2024 March Primaries - San Diego Edition

First, the good news:  the 2024 March primaries do not feature a Prop related to dialysis clinics.  This can't last of course, but let's be glad for the reprieve, however short. 

This election has a relatively short list of issues and offices and given that it is a primary, you are likely to see some of the same candidates again in November, for the runoff.  So, this should be relatively painless - let's dig into it. 

Presidential Primary

Yes, it is probably largely inconsequential, but you should probably cast your vote in this race anyway. This one is not quite an open primary - you can vote for a GOP candidate only if you are a registered Republican, but you don't need to be a registered Democrat to vote in their primary.  If you happen to be a registered Republican, I recommend a vote for Nikki Haley if only as a protest (Trump is going to win easily), but otherwise, just Vote for Biden (even though we all wish he had let somebody else run). 

US Senate

This one offers two primaries for the price of one.  First there is the primary to select the candidates to finish off the remaining two months of Diane Feinstein's term (that started in 2018) and there is the one to take over her seat outright (a term that would start in Jan 2025).  The slate of candidates for the two elections overlap considerably, as might be expected.  It is also hard to imagine that the same candidate wouldn't win both elections. In CA, primaries for the US Senate are open, which means that you can vote for any candidate, irrespective of your registered party affiliation (or indeed, even if you have none).  The top-2 vote getters in the primary will duke it out in Nov and given the number of prominent Democrats in the field, it is safe to assume that two Democrats will be fighting it out in Nov for both of these positions. 

The field is crowded, but the three names stand out on the Democratic side: Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee. All three are in the House from various CA districts.  

Adam Schiff is likely the one with the most name recognition - having been one of the Trump impeachment managers (to mostly strong reviews).  However, he is also the one that comes across as the quintessential Washington insider, whose positions have shifted (albeit not drastically) with the political winds. 

Katie Porter is the youngest of the three and rose to prominence with her vigorous and no-nonsense questioning at congressional hearings, but has also been dogged by scandal. 

Barbara Lee, meanwhile is the oldest of the three, but also the one that has remained remarkably consistent in her convictions and voting record (she is the only member of the House to have voted against military action in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11).  Her personal story is also easily the most remarkable one. 

On the GOP side, the most prominent name is Steve Garvey, whose is an ex-Dodger and ex-Padre, but has been mired in scandal for much of his post-baseball life.  He is also a two-time (2016 & 2020) supporter of Donald Trump, which is pretty much the kiss of death in CA.  While he is currently polling in third place (behind Schiff and Porter), I don't see him gaining enough support to make it to the Nov runoff. While I would like to see a race between Barbara Lee and Katie Porter, I doubt we are going to get that.  But, that's not going to stop me from making the following recommendation: Vote for Barbara Lee. 

US House (District 50)

The incumbent, Scott Peters, will win this safely-Democratic seat.  Given that he seems a competent and decent congressman, there is really no good reason to vote against him.  Vote for Scott Peters. 

State Assembly (District 76)

This one probably registers somewhat close to home for many in my immediate friends circle, given that many of us know one of the prominent candidates - Darshana Patel - quite well.  She has served on the Poway school district board for a few years now and has managed to garner the endorsement of the SD Democratic Party over her main challenger - Joseph Rocha. Dr Patel's biography is certainly noteworthy, but pales in comparison to the struggles that Joseph Rocha has gone through - one of which was completing high school while being a homeless Senior, after his parents threw him out for coming out as gay. 

In all candor, I probably would have recommended a vote for Rocha if I didn't know Darshana Patel somewhat personally. I going to be very surprised if we don't see these two candidates again, in the Nov runoff.  For now, Vote for Darshana Patel. 

SD County Board of Supervisors (District 3)

This one pits old friend, Kevin Faulconer vs the incumbent Terra Lawson-Remer.  Some of you may recall Faulconer's time as SD Mayor, which started off well, but is possibly best remembered for the mishandling of the Hepatitis-B outbreak and the failure to keep the Chargers in town. If you needed additional reasons, he actually voted for Trump in 2020 (after refusing to do so in 2016).  Vote for Terra Lawson-Remer. 

Judicial Candidates

Thankfully, most of the candidates are running unopposed.  The two exceptions are for Office 41 and Office 43 of the Superior Court. While these are nominally non-partisan elections, the affiliations of the candidates in both races is rather obvious if you look at their endorsements.  For whatever reason, in both races, the Republican-leaning candidate has much of the establishment support which alone is sufficient for me to oppose them. The bios of their opponents reinforces this reflex. Here are my recommendations: 

Office 41: Vote for Jodi Cleesattle

Office 43: Vote for Koryn Sheppard

SD City Attorney

This is an open seat and the fight is between two Democrats: Brian Maienschein, who got termed out of the State Assembly (the same seat that Patel and Rocha are fighting for), and Heather Ferbert, who is the chief deputy City Attorney.  Maienschein got mostly good reviews as an assemblyman, but the thing that caught my attention is that he hasn't practice law in the longest time. So what is he doing in a fight for the top legal advisor to the city? Vote for Heather Ferbert. 

SD City Council District 5

I wish all of the races were this easy to call: Incumbent Marni Von Wilpert is running unopposed.  My recommendation? Surprisingly, it is to Vote for Marni Von Wilpert. 

Prop 1 - Bonds for Mental Health and Homelessness

I struggled with this one. Homelessness is quite possibly the biggest crisis being experienced by CA cities and has remained stubbornly intractable. This is actually a two-part prop.  The first part authorizes the diversion of a portion of the funds from the "Millionaire Tax" initiative (passed in 2004) from local (county) control to state control and a further restriction on the how another portion of the same funds must be used locally. The second part gives the state the authority to issue bonds worth around $6.4 Billion to be used for building more mental health facilities and affordable housing.  It sounds like a lot of money, but the additional housing is only expected to make a 3% dent in the state's unhoused population. I am glossing over a number of the details of course, but I found myself switching positions with every new piece of data/commentary about this prop.  The one that finally resonated with me (somewhat) is that status quo is not acceptable and while this prop may not go far enough, it does attempt to drastically shake up the situation.  Vote YES. 

SD Mayor

I left this for the last, not because it was difficult to call (it wasn't), but because I wanted to end with a line from a write-up about one of the long shot candidates (Danny Smiechowski).  We will get to that in a minute, but first the pertinent stuff: The race is between incumbent Todd Gloria and three others, including the aforementioned Danny S.  Jane Glasson, has the distinction of not being endorsed by the SD Republican party even though she is the lone Republican in the field, while Genevieve Jones-Wright is a public interest lawyer who has positioned herself to the left of Gloria. Danny S mostly touts his accomplishments as a triathlete (his campaign website features a slideshow of him in various races) and has about a zero chance of winning.  Todd Gloria has not exactly been very successful in tackling the challenges of homelessness and our crumbling infrastructure, but he has done enough to deserve another term.  Vote for Todd Gloria. 

Which brings me to the favorite line I encountered as I read up on these races and the candidates.  The entry for Danny Smiechowski in the KPBS Voter Hub concludes this way: "His Instagram account includes several pictures of him exercising, sunbathing and dancing in a see-through thong."

Go Vote!

This Moment in Time

We seem to be poised at the edge - there is a sense that society itself is unraveling at the seams.  As protests over the killing of George Floyd fill our cities, it feels like something is about to give.  The worst of our collective expectations after the election of Donald Trump have more than come to pass. 

After the shocking election result of 2016, the uneasy peace that many made with it was that we would be ok unless the nation came face to face with a real crisis.  Trump seemed ever so eager to fulfill that prophecy, careening from one manufactured crisis to another.  But somehow, he seemed to make it through without serious damage to his political fortunes. Many of us continued to wring our hands and bemoan our helplessness as the Trump administration (quite possibly one of the more incompetent cabinets ever assembled by a President) unleashed one senseless move after the other.  We debated the possibility of Trump winning another term while marveling (in frustration) that he remained viable. 

Much ink has been spilled on analysis and exposes (for a person with a disdain for books and reading in general, Trump's tenure has been a boon to the publishing industry), but the reason his prospects remained bright simply came down to the cynical calculus of self-interest.  True, there was much moral outrage, but how many people actually vote their morals? Despite all the hand wringing about Trump's actions, how many of us have experienced a materially negative impact? It's like the war on terror - it's happening in far away lands, fought by young men and women who are disproportionately from underprivileged circumstances, and return to a nation that has all but forgotten them. 

 

And then came Covid-19.  As the first reports of another viral infection originating in the far east started filtering through, it was easy to view them merely with academic interest.  Many of us recalled the SARS epidemic. Then there was MERS and Ebola. None of these made any meaningful inroads in the US and I am sure many of us made the implicit assumption that this time would be no different. But, seemingly overnight, it all changed and the disease has spread with a ferocity that we have struggled to come to terms with.  The experience has been entirely unique. It is safe to say that most of us have never lived through such an extended lock-down period.  There was almost a fairy tale quality to it.  We didn't quite know how to behave or how we should feel about it.  The movie Contagion was much discussed in the early days and I have to admit, watching it now, it did have almost a documentary kind of feel about it.  But, it is Groundhog Day that more accurately captured the sensation of our lives - without the regimented schedules (which we so loved to rail against) of our quotidian lives, there was no sense of the passage of time. Time seemed to simultaneously stand still and fly by at breakneck speed.  Many of us had the epiphany that it was only by the things that we did (& had to do) did we register the  passage of time. 

There are some that agonize about the confluence of an unprecedented pandemic, its economic fallout, and angry protests breaking out all over the country.  But, in fact, they are all connected.  The economic fallout is of course the direct result of the lockdown in response to the spread of Covid-19.  The killing of George Floyd and the anger and pain that has burst forth is of course unrelated to Covid-19, but the lockdown and a general sense of dread seemingly from an ineffable source added an edge to the anger and pain.  And that edge is what is different about this latest round of protests over institutional racism that, most recently, can be traced back to Michael Brown in Ferguson, with multiple stops in between. 

And what do we see Trump doing? Raving and ranting as always, throwing blame around and taking no responsibility whatsoever.  There is no sugar coating it - he is a racist and his only interest is self-interest. Trump couldn't care less that he and his administration are causing (almost) irreparable damage to American society, its people, and to its place in the world, as long as it furthers his personal agenda.  We are squarely in a moment of reckoning - are we going to unravel from here or is the system resilient enough to withstand these body blows and still remain standing? 

There have been many a great civilization that seemed invincible in its time.  The sun never set on the British empire, until it did. In 1700, India accounted for 27% of global GDP and a full quarter of the world's textile trade.  The US has been the indispensable power for more than a century now, but is this the start of a slide into irrelevancy?  American exceptionalism has always turned on the well justified notion that despite all its manifest flaws, the world is simply a better place when the US is the accepted moral authority.  And if you didn't care about that, well, we have the weapons to blow you out of existence.  Under Trump, there is not even a pretense of retaining that mantle of moral authority.  China is fast becoming the dominant economic force in the world and most of the world is armed to the teeth.  So, what remains of the US role? 

I always thought that the 2000 election that brought in Bush the younger (along with Cheney and the rest of the Neo-Cons) was one of the most consequential elections of my lifetime.  With Al Gore in the White House, how different would our response to 9/11 have been?  And how different would the world be today if that had happened? But, all of that will pale in comparison to the implications of the elections coming up this November.  If Trump is not defeated at the polls - and it really has to be a veritable blue tsunami that sweeps him and his enablers in the Senate out - the protests and strife that we see today will seem like a walk in the park. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, the very survival of this country - its soul at any rate - hangs in the balance. 

Do we really need another Trump rant?

Railing against Trump, his team (enablers?), his narcissism, his ineptitude (not to mention, how little he cares about such claims), and indeed, his megalomania, is rather easy to do.  The talking heads on CNN do it for several hours a day, always breathlessly presented as “Breaking News” even when they had just reported the exact same thing two hours ago. And one hour ago. And 30 minutes ago.  Well, you get the picture.  I rarely learn anything of value from the “experts” who somewhat comically jostle for space behind a ridiculously small table (it’s not clear why the CNN bosses won’t spring for a slightly bigger table).  I still watch periodically though, because the other choices are Fox News – which I can stand for about 30 seconds without risking a dangerous spike in my blood pressure – and MSNBC, which is just an echo chamber for the far left.  A vicarious rant is also a lot easier on my psyche – I can simply turn off the TV or switch to ESPN when it gets a bit much.  Intellectual depth is not exactly the forte of these pundits and most of what passes for “analysis” are like empty sugar calories – it feels good for just a bit, but the feeling wears off quickly and you are left with a low.  Of course, superficial sound-bite expertise is not the cachet of CNN alone – it is pretty much the staple of all these “news” channels.

Back to our illustrious President, as he embarks upon the second (& one hopes, final) two years of his presidency.  Most of his detractors get almost apoplectic when they encounter yet another stupendously idiotic or inhumane tweet or are presented with another fact-free claim in service of his current agenda.  I, for one, believe that such reactions are just a waste of energy.  Every thoughtful American (& indeed any citizen of the free world) should be rightfully troubled by the schism in our society that Donald Trump seems determined to widen.  Too often has American moral authority played second fiddle to realpolitik, but never in greater measure than under Trump.  Whether it is the Saudis, or the Russians, whether it is the coal and oil lobby, or whether it is the immigrant-baiting policies promoted by White Supremacists, the reflexive approach seems to be to label their “political correctness” as simply too dangerous for the nation.  But still, I don’t think there is much value in living with the fear that the sky is about to fall down.

First, some historic perspective is useful.  Reagan is a hero to traditional Republicans, but he did not exactly have the surest grasp of policy or indeed, could be trusted not to make a mess when speaking off the cuff, in public.  As Seymour Hersh outlines in a recent essay in the London Review of Books, his advisors lived in terror that Reagan would make major foreign policy flubs if he was not forced to just read off of a script.  There is also plenty of precedence of the US coddling up to terrible dictators and regimes simply because it suited their purpose – democracy, human rights, and the rule of law be dammed.  In other words, Trump’s presidential incompetence is not unique and neither are some of the morally suspect policies that his administration promotes.

This is going to be heresy to the vast majority of you that have read this far, but some good may even come from the Trump presidency. It is undeniable that the number of women (& many of them first-timers) who ran for and won elected office is a direct reaction to Trump.  I dare say that the Me Too movement almost seems inevitable in the Trump era.  The trade war with China seems a bit juvenile (& pandering to his base), but China is making concessions and maybe it takes one bully to make another bully pay attention, or at least pretend to.  China is of course adept at playing the long game and may be content to make a few conciliatory noises while waiting for Trump to leave office.

There are many who would dearly like to see Trump impeached out of office.  I was one of them.  But now, I believe that that would only make him a martyr to the cause – he and his supporters will always be able to claim the mantle of somebody who was done in by the “deep state.”  This is a legitimacy that I would rather that he not have. 

The best way to exorcise ourselves of the Trump demons is to deliver a resounding defeat at the ballot box.  He must lose the 2020 elections and badly at that.  He needs to be consigned to the bins of history as an ineffective one-term President who didn’t deserve even that.  Trump fears irrelevancy more than anything else – and there is no more fitting way to exact some measure of consolation for having endured four years under Trump than for the voters to turf him out of office and render his entire term inconsequential.

The Day Before

Two years ago, on the eve of an historic election, there was a palpable sense of dread - a foreboding of a completely shocking turn of events: The possibility that Trump, despite bucking every bit of conventional wisdom in politics and being spectacularly unqualified for the job, could actually win.  Perhaps in a bid to pacify myself, I predicted that Hillary would win.  But I was wrong and the reverberations of that unexpected result continue to rumble through America and indeed, the world.  I tried to achieve some level of catharsis with this post after the elections, but perhaps I was even being too sanguine then.

After almost two years of overheated rhetoric and divisive politics from a President that seems to stumble from one scandal and indictment to another scandal and indictment, I must admit that I am looking ahead to another election exactly 6 years from today - Nov 5, 2024, when I can be reasonably sure that Trump will not be on the ballot.  If Trump has won a second term, he likely spent a lot of time on the campaign trail making that election also all about him, but at least after Nov 6th, 2024, he will truly be yesterday's news.

But, we have to get past tomorrow first and yes, I am trying not to think about it as much as I can.  I am already preparing myself for the potential for another painful election night and steeling myself to wait it out for two more years.  But sometimes all the self control in the world cannot help and you just want to scream.  How blatant can you get? The biggest existential threat to the mighty United States is a ragtag group of impoverished migrants almost 800 miles from our Southern border?  And wait, it gets better - they are walking here!  THAT IS SCARY!!! Of course we have to deploy the military.  Yesterday the military was laying down barbed wire across the border and today our President comments, "Barbed wire, properly used can be a beautiful sight."  Now, that is presidential.  Shall we festoon the Statue of Liberty in barbed wire too?  Maybe tear down the museum on Ellis Island and put in a golf course.  A shame to waste the beautiful views of the NY skyline to memorialize such a destructive part of our history - immigration.

Trump is not even bothering to hide his racism anymore - Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams, candidates for FL and GA governorships, respectively, are "unqualified for the job." which of course is a dog whistle for, "Hey look, they are black."  Trump is such a narcissist that he has openly stated that he is making a special effort to defeat the Democratic Senator from Montana, Jon Tester - simply because Senator Tester had the gall to point out the ethical and moral deficiencies of Trump's White House physician, Ronnie Jackson, for the post of VA Administrator.  Forget the fact that Dr Jackson had absolutely no experience in running anything, let alone a vast bureaucracy like the VA, but how do you ignore the voluminous allegations against him of repeatedly being intoxicated while on the job? But never mind, Trump lost that fight and so Jon Tester has to pay.

I am obviously just venting here, but then I have held back for almost two years now and something had to give. :-)  Let me close out with a few, somewhat more germane musings about the midterms.

Most indications (& I say this with some trepidation) are that the GOP will lose the House, but keep the Senate and may even increase their majority there.  Some commentators have been wondering why Trump is barely doing anything to avoid loses in the House and instead, is focusing almost entirely on the races for Governor and the Senate.  To me, the logic is not so inscrutable.  Trump cares about the Governorships because they control redistricting efforts and that's one way the parties have been holding on to power. He cares about the Senate because the Senate has to approve all his appointments including the judiciary, with potentially another Supreme Court seat (Ginsburg) coming open during his tenure.  And since all that matters to Trump is Trump himself, he needs the Senate to be controlled by the GOP should a Democratic House ever see fit to impeach him. 

As for the House, in a perverse way, Trump may believe that a Democratic controlled House may
actually be better for him.  They are likely to of course oppose most of his legislative priorities and he can safely blame them for any lack of progress. And he will have somebody to run against in the 2020 elections.  On the other hand, if he has had 4 years of complete control of all branches of the government, then who is is going to rail and rant against?  For, if there is one thing we know for sure about Trump, it is that he prefers the politics of blame and hate.

Despite that sobering logic, I still want the House to change hands.  If that happens, be prepared for a spate of congressional investigations and gridlock for the next two years.  Trump reduced to impotent babbling will be a wonderful sight to behold.  Could the pollsters be wrong and the Senate also fall out of GOP control? One can but hope.

And now what?

I am writing this as much for some catharsis as for sharing some of my thoughts on the momentous election results of last night. I know there is a whole lot of anguished (& no doubt, congratulatory) text being generated, but I wanted to get my own down before reading other viewpoints.

It has become somewhat fashionable for folks to claim that, "I told you Trump could make it!" Or some variation thereof. I make no such claim. I was fully and completely surprised by the results. While there was always an undercurrent of unease, never in my conscious thinking did I believe that Trump being elected the President of the United States was a real possibility. I still can't believe it.  Having said that, I was aware of the source of that unease: it was a couple of things. First, the possibility that the "silent majority" that Trump claimed was indeed real and the second was the doubt that, coming immediately after the first non-white president, there would be enough men (& women) willing to vote in a woman as president.

The first reason can be understood as follows: While a lot of people (especially men) liked what Trump had to say, they were not comfortable saying so in public or to pollsters. It had become so reflexive to look down and heap derision upon anybody who expressed support for Trump that many of his supporters just went silent. It became impossible (at least to Hillary supporters) to separate the man from the message, but that's not how many of his supporters saw it. In the privacy of the voting booth, this silent majority was free to vote their true beliefs.
The second reason follows along similar lines. The white patriarch as the benevolent leader of the country is firmly established, despite all protestations (and actions) towards gender and racial equality. When they finally "let" (yes, this is how a lot of people view it) a black man become president, it was almost with a self-congratulatory tone - "See, how magnanimous we can be. And surely, this proves that we are not racist." The reaction to Hillary then, is not surprisingly, "And you want me to do what now?" The dragon of racism may have been dealt a body blow, but misogyny is alive and well.

Of course, I squelched down the unease these reasons may have caused and here I am, less than 24 hours later wondering what happened. There will be plenty of analysis by people who are far smarter and better informed, but at least for me, it is the sobering realization that those of us that believed in American exceptionalism were wrong. People here have the same fears and biases as people in any other country. The same fear of "outsiders," the same closing of ranks, the same mistrust of liberal values. Overreaction? Perhaps, but I think we should all be permitted that today.

How and maybe, why did this happen? Was Hillary really so flawed a candidate or did Trump have such a compelling message? I have always believed that it takes an exceptional, beyond reproach, person to shatter any barrier or stereotype. Whether it was Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics, or Jackie Robinson in Major League Baseball, or indeed, Barack Obama in 2008, the individual has to be so compelling that shattering the barrier becomes a given. Was Hillary such a candidate? Perhaps so, in her personal story.  But, a political leader is also a very public person, somebody that has to inspire and motivate not just through actions, but also through words and an open embrace of the people you seek to lead. And it is in those latter attributes that I found Hillary wanting.

Then there is the appeal of Trump - As I have written earlier, I believe he tapped into a well of resentment over political correctness stretched to the limit. The left is so afraid of causing offense to anybody that they end up sounding disingenuous. I believe the advances on various social issues that we have had are just that - advances.  However, there needed to be some acknowledgement that they are not easy choices for everybody. Not everyone can immediately appreciate the virtue of allowing people to choose a restroom based on their gender "identity." Similarly on terrorism. The educated, liberal elite demanded that we see terrorism as a very particular problem, something that should and could be tackled in a vacuum. Maybe that is the moral high ground, but that's not always obvious to the average joe, who just wants things to be the way they always were.
On the economy, Hillary faced a similar challenge - does she embrace Obama's policies and achievements or does she talk about how she is going to fix the problems that are clearly there, with the implicit criticism of Obama that that would mean? She decided to go with the former and I think that was a mistake. Accepting that all was not well and that there were indeed constituencies that were falling behind would have dulled at least a bit of Trump's message.
Lest I give the wrong impression, all the above notwithstanding, I still believe that Trump should not have been elected. He is unfit to lead anybody, let alone an entire nation. Hillary was so much the better choice, which is why watching her farewell speech this morning was so painful. Now all we can wonder is what might have been.

Where do we go from here? After the grief dulls and the quotidian business of life resumes, what will the long term implications be? The biggest fear I have is for the social fabric of this country.  Trump will make at least one Supreme Court appointment and more than likely a few more.  That will set the court on a conservative path for a generation or two. What might the damage be? No chance of overturning Citizens United, of course. No chance of any meaningful gun control measures either. Could Roe V Wade be challenged? It will certainly come up. Could marriage equality be challenged? It will also come up.

Then there are the environmental causes - Trump is going to repeal lots of regulations in that realm - just how many remains to be seen. But, the greater danger could be the sins of omission - ignoring climate change altogether.
Gender equality will take a backseat, equal pay will become a quaint concept. It will become ok to question the loyalty of anybody that is "not like us." The rich will get a tax cut and the economic divide will just get larger.

On that last point though, I wonder if Trump's inherent populism will give him some pause? After all he has been a Democrat for most of his life and as has been pointed out throughout this campaign, so many of his policies go against GOP orthodoxy.  So, maybe therein lies a safety valve of sorts - that an obdurate Republican congress will not let him have his way in all matters. And on the flip side, he won't be the pliable puppet that Bush 43 was.

Sometimes one has to vent - it doesn't solve anything, but it at least provides some temporary relief. Here is to hoping that I am wrong about most of what I have written above.

Push comes to shove

I have a new theory - Trump's flaws are so manifestly obvious that they become plausible to ignore.  It's not just that he gets a pass for his shortcomings, but that nobody even debates his faults.  They are so glaringly obvious that his supporters reflexively start every response with, "Yes, but..."

Did he tap into a latent sense of disillusionment? One of the better analysis of the Trump phenomenon (it was in the NYRB, several months ago) that I read suggested that it was, to put it simplistically, the reaction to too much PC behavior and high minded liberal preaching.  The airwaves are filled with reports of terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, but we are told that profiling Muslims is bad and more crucially, we are wrong to think that such profiling may be a good idea.  When CA's prop 8 was struck down, a huge cheer went around the nation, but does everybody have to feel good about it? The message was clear - if you didn't, then you were bigoted.  And on and on.  I am an Obama supporter and have great respect for him, but his scholarly and aloof nature no doubt ticked off more than a few.  A lot of it is clearly (to me) racially tinged, but that is mostly a secondary factor, not the primary one.

And as you are feeling beaten down, feeling unworthy for your thinking (that is mostly just the result of generations of accepted wisdom), along comes a con artist who speaks your thoughts aloud.  He says things that most people in public life wouldn't dare to say and people find it refreshing.  And in some ways, it is.  Every one of us has biases, but taking part in pubic discourse required that you fervently espouse every egalitarian position and suppress any expression of bias whatsoever.  Trump provided a release valve for the pressures that built up over this suppression.

Would this attraction have persisted had there been a candidate other than Hillary on the other side? I very much doubt it.  She (& Bill Clinton) have attracted such vicious hatred that one is almost tempted to excuse every one their transgressions (and they are many) just on the basis of fairness.  Why do so many people hate (yes, hate, not just dislike) Hillary? Lots of theories again, but ultimately, there may be no untangling where the bias ends and genuine character/policy concerns begin.

Enough with the analysis! What is also manifestly clear to me is that Hillary is such a superior option to Trump that there is no debate.  Anybody who needs convincing is somebody who stopped listening a long time ago.  With the statement from the FBI Director, a renewed vigor has gotten into Trump's campaign and the polls are getting uncomfortably tight (for a Hillary supporter.)  After dismissing it for years, months, and weeks, there is now a fairly decent chance for Trump to win the presidency. This is a frightening thought for me - how could a kind, generous, liberal minded nation ever elect this bigot? What part of the appeal (the earlier analysis, notwithstanding) am I not getting?

I always believed that when push came to shove, Americans would shy away from the orange headed egomaniac.  Are sufficient numbers of people actually going step into their voting booths and decide that Trump is the better choice? Months of having a comfortable lead in the polls had perhaps made Hillary and her supporters a bit too relaxed.  Complacency is no longer an option - it's time for all Hillary supporters to step up and make their numbers known. Push has come to shove. 

The 2016 Elections - A Vote Guide - Local San Diego Propositions

This is part 2 of my voter guide for the 2016 elections and focuses on the local San Diego props. As is typical, they go by letters (vs the numbers used at the state level.)

Prop A: Increase sales tax by 0.5% for the next 40 years to pay for transportation related expenses. The local ST at 8% is already high, raising it by another 1/2% under the noble goal of fixing our dilapidated infrastructure is just cynical. Vote NO.

Prop B: Permit the Lilac Hills development in North San Diego. It's kind of curious that one of the supporters is the mayor of Chula Vista! This prop is seeking voter approval to convert agricultural land into a mixed use residential and commercial development. Isn't there enough construction in San Diego already? Vote NO.

Prop C: Pay for a new Chargers stadium, mostly from increased tourist taxes.  This is a tough one for me. I like having an NFL team in town and really believe that pro sports franchises raise the profile of a city. But how much of this is thinking like the sports fan that I am? On the flip side, how much of my opposition comes from the general ineptitude of SD teams in general and the Chargers in particular?  The team is clever - they are throwing in a convention center expansion along with the new stadium.  That will clearly attract bigger and more conventions to the city. There was a lot of opposition to the new Padres stadium (Petco) too, but it is undeniable that East Village has been revitalized by the stadium. But, I really do dislike the Chargers' ownership and the NFL as an organization.  If they both want to keep the Chargers in SD (which I am all for), then let them pay for a new stadium. Vote NO.

Prop D: This is another variation on the theme of raising the TOT (Tourist Occupancy Tax) to pay for the expansion of the convention center, but oddly enough, not for a stadium.  There is a sweetener in the form of requiring the Mission Valley site of Qualcomm stadium (if vacated) to be sold to an educational institution or a park. I don't like it. Vote NO. 

Prop E: Add more detailed rules about the removal of elected officials. This one seems to be largely filling a void that exists in that, currently, an elected official can only be recalled by the public even if, say, they have been convicted of a felony. Seems a largely worthy measure. Vote YES.

Prop F: A deputy city attorney cannot be fired without good cause after serving for at least 1 year (is 2 years currently.) Vote YES.

Prop G: Community review board to review in-custody deaths and police shootings. Seems like a great idea in the current climate. Vote YES.

Prop H: Change city contracting procedures. Apparently the least controversial local ballot measure, according to that fine newspaper - the SD UT. Not interesting enough to parse too carefully and seems useful enough.  Vote YES.

Prop I: Allow the city to continue leasing land inside Balboa Park to the SD High School.  This is prompted by another arcane rule that somehow considers a public high school an improper use of public land. Vote YES.

Prop J: Increase the share to regional parks from the Mission Bay park revenues: This seems rather unfair - why should the Mission Bay park give up its revenues to pay for other parks? Vote NO.

Prop K: Always require Nov run-off election. When multiple candidates face off in an (ostensibly) non-partisan primary (typically in June), the top two vote getters face off in the general election in Nov, unless one of them gets over 50% of the vote in June. This measure would remove that provision and always require the top 2 to face off. I think this is a useful measure since most folks don't pay attention to the elections in June, especially in non-presidential election years. Vote YES.

Prop L: All ballot measures to go on the Nov ballot and not in the June primaries. Same analysis as above. Vote YES.

Prop M: Raise the limit on the number of affordable housing units that the city can develop.  Seems rather benign and perhaps equally ineffectual. But, worthy enough. Vote YES.

Prop N: This is great example of a "freeloader" measure.  This allows the city to levy a tax of 5 to 15% on any marijuana sales, should such sales become legal (via Prop 64.) But hey, if we are going to soak the tobacco users (Prop 56), then why not the pot smokers? Vote YES.

The 2016 Elections - A Voter Guide: The CA Propositions

The Cubs ended their wait for a World Series title, so there is still hope that the nightmare of the 2016 elections may yet come to an end. In the meantime, we still have to wade through a raft of propositions. There are so many that I am going to break my guide into two parts - this one is for the state-wide measures and the second one will be for the San Diego ones.  Here goes.

Prop 51: $9 Billion educational bond: A General Obligation (GO) bond to pay for schools and community colleges. A local bond would be preferable, but our schools need all the help they can get. Vote YES.

Prop 52: Changes to hospital fee program: Hospitals in CA currently pay a "fee" in order to trigger matching Federal funds for MediCal. However, our legislators have diverted a part of this money to the general fund. This ballot measure will put an end to that and also extend the fee program indefinitely.  There is some danger in specifying too precisely how each dollar must be used, but this "diversion" seems a bit more egregious than usual. Vote YES.

Prop 53: Voter approval for issuing revenue bonds greater than $2 Billion: Ca issues two kinds of bonds - General Obligation (GO) bonds and revenue bonds. GO bonds always require voter approval (see prop 51) and are repaid using the general fund, i.e., state taxes.  Revenue bonds are for funding a particular project and are typically repaid by some fee on the project itself (e.g., tolls from a road built using a revenue bond.) This prop was largely pushed and supported by one couple and seems like an unnecessary hassle. Vote NO.

Prop 54: Public display of legislative bills prior to vote: This measure would require that a bill cannot be voted on unless it has been presented to the public for at least 72 hours.  There are other aspects to this prop, but this is the main event. It seems like a good idea (after all, what is the rush to vote on a bill given how long it takes for it to get that far?), but it is curious that the entire funding comes from one source - a billionaire who clearly has some vested interest in getting this passed. The forced "waiting period" is also an opportunity for lobbyists to work on changing lawmakers' minds.  Even so, I think the greater transparency that this allows is sufficiently useful to tip the balance in its favor. Vote YES.

Prop 55: Extension of the Prop 30 income tax increase: Prop 30 had "temporarily" tacked on an extra 1% of income tax for incomes above a certain level (applicable to about 1.5% of Californians.) This prop now proposes to extend that "temporary" measure by 12 years.  While I would typically be all for soaking the wealthy in order to pay for education and healthcare (as this prop promises to do), this smells like a bait-n-switch: Get a tax increase passed on the promise of it being temporary and after people are inured to it, slowly make it permanent. Vote NO.

Prop 56: Raise state excise tax by $2 on a pack of cigarettes: The current tax is $0.87 per pack and this measure would raise that to $2.87, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products. Heavy opposition from cigarette makers. Vote YES.

Prop 57: Parole for non-violent criminals and juvenile: There are too many people in US prisons and the situation in CA is bad enough that in 2011 the Supreme Court ruled that they violated the eighth amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The 3-strikes law and mandatory sentencing rules have led to way too many unnecessary imprisonments. Vote YES.

Prop 58: Allow non-English languages in schools: This essentially repeals prop 227 (from 1998) that required "English immersion" in schools. There is a certain appeal to "language as identity," but there is a larger measure of imperialism in enforcing English as the sole language. Vote YES.

Prop 59: Legislators must oppose Citizens United: Citizens United has (in)famously unleashed large amounts of money into the political process and I would readily support any effort to overturn it. This one though is destined to be largely symbolic in that there is very little the legislators of one state, however motivated, can do to get rid of it. But, we might as well send a message about what Californians think about this bone headed 5-4 Supreme Court decision.  Vote YES.

Prop 60: Require use of condoms in adult films: I can't quite figure out why this is the case, but there is a lot of opposition to this measure, including both the Democratic and Republican parties (the only measure with this distinction.) I am just going to go with the preponderance of opposition to this.  Vote NO.

Prop 61: Price controls on prescription drugs: The actual restrictions are a bit indirect - the requirement is that when the state pays for prescription drugs (via MediCal, etc) it shall pay no more than the price paid by the VA system (whose prices are negotiated by the federal government.) This ballot is creating some history of its own - it is on track to be the most expensive ballot measure ever - in all of the US, with nearly $110 million raised by opponents of the prop. Most of that, not surprisingly, is from various drug makers.  While I am reflexively inclined to support something that the drug companies hate so much, there are actually many subtleties to consider. It is not automatic that this measure will lead to cost savings and could potentially backfire on the VA system (but I doubt it.) However, that $110 M keeps looming large. Vote YES.

Prop 62 (Repeal the death penalty) and Prop 66 (Keep the death penalty): These are dueling, incompatible propositions. If both pass, then the one with the most 'yes' votes prevails. This is an easy one for me - I have long been opposed to capital punishment. I don't think it is effective and smacks too much of revenge, which no civilized society should permit. From a purely practical point of view, it is also terribly expensive to put somebody on death row in the US. Vote YES on 62 and NO on 66.

Prop 63: Prohibit some large capacity ammunition magazines and require background checks for certain firearm purchases: Another easy one for me. Vote YES.

Prop 64: Legalize recreational use of marijuana. This is clearly going to get a lot of attention on election day. I have generally been puzzled that alcohol is legal, but marijuana is not. Smoking and chewing tobacco continue to be legal. After all the "Just Say No" and "War on drugs" campaigns it seems counter-intuitive to contemplate legalizing some drugs. But that's mostly Pavlovian and the evidence (what there is of it) points the other way - whether it is Portugal or Colorado. Vote YES.

Prop 65: Allocation of funds from sale of reusable grocery bags. This is one half of another paired proposition (the other one being 67, in this case.) This one states that the proceeds from the sale of reusable grocery bags (made necessary by the ban on plastic bags) should be earmarked for specific environmental purposes. This is overreach - banning plastic bags is a fine idea, but why should the stores be prevented from keeping the proceeds from any bags they sell in their stead? Consumers are free to bring their own bags, anyway. Vote NO.

Prop 67: Ban single-use plastic bags: There is a bit more to this than just the ban on plastic grocery bags, but that's the essential part. No mystery to my position here. Vote YES.

Elections 2016 - A prediction

It seems like the 2016 US presidential election campaign has been going on forever. To say that it has been high drama and unprecedented is stating the obvious, but how do you not say it? The success of Donald Trump (at least so far) is clearly the one that defies all conventional logic, but that is not always a bad thing. However, when bucking the trend creates the prospect of having a demagogue occupy the White House for at least four years, it is a bad thing.

We are just under five weeks from the election and while Hillary Clinton has once again started to pull away after the first debate, there are likely more ups and downs in store for us before it is all done. Watching Trump in the first debate was like watching a caricature of him. He said things and acted in all the negative ways that his critics have accused him of doing. What I find amazing about his supporters are that most of them acknowledge that the reasons that he is falling behind are his bizarre and inconsistent statements, his pettiness, and not to mention, his general ignorance about most things that a president should be aware of. However, while conceding these points, they simultaneously bemoan the fact that he does not have the discipline to control these impulses.  All the while ignoring the fact that the reason for such terrible behavior is that, he is inconsistent, petty, and ignorant. These are manifestations of real character issues that make him completely unsuitable to lead the country.  The double standard is well at work - any missteps from Hillary (personal email server, really?) are proof positive of her unsuitability, but for Trump, he is either "telling it like it is" or that he is "not a career politician."
At this point in the campaign (& perhaps for some time now), it doesn't matter what either candidate does or says - their respective bases are dug-in and determined.  I don't believe there are any actual "undecided" voters out there - just folks who are so disdainful of both candidates that they cannot actually say who they are going to vote for. Setting aside Trump's hardcore supporters (and I do impute base motives to at least a fair number of them), I cannot believe that any sentient person would actually believe that Trump is qualified to be president. When push comes to shove (as it will when they are standing in the polling booth), they will not vote for Trump. It's not even going to be close - Hillary will win in a landslide. Wishful thinking on my part? Perhaps.  But, doesn't sanity have to prevail at some point? 

The California Propositions

Eleven days from now the suspense will be broken and we will know whether Obama gets a second term or Romney's desperate dive to the center pays off.  The long drawn out Republican primary played out as a farce with one comically unsuitable candidate after another taking the lead over Romney only to be crushed under the weight of their own hopelessness and yielding ground to the next joker. Credible candidates like Huntsman couldn't survive the demands of the Tea Party extremists, but Romney made it through - secure in his puritan personal life (no skeletons there) and ever so willing to take any position that was convenient for the day.

Maybe Romney will govern from the center, but it is a risk that I am not interested in taking. Maybe he will not succeed in repealing the Affordable Care act, but there is one thing he will most certainly get to do: nominate Supreme Court justices, maybe as many as four of them. Citizens United will seem like a very reasonable verdict after that.

Ok, enough with the hand wringing, let me get on with the res. Here are my recommendations for the CA state ballot measures and elections.  I'll start with the props (related ones together):

Prop 30 & 38: Both of these propositions aim to raise taxes in order to fund education. Prop 30 raises taxes on incomes above 250,000 for 7 years and sales tax by 1/4 % for 4 years. Prop 38 raises income taxes on a sliding scale. Gov Brown made a sneaky move - he cut funding to education (part of closing a huge budget deficit) and pushed Prop 30 as a way to close that funding hole. How do you vote against that? Prop 30 may leave a funny taste in the mouth, but 38 seems rather suspicious. For one, it does not have any phase out of the tax increases. And then it proposes to give all the money to just K-12 schooling. It also seems like an underhand way of defeating 30 by confusing voters. I recommend YES on 30 and NO on 38.

Prop 34 & 36: Prop 36 tries to bring some sanity to the three-strikes law by requiring that the third strike has to be a serious felony conviction or a violent crime. There are too many people incarcerated for life for essentially a minor (third) crime. I believe this should come to an end.
Prop 34 does away with capital punishment and I think it is about time. If the moral argument does not sway you, then just consider the fiscal one: With all the built-in safeguards that include automatic appeals all the way to the state supreme court (& sometimes to the US Supreme Court), prisoners sentenced to die stay on death row for well over 20 years.  The cost to the government is very significant since they are required to be housed in individual cells and given special attention. Not to mention all the legal costs. Life imprisonment without the chance of parole (which is what Prop 36 prescribes) is lot cheaper. Since CA enacted the death penalty in 1974, 900 people have been sentenced to die. Of them, only 14 have actually been executed. I recommend YES on 34 and 36.

Prop 31& 32: These not really related, but sort have the same flavor.  Prop 31 is melange of a proposition. It moves some money from the state to the local governments, it puts some restrictions on state legislatures and so on. The big one is that it makes the state budget a 2-year one instead of an annual process. This is supposed to make our legislators plan ahead. It may be well intentioned, but seems too much like a band-aid solution.
Prop 32 has to do with preventing unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. It attempts to be fair by putting in some similar restrictions on contractors and corporations, but since when did unions and corporations operate on the same level playing field? I am not buying either of these props - I recommend NO on 31 and 32.

Prop 33: This will allow car insurance companies to give you a discount for continuous coverage even if it was with a different carrier. This prop sounds good on paper - it should increase competition and if you are somebody who has always maintained your car insurance then you might be able to shop around for a lower rate. But the people who lose out are the ones who had let their policy lapse - there are some exceptions for military service and losing your job. What gives me real pause is that it is funded almost completely by one insurance company owner and this is the second time he is trying it. The previous attempt was Prop 17 in 2010 and that failed. I recommend NO on 33.

Prop 34: Increases penalties for human trafficking. This prop essentially throws the book at anybody convicted of human trafficking (think pimps). What's to argue with such a law? The problem is that simply raising the criminal penalty is a rather simplistic response to a complex issue. Often it is the well intentioned effort that has really bad consequences. I am truly ambivalent on this prop. I will likely be voting yes, but I am not going to make an actual recommendation.

Prop 37: Require labeling of Genetically Engineered (GE) food. This is another potentially confusing issue. Would such labeling just end up scaring people unnecessarily? Could it end up hurting the average consumer by raising food costs? I am not sure, but messing with nature is often fraught with danger. It also seems rather lopsided that the No on 37 side has raised over 35 million dollars, mostly from the likes of Monsanto and Dow. I say give me the label. I recommend YES on 37.

Prop 39: Out-of-state corporations to pay CA tax on in-state sales. Yes, it will make some companies pay more taxes to CA. A Billion dollars more. But, it is for sales they have had in CA. A loop hole lets them get away with this now. Time to close it, I say. I recommend YES on 39.

Prop 40: This one has to do with redistricting, but there are lots of twists and turns in its story. Without going into too much detail, this prop will essentially retain the results of the work of a civilian commission. The new maps had been opposed by the state Republican party, but they have since abandoned this position. I recommend a YES on 40.

And now for some state-wide offices:

• Dianne Feinstein for US Senate
• Scott Peters for the House seat (52nd distict)

Finally, for San Diego mayor, I recommend Carl Demaio over Bob Filner. This race is ostensibly non-partisan, but even so I struggled with picking Republican Demaio over Democrat Filner. Both of these guys have some rough spots, but Filner does seem more of an old-style politician with a huge sense of entitlement. He did get Gov Brown's endorsement, but I found it telling that during the primary, Brown had sided with the other Democrat (Nathan Fletcher) in the race.  It is not surprising that the outgoing mayor, Jerry Sanders, endorsed Demaio - both are Republicans after all, but it still counts since I think Sanders had done a decent job overall. Finally, the support of (Democrat) Irwin Jacobs for Carl Demaio carries a lot of weight with me. So, there you go - Carl Demaio for mayor and I cannot be accused being strictly party-line!

June 2012 Elections

Maybe everybody has made up their minds or maybe most folks are like me and the elections tomorrow remained in their peripheral vision. Thankfully, there aren't too many choices to make. So here goes:

1. San Diego Mayor: This will in all likelihood come down to a run-off later in the year - none of the candidates is going to win an outright majority tomorrow. Will it be Carl Demaio vs Bob Filner? Or maybe Bob Filner vs Nathan Fletcher? Demaio has been making the most amount of noise, but he is a bit too cozy with the Republican establishment for my taste. Not to mention his ties to the construction lobby. Bob Filner represents the Democratic establishment - having served in the US Congress for many years, it is curious (to me) that he wants to become a City mayor now. Nathan Fletcher made a tactical move by leaving the Republican party to contest as an independent in the ostensibly non-partisan mayoral race. Then there is Bonnie Dumanis - the current DA. Nobody gives her a chance, but that is who I recommend for Mayor. She seems to have done OK as a DA and has the current Mayor, Jerry Sanders' endorsement. The city has done relatively better under Mr. Sanders and Bonnie is likely to continue his policies. Vote for Bonnie Dumanis.
2. State Proposition 28 (Term Limits): This is a curiously worded prop - it would reduce the total term in office (senate or house) to 12 years (from the current 14), but a legislator could spend all of that time in one place. It is a bit flawed, but I will take the 2 year term reduction. I wish it were retroactive and applied to the current legislators, but it doesn't. Pity. Vote YES.
3. State Proposition 29: This prop raises cigarette taxes by a dollar and gives that money to a number of different causes, mostly involving cancer research. The opposition is largely centered around "This is another tax increase," conveniently ignoring the fact that you can choose not to purchase cigarettes or other tobacco products if you want to avoid this tax and "There is no requirement to spend the money in California." Why should there be? If the best cancer research is elsewhere, that is where the money should go. Vote YES.
4. San Diego City Prop A: Prohibits the city from requiring "Project Labor Agreements (PLAs)" for city contracts. This is an euphemism for saying that city projects can be given to non-union labor. There is much to be said in favor of this prop, but the situation has changed since the signatures were gathered to put this on the ballot. The city would likely lose a bunch of state money if it tried to enforce this contract. Plus I am rather tired of the government-employee bashing that goes on du jour. Vote NO. 
5. San Diego City Prop B: Replaces pensions with 401K style retirement plan for city employees. There is some fine print that makes this less desirable than it sounds, but overall, I like this idea. Plus if 401K is good for me, why is not good enough for city employees? Not to mention that I already took their side in Prop A. Vote NO.  

And then there is the putative reason for this election at all: the Presidential Primary! And since Obama is running unopposed on the Democartic side, your only choices are on the Republican side (I am ignoring the long list of no-name parties, although given that any vote here is going to be futile, you may as well throw the Green Party dude a bone if you wish).  Despite all appearances to the contrary, Mr. Gingrich is on the ballot and I recommend you cast a vote for him. He won't win, but it will be a symbolic poke in Romney's eye.

Elections Nov 2010 - San Diego Props, Governor & US Senate

In my previous blog I made my recommendations for the state-wide propositions. Here I address the local San Diego Props and also the race for Governor and the US Senate seat.

Local Props:

Prop A, Allow open bidding for local construction projects: This is a hard one to take a stand on. The contention is that by opening up government infrastructure projects to all contractors, the cost will come down. The opposition contends that part of the cost reduction comes from the lifting of several requirements such as health care, job training, etc. I can't really decide who the good guys are, but I am going with the benefits of increased competition. Vote YES.

Prop B, Add a good cause requirement for firing Deputy DAs: Hard to argue with this one, except that it may saddle a newly elected DA with some stubborn relic from the past administration. Still, I recommend a YES vote.

Prop C, Remove the I-56/I-5 interchange requirement for Pacific Highlands Ranch: On the surface, this seems to a largely local measure - 12 years ago, Prop M authorized this development under the condition that its completion be coincident with that of the I-56/I-5 interchange (56W to 5N & 5S to 56E), which is currently not scheduled for at least 2020. This stalls a number of neighborhood improvements in this development. Sounds unfair, especially since the developer is going to cover all the costs, but me thinks that they knew this when they put Prop M on the ballot. Also, why take away any pressure to complete said interchange? I hate the current arrangement! So, I am going selfish on this one: Vote NO.

Prop D, Temporary (5 year) half cent increase in sales tax: All the bugaboos are being trotted out for this one: fire protection will disappear, there will no more police, etc, etc. But, it also has the support of the Chamber of Commerce! Its hard to argue that the city is losing money from the State, but could the city's finances be better managed? The tax increase is contingent on a long string of financial reforms and some of them sound pretty good. Maybe I am being suckered in, but I am recommending a YES vote.

OK, now for the anticlimax - my recommendations for Ca Governor and US Senate seat. For anyone who knows my politics, it will come as no surprise that I am recommending Jerry Brown over Meg Whittman and Barbara Boxer over Carly Fiorina. I'd like to think that my reasoning is not entirely partisan: In the case of Meg Whittman, it came down to my opinion that she is not going to be effective in Sacramento. The Ca Governor is subject to endless restrictions and navigating the minefield of a Democratic controlled legislature is likely to prove too much for a political ingenue. If not anything else, Brown knows Sacramento and can hardly be worse than the "Governator" has been. I am also tired of all these business types who want to run government like "a business." The government is not a business.
As for Fiorina, I have never been impressed by her abilities as an executive - she took over a revered and storied technology giant - HP - and almost ran it to the ground. She spent a ton of money on showy employee get togethers and alienated the engineering rank and file. Her personal rise may be inspiring, but I don't find any reason to assume that she would be any more effective in Washington than she was at HP.

As for the Tea Party and the national scene - well, that will need another post.

Elections Nov 2010 - The California Propositions

Interest in the upcoming midterm elections is high - at the national level, this is the first real test of the strength of the Tea Party movement, not to mention the depth of opposition to Obama and the Democratic Party. The situation looks dire for the ruling party and much doom and gloom is predicted. I'll reserve my thoughts on that topic for later and focus on the California state propositions in this one. I'll follow up with posts on the local props and of course the two interesting state-wide races: the ones for Governor and US Senator.

I am going to limit myself to a few comments, but almost every one of these are really worthy of a more detailed examination. Here are the props on the ballot this time around:

Prop 19 (Legalizing Marijuana): This is quite easily the most well known ballot measure this time around. If passed, it would legalize the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana for personal use. In 1972 a similar measure was defeated almost 2 to 1, but this time around polls suggest that it is likely to pass. The arguments in favor are predictable - savings from not having to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate large numbers of casual users, potential tax revenues from being able to impose taxes on marijuana sales, and even the possibility of putting a dent on the Mexican drug cartels. The opposition is somewhat surprising - most of them relate to potential loss of federal revenue because even if Prop 19 passes, marijuana will continue to be illegal under federal law. I find this rather weak and in any case, the experience with medical marijuana and indeed Portugal's experiment with legalizing drugs suggest that nothing disastrous would happen if Prop 19 passes and it is quite likely that some of the benefits will come to pass. I recommend a YES vote.

Prop 20 (Redistricting by a committee and not by the legislature): This is almost a no-brainer for me. Rampant gerrymandering has rendered most districts noncompetitive and this prop should go some way to fixing this problem. Vote YES.

Prop 21 ($18 vehicle tax to fund state parks): On the surface this sounds like a noble measure - at least for those who care about the vast network of Ca's state parks. But dig a bit deeper and it seems to be a cynical attempt to collect more revenue while playing upon the desire of Californians to keep their parks open. Vote NO.

Prop 22 (Limit the State's ability to dip into some local funds): Another seemingly well-meaning measure, but ultimately, misdirected. We want legislators to balance the budget, but we continue to tie their hands with such so called "ballot box budgeting." Vote NO.

Prop 23 (Suspend clean energy laws while unemployment is high): All you need to do is look at who is funding the "Yes" campaign - two big out of state oil companies. Vote NO.

Prop 24 (Eliminate 3 specific business tax breaks): This one seems rather arcane at first, but the potential amounts we are talking is high (a few billion). Then you realize that these were breaks that were promised to the businesses in exchange for some allowance they made and now some folks want to renege on that promise. The 'No' campaign is well funded by a host of well known Ca businesses including Qualcomm. I am going with big business on this one - a promise is a promise. Vote NO.

Prop 25 (Budget can be passed with a simple majority instead of 2/3rds majority): The 2010 budget was delayed by over 100 days. Enough said. Vote YES.

Prop 26 (Voter permission for new fees): Who is funding this measure? Almost exclusively alcohol and big tobacco! Also, another twist on the ballot box budgeting approach. Vote NO.

Prop 27 (Repeal Prop 11): Prop 11 established the committee that is the subject of Prop 20. This prop goes with Prop 20 in that only one of them can take effect. If both happen to pass, then the one with the higher majority will win. Easy choice, given my vote on Prop 20. Vote NO.

Nobel Peace Prize to Obama

The blogosphere must be going crazy today, especially the right wing ones. When Al Gore won the prize, Fox News suggested that he should have rejected it because the prize was tainted by the previous award to Yaser Arafat. Wonder what they are saying about Obama's win - I am sure Jon Stewart will have an outtake.

I thought I would weigh in before I read any of them blogs (not that I follow any) or hear from the TV pundits. I was shocked to hear about the prize being given to Obama this morning as I am sure the vast majority of people were. It still doesn't make sense to me. Does it dilute the prize or does it put enormous pressure on Obama? After all the Nobels have historically been given to recognize actions that have been deemed a success. Obama's election victory is certainly of historical significance to the US, perhaps even to the world given the prominence that the US holds in the world. However, is historical significance sufficient?

Then you flip the coin over and consider what message the Nobel committee may be trying to send. Perhaps they believe that the change of tone in the manner the US engages with the rest of the world is a sufficient achievement. In a round-about manner, perhaps they are trying to take the pressure off of Obama - "You are already a success, you can relax a bit now." Or maybe it tells us something about how Obama is viewed in the rest of the world - as a world leader who has fundamentally changed the way the global dialogue is held. His Cairo speech, the recent address to the UN, the attempts to engage with Iran, the backing off from the missile shield for Eastern Europe, are all signs of a more open, flexible approach to the world. After all the arguments have been aired and all the words are thrown back and forth, this will remain a choice that can only be vindicated by the passage of time.

The person I feel for most is Bill Clinton. He has been on the short list for a while and with his recent headlining activities, I would have thought that he would have been a good choice. One more Clinton aspiration dashed (hopefully only delayed) by Obama!

A Few Obama Musings

Obama continues to be in the limelight - at this point in their presidency the shine had faded from both Clinton and Bush Jr, especially so with W, given his dubious assumption of the presidency. A few thoughts on some recent events:

Date Night seems almost a case of hubris. Surely there was a lower key way of taking his wife on a date to NYC? How about doing it when you are already in NY for some official event? He must be going there often enough what with the UN headquarters being there.

A little reported study is about the media's fascination with Obama. Sure, we have the rabid right wing that is willing to throw the man under a bus for anything that he says or does, but that limits their credibility severely. Sure, we should expect the media (& us the public) to view Obama differently given the historical context (both in his personal self as well as the state of the economy and world politics). But I tend to agree with the results of the above study that the main stream media is not being sufficiently objective.

The most recent splash is of course the speech at Cairo University. Given the occasion, the setting, and the person delivering it, it was bound to succeed on a oratorical level and it did. However, I wonder what difference it is likely to make? Yes, the elevation of the Palestinian cause to the same level as the Israeli one was noteworthy, but the call for a "new beginning" had me mostly yawning. There is a lot of symbolism in calling for democracy when you are being hosted by Hosni Mubarak, who heads one of the many 'quasi' democratic regimes in the region, but substantively what impact will such a call have? Of course, the big difference is in the person making the call - Obama with his muslim and African heritage has so much good will around the world that local politicians are forced to at least take him seriously. His repudiation of Bush-era rhetoric and policies cannot hurt either. I can only hope that this capital that Obama has today will be expended in a productive way.

The Inauguration of Obama

The obligatory post-inauguration twitters swung rapidly in an unexpected direction - a vigorous give and take about the cost of the event and whether it should have been toned down in the prevailing economic conditions. Latha and Murali came down strongly on the side of exercising restraint while Vanitha and Sangeetha joined me in mostly believing that the costs for today's events were justified. Interestingly, our reasons were different - To Vanitha (& me), the historical significance trumped the cost issue, while for Sangeetha the festivities were a way to bring everybody under one tent - essential for the long struggles ahead. I wanted to mention this Twitter exchange because it was interesting, but this post is not about that.

Instead I want to reflect a little bit about the import of the main event, partly to bookend my previous post. Acknowledging the historical significance of Obama's election has become so reflexive that most of us scarcely give it another thought. As I saw the events this morning, unfolding in an ordered and civil manner, I felt almost like I had an epiphany - how remarkable is this peaceful transfer of power? Scenes from 'The Story of India' were fresh in my mind - the bloody history of India being no different than that of any other nation - and I felt a rush of pride that India is among those countries were such a transfer of power happens on a regular basis. This is especially significant since India is a poor country and higher order concepts such as democracy are usually the privilege of the well-fed.

I found my attention wandering at times during Obama's inaugural address. It was infused with an unusual amount of current-world talk and eschewed some of the soaring rhetoric that I was expecting. This may be the genius of Obama at work - his ability to capture the pulse of the nation, the mood of the moment. We need to feel hopeful, but be fully aware that we are in desperate times. When he talked about how his father would not have been served in a restaurant 60 years ago and here he was taking the oath of the Presidency, some of the real significance sank in. This was not some ordinary glass ceiling being shattered - this was the son of a immigrant who would have been a slave just a few generations earlier, the product of an inter-racial marriage, born during a time when inter-racial marriages were illegal in 13 states, a person without privileged upbringing or political connections - taking over the reigns of a most powerful nation. Could this happen anywhere else? Think of the xenophobia that erupted when Sonia Gandhi seemed the front runner for PM.

Another only-in-America moment was the performance by Izhtak Perlman, Yo Yo Ma, Gabriela Montero (a Venezuelan citizen), and Anthony McGill. Very PC in its composition, but escaped being a cliche due to the quality of the performers.

Now that the pomp and pageantry is over the hard scrabble of everyday life can begin, but this day will remain special for a long time.

November 4, 2008, San Diego, CA

I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and when it became obvious that she was not going to win, I rationalized that while either of those candidates would make for a historic result, an Obama candidature and victory would be more historic since there had never been a leader of color in any Western democracy, while there had been several women, most recently in Germany. At that point, I had taken it for granted that the Democratic candidate would win easily in this election, although it all had a certain fairy tale quality to it.

Of course the campaign season did not quite go the way I expected - the Republicans were not going to go away without a fight. In retrospect, maybe it looked closer than it ever was only to the beholder who was nervous about the prospect of another Republican administration - not so much for what it would bring, but for the verdict it would have passed on the Bush/Cheney presidency. A McCain victory to a large degree would have sent the message that the actions of the current administration were not all the very bad. Bush Jr would have been resurrected to some degree and I would have found it very difficult to accept that.

America is a unique country - it is in many ways a 'manufactured' country (Australia is another example), but that is not what makes it great. It is the fact that America is a country of ideas. This is no great insight, of course, but this has always been the appeal for me. Vaneee may be a recent convert to politics, but I have been a political junkie most of my life. It is hard to get enthusiastic about politics in India - so much of the power seems to be vested in the brawn and not in the brain. However, coming to the US in 1991, and following politics here, I was struck by the idealism and genuine desire to play by the rules. So, it was with deep anguish that I watched the Bush/Cheney team dismantle and tarnish that ideal. The right wing media cheering squad drowned out any protest and the low point came when any questioning of the government was automatically deemed unpatriotic. How much longer would it be, I wondered, before there was an actual suspension of civil rights? Maybe Bush/Cheney would even claim that they needed a third term to avoid a change in the middle of the "war on terror." After all, that hero of 9/11, Mr. Guiliani, tried to extend his term as mayor of NY on a similar pretext.

The loss of Gore was harder to take than that of Kerry. It was famously said during that campaign that the election was really inconsequential and it wouldn't matter which candidate won (remember "compassionate conservatism?"). Who believes that today? But as Sid has pointed out, perhaps the silver lining was just too far in the future - would Barack Obama be President-elect today if Bush had not won 8 years ago? The price for this piece of history has been very high though: the blunders in Iraq, the needless loss of life, both Iraqi and American, the loss of credibility and respect around the world, the limits on civil liberties. Will the Obama presidency be so significant that it justifies this cost to some degree? I am not going to guess, but a McCain victory would have destroyed even the hope that something positive could come out of the mess of the last 8 years.

What did really win Obama this presidency? His composure in the eye of a storm? His organizational skills? Disgust with the current administration? The selection of Palin? McCain's erratic behavior? I believe all of those played a part, but the ultimate clincher was something more elemental, something that showed up all the culture wars and race issues for exactly what they were - non-issues. This is not a big unknown - it was the deep economic crisis that was put into a tailspin by the banking mess. It has often been observed that ideals are the privilege of the well-fed. When you are hungry, nothing else matters other than getting the next meal. Morals, ethics, and almost any other principle of modern western civilization gets tossed out the window when it comes to satisfying basic needs. How many Indians do you think will jump at the chance of swapping Indian economic conditions with that of China even if it means getting their political conditions? So, when the economic crisis hit, the issue of Obama's race ceased to be a real factor. People instinctively grasped that it was inconsequential. That is what broke the election in his favor.

Sanjay & Geetha organized an election viewing party, unprodded. Sanjay has a thing or two to learn about full disclosure and I know of a certain house in Miro Ct that will be tuned to CNN for at least 48 hours straight to overcome the withdrawal symptoms. I guess it contributed to the air of wonder and bewilderment of the evening. Could this be happening? Grown men and women were struggling to come to terms with the cold, cruel, reality - no cable! We had the choice of the three networks (accessed through a complex sequence of remote key presses) and an extremely dull effort from PBS. Even the CSPAN programming looked positively exciting, in comparison. There are still some folks who are still waiting for somebody to change the channel to MSNBC or FoxNews. What would be next? Huddle around a vacuum tube radio, smacking it occasionally to improve the reception?

I joke of course. It wasn't that bad - true, some of us may have to have therapy to fully recover, but we did manage to follow the results (except RDX, who kept getting extremely confused by the differences in the projections between the 3 networks) and a good time was had by all. The hosts retained their grace despite constant needling by yours truly and they deserve our thanks. I had to agree with Sanjay's comment -"See what fun you can have with five channels?" at nights end. In the end, the only thing that mattered was that Obama won. It was a special moment when the whole room broke into a cheer when the sign "President-elect Obama" went up on the TV screen. I had to pause for a moment to savor it - here were a group of Indians who are by nature cynical and highly unlikely to admit to any sentimentality, actually cheering an election result in their adopted country. Obama's speech was magnificent as usual. I still remember Mario Cuomo's speech in 1992, nominating Bill Clinton. Clinton himself is no slouch, but an Obama speech is something special. The control and poise that he was able to command at such a powerful moment made his already well crafted text all the more striking.

Will this be a transformational presidency? Maybe it almost does not matter - the transformation has already happened.