GregDewar.com

Every four years we're treated to a national political convention from the major (and yes, even the minor) political parties. Two of said conventions, the Democratic and Republican National Conventions will be televised. Much ado is made about such conventions, in particular, the byzantine navigation of party rules and regulations at the national, state, and local level to craft what is known as a "party platform."

Personally, I think if you asked most people what a "Party Platform" was they would think you were talking about the thing the politician stands on when he or she gives a speech. I don't say that to suggest most people are stupid - on the contrary, I'd say it suggests just how relevant the "real" party "platform" is in American political life.

Every year, especially when there's an open election on either party's side (or as in 2000 on both) there's much hand-wringing and big political talk about "the platform." Winning candidates don't talk about it much, except in broad strokes; less successful candidates talk about advancing their candidacy to "influence" said document. You'd think these people were talking about the Magna Carta II: Electric Boogaloo or something by the importance placed on it.

Nowhere are the fights more bitter, or more vicious, than at the local level. In fact, as you go down the food chain, from the Big Deal At The Convention, on down to the state level, and then on down to the congressional, state legislative, and precinct level, you'd find that the fights, pissing matches, longwinded debates, and endless talk by party "activists" gets more and more irrelevant as you go.

I will never forget the horror story a friend of mine in Washington State relayed to me years ago, when he was deputized to run a local caucus that began delegate selection in that state. After running through the day's business at the usual pace (slow) the entire proceeding was held up by an intense debate about the wording of some resolution that people wanted to make that would really stick it to The Man and express their will as Democrats.

What was the Big Issue? Was it "abortion"? "Taxes"? "Defense Spending"? "Guns"? "Malt Liquor Taxation Rates"? SOMETHING important?

No. In fact, the 3 hour debate was whether to word some resolution to say the Party was in support of working families versus working people No, I am not making this up.

The debate got so heated he had to call a time out on the whole thing and make people go into separate corners, like kids. He called me up that night and relayed said experience, and began to wonder what it was they put in the coffee that day.

By no means is this confined to one party - I have attended events on both sides, and even some "third party" conventions, and found this to be a universal truism. Friends in the GOP tell me horror stories that easily match the rage and futility that match situations like this all the time.

The problem is, the "platform" in today's system is almost entirely irrelevant to what happens should Candidate A or Candidate B get elected. Sure, one party can take potshots at another over some particularly goofy statement that accidentally gets through the system, but these potshots are becoming more and more rare as both major parties devise layers of rules to keep anything from happening - again, not that it matters.

I have yet to see a collaborationist Democrat or a collusionist Republican get seriously reprimanded for going against the national or state party's platform. What would happen if they did? What if said platform was the defining document of all political identity in say, the Democratic Party?"

I've always imagined it might be something like this:

Scene: A dimly lit chamber, with five thrones up on a very tall stage. A renegade politico (picture Steve Westly, for example) stands in shackles, with a large spotlight beaming directly overhead.

Cue dramatic gothic organ music, and a chorus singing the Internationale. Or the Macarena. Whatever works.

Well, wouldn't it be cool if they did do that? Oh come on, you're no fun!

We know what really happens. People spend a lot of time wording these things, other people spend more time rewriting them. But in the end, it doesn't mean a hell of a lot. Any politician can pretty much do whatever they want, call themselves what they want, and no one can really stop them unless voters toss 'em out.

It's why a guy like Governor Doofinator can nominally be "pro-choice" or "pro-gay" but still remain in a party whose official platforms strongly oppose both. It's also how a guy like Bill Clinton can be voted in by Democrats twice, while never getting that national health care thing done in eight years.

To political journalists, it's something to write about when they get tired of the ping pong match of TV ads we're seeing right now, and it gives some candidates something to talk about now that the nominations of both parties are "decided" in "advance." No one has to really abide by them, and no one really cares in the party, outside of the party, or anywhere.

Which is unfortunate. It would be nice if we had conventions that really decided things, and were interesting to take part in and watch. It would be even better if we had more parties that stood for something, instead of two "big tent" parties that try to be all things to all people. But most prefer what we have, simply because it's easier to cover, and easier to understand

Besides, if we had the system I've always advocated (four parties: Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, and Republican) which would let people more easily express their real intent at the ballot box, it would at least make things more fun.

Hey, it worked in New York for many years! Why not try it nationally? Can things be any more dull than they are now?

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 5:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Once again, the People Who Know Best are concocting yet another foolish ballot initiative in California. This group in many ways is worse than the Usual Bunch of Crazies or the Well Meaning Underfunded Liberals (or Conservatives, pick one) who are the normal pushers of ill-thought out ideas that might become a (bad) law.

That's because the People Who Know Best usually get a free pass from the news media to push whatever genius idea they come up with - which is unfortunate since usually the brilliant ideas are worse than what the Usual Bunch of Crazies push at election time.

The measure in question is an attempt to radically alter California's primary election system. A group of People Who Know Best What's Right For You, including former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and State Controller Steve "Boy Wonder" Westly, have come up with the latest solution in search of a problem.

In this case, self-styled "reformers" have decided that you, the California voter, aren't voting for the right people these days, so in order to make sure you are saved from yourself, they want to eliminate party primaries and replace them with a "Top Two" system. Instead of having one candidate from each party compete in their own primary, then go head to head in the general, we'll have just the two top voter getters regardless of party affiliation to the general election.

The promise is that we'll have more "moderate" candidates, who might otherwise not get elected, into the state Assembly, Senate, and other offices, and these like-thinking "moderates" will bring forth a new era of decency and goodwill to office. And I believe there's a provision somewhere in there about free ice cream for good voters who vote the way they "should," but I can't verify that at press time.

It all sounds wonderful - until you take a few moments to think about how patently condescending this type of "reform" really is, and also take note of the abysmal record of self-styled "moderates" and their clumsy political shenanigans that make a race for fourth-grade class president look sophisticated by comparison.

Then you realize that this has nothing to do with real "reform" - it's about rigging the system so that real debate is squelched, and we don't address the real reasons we have problems in California - we instead monkey around with the mechanics of elections to get results we can't get in a fair fight. This kind of tinkering has been tried before, most recently in San Francisco by Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who spent literally years re-writing election laws to benefit his eventual run for Mayor - and we all know how successful that was.

As I've stated before people should be offended on general principal that somehow the People Who Know Best would presume to decide what kinds of people should and should not serve in office. It's at best a Stalinist/Statist view that the government should be in the business of running "fixed" elections (instead of "fair" elections) which ensure that nothing "bad" happens. The loaded terminology in a debate like this alone should tick off any sane or rational voter.

The idea that people in say, Orange County, who might have decided to send a more conservative member to the state Senate or Assembly are somehow the "problem," and that their choice should be rigged out of existence for the sake of "moderates" (whatever the hell that is!) is patently wrong. Period. Why does everyone have to vote for someone the "moderates" put their stamp of approval on?

If people in a certain area really believe in such a candidate's platform and elect them in a fair election, that person should serve and the people's views represented. If said elected official does not do a good job, the people can vote for someone else. Swap out "Orange County" and "conservative" for "Bay Area" and "liberal" and the same argument applies. This is "equal opportunity" interference for good people in all jurisidictions.

A joker like Steve Westly has no business telling anyone what is "right" and "wrong" about anything - he's a pompous political hack who had to spend millions to barely even win his own election in 2002 - this despite his "moderate" background. Why, oh, why, couldn't Tom McClintock have won that race and put Westly back in some corporate boardroom where he belongs?

There is a legitimate gripe that many state Legislative districts are drawn to benefit the people who sit in the Legislature at the time they are drawn up. There are in fact many districts where one party has such a lopsided advantage, the "election" in an open seat is decided in the primary of the dominant party - not exactly an open system to be sure. However, the cure for gerrymandering is not this initiative - it's like saying the cure for, say, colon cancer is to take the flu vaccine - it's the wrong medicine for the wrong ailment.

There have been proposals to de-politicize this process but none have yet passed constitutional tests. Surely the People Who Know Best could hire some bright and talented folks to do this. It would be boring as hell, and no great headlines with grinning guys like Steve Westly touting them as the next Governor/Savior of California. Ah, well.

One other point - in all the discussion about this initiative, it's a good bet you won't read much about the abysmal record of "moderates" and their ability (or more accurately, their total inability) to organize politically in this state. I've had first-hand experience with these folks recently, and from what I've been told by colleagues in the GOP, some of their self-styled moderates end up doing the same stuff. (If I'm wrong, just tell me, since I haven't worked on any moderate GOP campaigns in a long time).

Readers will recall that I worked for a "moderate" candidate in the primary election in California's 21st Assembly District. What I say now are my opinions alone, and not his in any way shape or form - my interpretation of events should not be confused in any way shape or form as comments or opinions of a former client.

Besides, once you start reading you'll know it's me, and not a distinguished professor and businessman doing the talking. In other words, if you want to complain to someone, come to me, not him.

"Moderates" had a real chance to back a winning candidate in this race. Polls indicated that he was the frontrunner for several months. Now you'd think that someone who had many prominent endorsements, who was able to block a pre-primary endorsement at the Democratic Convention, and who had real experience leading one of the last non-dysfunctional school districts in the state would get some real hard-core, pull-out-the-stops support from these guys. He didn't.

To be sure, there were some notable exceptions, and that's duly noted, but for the most part, I have never worked with such an ineffective, and out of touch bunch of people than these folks. They never seemed to grasp basic concepts, such as campaign deadlines and timelines, which are important when you have a limited number of days to win an election.

Many of the groups and associations who will be supporting this bizarre initiative this fall (as well as many others) did nothing to help out our great candidate, despite all the work on his part to convince them otherwise, as well as the #*&@#! aforementioned polls which showed this to be a sure win.

Frankly, if the People Who Know Better want more "moderates" in office they need to stop tinkering with the elections system and go back to the basics of winning campaigns. That means supporting winners, not sitting idly by and complaining about how your side is having trouble getting folks elected. In other words, participating effectively in a democracy takes some work.

That may mean confronting some ugly truths once in a while, as I've done here, but if there's one thing I've learned is that if one keeps doing what they are doing, they keep getting what they've got. Right now, they don't "got" much.

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)