Think back nearly three weeks to the
passage of Prop 30 and the Democrats’ supermajority victories in both Assembly
and Senate in California. Brown was
hailed as a political genius, and Prop 30 was heralded as a comeback, a sign of
the return of sane government, and a victory for education in the state.
But was the passage of Prop 30 a triumph
of progressivism in California? Was it
something to be proud of? Hardly. It does not mark a renewed investment in California’s
education sector, and the margin of its passage was as narrow as its actual
achievements are limited. All that
Californians did was look into the toilet where they’d been dumping their
schools and universities for over a decade, ruminate on the sight for a few
minutes, and decide to put off pushing the ‘flush’ button.
Brown spent the election season going
around the state chastising commentators for “talking down” California, a
strategy which smacks of desperation and disingenuity in equal measure. The Governor’s hypocrisy has been thrown into
sharp relief now that the onus is on him to articulate an affirmative vision of
what some see as a newly-empowered governing structure should be setting out to
accomplish.
Amongst those anxious to encourage a
re-investment in our public sphere were the leaders of the University of
California and California State University systems, who
requested increases in state funding.
Brown’s answer was typical.
He evaded the question of the responsibility of state government to its
institutions of higher learning (at the same time warning them not to pursue
fee increases—a case of wanting to have your political cake and eat it, too)
while praising incoming CSU Chancellor Timothy White for taking a small salary
cut. While White’s move suggests that he
is more in touch with the mood on campuses and across the state than some of
his underlings, his move is nothing more than symbolic. It is, however, the kind of move that Brown—the
pioneer of gesture politics—can appreciate.
Brown’s admonitory language towards our
public universities was telling. Their appraisal
of distance learning and new technologies, he warned them according to the LA Times, must be conducted “not in the
gilded tones of academia but in the harsh reality of the marketplace and
technologies”.
This is vintage Brown. A nice, meaningless turn of phrase, sure to
go down well with the voters, given that it encourages the growing mistrust of
higher education and of public institutions and draws a false distinction
between academia and reality. Then there
is his characteristic emphasis on the need for “harsh” measures. His is not the California of yester-year, a
place where people dream about alternative futures or harbour ambitions to
create a more perfect society. Instead
the emphasis is on making do with the paltry state of affairs in which we life
and subjecting our public institutions to a paring down which we will feel in
the health of our economy, in the strength of our society, and in the greatly
diminished character of our culture in years to come.
Some tea-leaf readers have seen salvation
from Brown’s grim vision in two developments: the uptick in talk about rational
political reform, and the Democrats’ supermajorities.
While the pseudo-reform represented by
Prop 31 deservedly failed in November, the general move towards the
rationalisation of our political structure seems to be gaining steam. The idea of at least some half-hearted stabs
at reform has the backing of LA Times
columnist George Skelton, Mr
Conventional Wisdom himself. Senate
Leader Darrell Steinberg has made reform the rhetorical centrepiece of his
plans for the next legislative session, perhaps in an effort to head off
the suggestion that Democrats might actually try to do something with the power
vested in them by voters.
But comprehensive reform would not be
easy, and as Prop 30’s narrow passage suggests, Californians aren’t that into
facing up to reality, making serious choices, or committing to the public
good. I heard a talk a few weeks ago
from Mark Paul (co-author with Joe Mathews of the wonderful book California Crackup) in which he
suggested that one alternative to the kind of ideas-driven reform outlined in
his book (the institution of more representative voting systems, a systematic
overhaul of the initiative system, and reconfiguring direct democracy, would be
something as simple as Californians voting on whether or not to replace our
overburdened constitution with that of Iowa.
Bizarrely, I reckon this latter
occurrence would be far more probable than any more inventive or creative
scenario. Indeed, it’s probably eminently
possible because I think that Californians—at least on the basis of our
behaviour at the ballot box—have ceased to think of ourselves as a people
trying to live in an exceptional world.
Our exceptionalism was undoubtedly always more apparent than real, but
the power of that once firmly-held belief and its subsequent abandonment
shouldn’t be underestimated. These days,
after all, we seem to be keen to show just how small-minded, presentist,
self-interested, and un-ambitious we can be.
If comprehensive reform remains elusive
in an unmotivated social context, the Democrats’ supermajorities are unlikely
to prove panaceas. Assembly Speaker
Perez, like his counterpart in the Senate,
was quick to announce that there would be no short-term pursuit of tax cuts
(and therefore no investment in our beleaguered institutions). Perez went a step further and validated Brown’s
hypocritical “no taxes without a vote of the people” pledge, a pandering
promise which put him in the same boat as the Norquist-oathed GOP. “The Governor’s been very clear”, the Speaker
said, “that the only way to do taxes as long as he’s governor is through a
direct vote of the people. We’re not
looking to figure out new ways to do things that we’ve said we’re not going to
do”.
Steinberg’s reforms, while a good start,
seem to echo the consensus converging on the Governor’s dirty, irresponsible
politics. Prop 30’s “success” seems to
be establishing this unbelievably convoluted method of governing 40 million
people as the “new normal” based on the conceit that asking voters to approve
each and every dollar is somehow more democratic, and that the electoral
security granted legislators who pass the buck is worth the suffering that the
uncertainty this system breeds foists onto those least able to support
themselves in our state.
Our newly-empowered state leaders seem
content to continue living in the post-Prop 13 world. The signals they are currently sending demonstrate
that they are content to muddle along in our diminished state, taking a
morally-stunted approach to the public good, one based more on short-term
self-preservation than on long-term public interest. The world that the half-heartedness of these
supposed progressives is creating is one which is increasingly harsh, ever bleaker
for those who remember better days, and largely deaf to idealism. It is a world whose leaders actively seek to
repudiate the idea that collective action—even when that action “costs” some of
us something material in the short-term—can create institutions, places, ideas,
and frameworks which make for a more happy, just, and equal world.
Ageing politicians are wont to speculate
about their legacies. Perhaps the legacy
of Jerry Brown’s final political act will be the ushering in of this brave new
world.