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.
This thread has been an excellent lesson to the Freepers out of California, why the left had their big victory last week.
The left was unified, and apparently about 1/4 to 1/3 of the registered republicans hated Arnold more than winning with the props. So they stayed home, didn't vote, and now are bitching about Arnold losing the election.
As Wolfstar pointed out Nissan and Toyota will be leaving California and so will many other corporations and independent contractors. They know that the left will perceive this huge victory and as an open gate to pass all the taxes they want in order to fund their Politically Correct legislation.
We have officially turned our state over to the barbarians of the dark side. Enjoy the rides they are preparing for California and us. We now have no way to stop their upcoming rape and pillage of Californians.
Yes, conservatives do.
Conservatives can promote and help elect conservatives, regardless of the candidate's party registration. Three good ones will be on the ballot in 2006.
Conservatives can continue to defeat liberal policies, regardless the sponsor, at the polls. Thanks, in small part to conservatives, Prop 76, 78 and 79 went down to defeat last Tuesday. Congratulations to the 13% solution.
Conservatives can withhold their financial support from political parties as long as those parties promote and support liberal policies and candidates.
Conservatives can and do make a difference.
How's that ?
According to the Secretary of State website, it looks like the same amount of Dems stayed home as Republicans, or more. GOP registration accounted for 34.8% of registered voters as of 15 days before the election, the cut-off date. (Dems represented 42.7%) Props 73 and 75 got 47.4% and 46.7% of the vote. The ratio of Dem-to-Republican registration is much greater than the ratio of No-to-Yes votes on the two red-meat conservative issues. That tells me that conservatives did not stay home and were perfectly able to separate any distaste for the governor's other actions from the issues put on the ballot.
Who exactly are you referring to when you say "they stayed home, didn't vote, and now are bitching about Arnold losing the election" and what is your support for such a conclusion?
By the way, you still haven't answered either of my two questions in prior posts, above. (Should a politician be held to his campaign promises?)
Apparently the mods themselves rechecked the posting link and saw that the subheading had been changed.
The editors wanted to make it clear that McClintock did not call it a "not so 'special election' ."
""Eventually, California will be forced to take much more drastic action than the current Governor proposed. (For example -- defaulting on state employees' paychecks.)""
We have one more year of borrowing, and no one will make any more loans to California.
Guess those state employees present and retired are gonna float the state for a while...
I voted for all the propositions arnold asked help on. However not enough of us did to make a difference.
Oops. #125 is for you.
Liberalism needs to die. You can argue politics until the cows come home but you will never settle the debate in the realm of ideas. It takes the darwinian struggle to put the debate to rest. Our founding fathers understood this. They chose a limited form of government that emphasized state sovereignty precisely so that failing ideas could fail in isolation.
On a more pragmatic level, most young couples starting out simply can not afford a house in California. Are you really going to tell them to stick it out rather than a make good life for themselves in a red state?
Feel lucky. You were thanked.
Her references to the man she now appears to be championing include:
"Just another bitter gambler, willing to risk California ....He scares me. ....He sounded more like Jim Jones than Ronald Reagan"
Newsflash: He did run for governor. He lost to Arnold.
NJ is a lost cause. :)
Yes indeed, he does summarize it so well.
It's all too clear now.
Arnold papered over the problems of the state with $15 billion in borrowed money. Arnold led the people to believe that everything was just dandy. Some sort of artificial recovery emerged in California and the electorate forgot the underlying reality.
McClintock is on mark. The time to have done those reforms was year one, not year two or three.
I only know of ONE admitted NON-voter from CA on this website, sofar. You guys jumpin up and down about FReepers not voting is just more sophistry as far as I can see!!!
Surely you jest!!!
>>I only know of ONE admitted NON-voter from CA on this website, sofar.
And I don't know of any who said they voted against all the measures.
If they did, I assume someone could provide a link (I have seen none).
Raised taxes and support for abortion are two issues that come to mind. I like the guy and think he was a great President, but I try to be fair.
They just CAN'T admit their Terminator couldn't taunt the Public Servant Unions without gettin HIS butt kicked in the end. It happened just a few short years ago in this state with Wilson! Now Wilson advises Arnold to unbelieveably do it again in an off normal time election??? Unbelieveably stupid and unforgivable!!!
A complete waste of an excellent Ballot Proposition!!!
Unintentionally you just said the funniest thing I've read all day. IF YOU DON'T VOTE, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE. It's as simple as that. I'm so sick of California Republicans who bitch and moan and then sit on their fat asses and do NOTHING. I'm so glad I got out when I did...the State is going down...down...down....you'll all be working to pay the million dollar pensions of State workers. HAVE FUN in your misery and bitching.
You're calling this a liberal state, a state that since the late 70's has:
-Rolled back and limited property taxes (Prop. 13)
-Reinstated the death penalty and voted out three state supreme court justices who opposed it
-Voted to define marriage as 1 man, 1 woman (Prop. 22)
-Voted to end benefits to illegal aliens (Prop. 187)
-Voted to end bilingual education (Prop. 226)
-Imposed term limits on its officials
-Recalled a Democrat governor and replaced him with a Republican
Yeah, we do a lot of pretty liberal things too, but the point is a place headed for the rat hole like you describe wouldn't also be doing what it is doing above.
Sure, the results of the special election don't help, but that just proves what happens when your crappy campaign strategy is to shut up and take it for months while your foes lie by the millions of dollars.
I'm not going to tell couples what to do about where they live. They can stick it out here and fight, or tuck tail and run to where everything is nice and safe for their tender sensibilities and they have no fear of or need to engage in the struggle to preserve something incredible from where the battle needs them most.
I'm staying put.
Sure, the Democrat and Republican legislators and congressmen have the equivalent of teacher tenure, and fought 77 as much as the teachers fought 74 because they don't want to be held accountable.
And job/party security is the whole goal. Keep your ass in a safe district and jump from Assembly to Senate or vice versa to avoid term limits (and having to get a real job), and pray that a congressional (no term limits!) district opens up - and cash in on the good life.
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.