California
politics a prickly problem
California is an odd place.
With some of the richest farming soil in the world, one might think it also possesses
the seeds of change.
Apparently not. A clever, concise and ultimately effective headline on the Los
Angeles Times’ Web site summed up Tuesday’s special election as “No,
No, No, No, No, No, No, No.”
Eight propositions total. Eight propositions rejected.
Four of these propositions were proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in an
effort he believed would change Sacramento for the better. Unfortunately for
Schwarzenegger, he planted these potential seeds of political change in the wrong
place at the wrong time. Factions of his farmers revolted against him.
The special election this year was costly, both for the governor’s own
checkbook and the public labor unions that spent millions of dollars for months
hurting Schwarzenegger’s image. If it weren’t for their effective
and long-hauled ad campaigns against him, more of his initiatives might have
had a greater chance to pass.
But what is also interesting to note is the governor cannot blame the anti-Arnold
mass media coverage for his lack of success this time. Many major newspaper editorial
boards like the San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, San Francisco
Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Riverside Press-Enterprise and Los Angeles
Times supported at least half of the governor’s “reform agenda,” according
to the LA Times editorial page analysis “Endorsements elsewhere,” by
Paul Thornton. Proposition 77 was even unanimously endorsed, yet only about 40
percent of voters voted yes.
What does all this mean? Does it mean the editorial boards, who are supposed
to research all sides of the issue and find the most appropriate vote, are out
of touch with voters’ desires? Or maybe it signifies people blindly voted
without proper prior research, following only the misleading half-truth ads from
all sides on the TV?
Perhaps the full truth is a mixture of both. Maybe the editorial writers of the
major papers don’t get out enough or maybe the voters don’t read
enough.
In any case, the only certainty this newspaper’s editorial board can find
is special interests still control Sacramento and very much controlled this past
election. They still sit comfortably on the Sacramento capitol building lawn,
waiting to plan their next move against California’s public interest.
One of those special interests, the public employee unions, managed to convince
enough people that everything the governor proposed was wrong for California — even
if the initiatives had nothing to do with union interests.
To paraphrase their words, “Arnold equals bad,” no matter what he
proposes. That’s truly unfair but no one said the political world is a
fair one. It’s a shame California elected someone who it thought could
fix a broken Sacramento system, but when he tries to do so is rejected.
|
