform agenda just suffered at the polls. It might sound like a step down, but perhaps the governor's staff should consider running Ms. Fiorina for another down-ballot race, such as state comptroller or treasurer. Either would provide her with a highly visible platform to showcase her executive and financial skills.
You must mean 2010? I think that's the next gubernatorial election after 2006.
Personally my hope is that a way can be found for Tom to be the GOP nominee for Gov., not Lt. Gov. If not, I just have to hope Arnold and not Unnamed Democrat wins -- and that Arnold thereafter is "out of the state" a lot, making Tom the acting gov. during such times.
Thanks for the ping!
If you're anywhere near L.A. Senator McClintock is speaking at the RPLAC(Rep. Party of L.A. Co.) meeting tomorrow nite at Luminaria's Restaurant in Monterey Park 7:oopm
Well, you're obviously unable or unwilling to support your comments with any logic or facts, or to discuss issues civilly without resorting to insulting jabs. You stand center stage making ridiculous statements and when called on it you run crying to your room. Whatever.
I sure agree with your (and Tom's, and many others') strategic critique of Arnold: Why in hell didn't he strike while the iron was hot, right after the recall?? (It sorta reminds me of one of Reagan's bigger mistakes. In 1981, with a fresh mandate and the first GOP Senate in decades, he gets a SCOTUS opening and nominates ... O'Connor. THAT was the time to nominate Bob Bork. Instead, Reagan tapped Bork in 1987, one year after it went Democrat again! The lesson is, Use political capital while you have it!)
Actually, we may both be right--or wrong. My expertise, modest as it is, is limited to Orange County where enough conservatives certainly voted to pass Arnold's four propositions. At the same time, some clearly stayed home. But, when you take the state as a whole, it is my feeling that many conservatives--and a significant portion of the Republican base--simply weren't inspired sufficiently by Arnold's recent performance, as well as his overall two year record, to bother going to the polls.
Phhttt!
You and yours were pegged back at #7...you're the problem.
Most of those so called California conservative critics, who didn't vote and stayed home in a temper tantrum are those who perceive themselves as the Pure Walk on Water Conservatives. They had rather bitch about something in their lunacy than do something about the problem. They spend more time stabbing Arnold and GW in the back than eliminating liberals.
You may now continue to tell everyone who is and isn't Conservative.
I also voted Yes on 73-75, and felt there were more negatives than positives with #76 and #77.
"strike while the iron is HOT!"
its all very elementary my dear, Watson.
but then Ahnold has had Petey Wilson and Dickey Riordan for advisers, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that he has screwed up ROYALLY.
McClintock Syndrome...Tancredo Syndrome...Buchanan Syndrome...
Weren't you one of the ones who critisized all the McClintock supporters? Arnold was do or die!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.