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.
PING!
McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list
southhack?
who is "southhack?"
and "southhack" has nothing to do with you and me and your personal insults towards me
and I'm still waiting for the post that you claimed to have made that I "backed down"
Now that's rich! I know that's a lie, 'cause I never backed down from anyone in my life!
now if you think you have the balls to meet me then do so otherwise stow it!
I'm in the city every weekend so you name the time and place and we'll see who is "backing down"
If conservatives did not vote on Nov 8 to "teach the CAGOP a lesson" then those conservatives are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
As to the other charges leveled against forum members by partisan loyalists, the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned. Time will provide evidence of partisan participation in last Tuesday's election but philosophical participation will never be available, except anecdotally.
If, as I suspect, partisan participation was less than expected, the CAGOP can look inward to the conduct of their campaign. Motivated members will vote.
BTTT
http://www.californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/McClintock/20051114McClintockTuesday.html
Tuesday's Defeat
Thoughts on the not so "special election"...
[Tom McClintock] 11/14/05
Norm's link above has the same title as what Norm posted
The title is a compilaion of both the title and byline on the California Republic web site for this article, bitch at them.. it was posted as found..
compilation
Tom is the greatest -- in print and on radio.
In person and on camera he has a wierd sort of unfocused gaze that is disconcerting.
I think that is what is holding him back. But I could be wrong. And I hope I am.
It's misleading and you know it. He never wrote that part.
You bet I'll "bitch" about it.
Apparently they didn't think his real title was punchy enough for their taste
Senator McClintock's Statement on the Special Election
Admin Mod, could you please at least [bracket] Senator McClintock's name in the title, as shown in the real link?
I don't know what CPAs you are referring to, but that isn't what has been reported. Last month, it was reported that he has vetoed less than 0.2% spending over the past two years (millions, not billions).
CA: Governor seeks greater control over spending to avoid deficitsOpponents say the governor already can make cuts by using the line-item veto, but administration officials say its practical effects are minimal given the enormous expenditures in a $117.5 billion budget. The governor has used the line-item veto 133 times in the past two years, cutting $435,322 in spending.
This is really gettin hard to believe, just like the Recall was... behavior on FR that was hard to believe!!!
I believe that they were referring not to the line item budget vetoes but the vetoes of new bills that would cost us money this year and every year on out. None of the new stuff he vetoed is free and would have costs from now to whenever. What would have been the cost of the illegal alien drivers licenses?
Tom McClintock is a class act.
He wouldn't (and didn't) call it a "not so 'special election."
It's the principle of the thing. Like why he supported it in the first place.
California has more and more become a state of haves and have nots. The elitist liberals bestow their kind gaze upon the less fortunate. Of course the less fortunate are just thrilled to have such jobs as dog groomer, landscaper, etc. And the real fortunate, less fortunates, my become waiters and waitresses. Look how they great the elites. (I am not kidding, my Father in Law the liberal really sees it this way.)
To be honest, I don't remember one. I don't believe Reagan was all that conservative in his role as governor.
He could have taken Schwawrzenegger to task here, and I think deservedly so for not pushing these initiatives harder, but opted instead to keep on point. Tom represents himself well when he does that, and policy over politics rules the day. He made some good points.
If Schwarzenegger tries pulling the $50 billion bond deal out of his magician's hat, he may just pull back a stump. Nobody but nobody on the right will support that.
Please tell me you voted.
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.