The Voters Set the Democrats Free; Will They Act Like It?
Hooray! The outrageous propositions 1 A-E have been crushed by voters who just can't take any more.
California voters have rejected the nonfunctional minority-rule government that has bankrupted the state, along with the governor who led the state into bankruptcy.
The voters want a functional democracy, and that means majority rule. No more blackmail by a 1/3 plus 1 Republican minority.
In short, the voters have given the Democrats a new freedom -- if they will only take it.
The Democratic leadership should listen to its grassroots. They should immediately stop negotiating with the governor and other Republicans on how to destroy even more of what makes our state human. The Democrats, as a whole body, not just the leadership, should assert their majority, decide for themselves how they want to deal with the shortfall, and then invite the defeated Republicans publicly to join them and take their proposals to the public, first organizing serious grassroots support.
What is the point of doing this if the Democrats still don't have the 2/3 votes to pass a budget bill? The point is drama! Most Californians are not aware of the minority rule situation. This could dramatize it and place the blame where it belongs. Drama matters. There might still be a later compromise. But the drama would set the stage for a 2010 ballot initiative.
The Democratic leadership should immediately take the initiative on a 2010 ballot measure, a supremely simple one-sentence measure. It would go something like this:
All budgetary and revenue issues shall be decided by a majority vote in both houses of the legislature.
One sentence. Simple. Straightforward. Understandable. And democratic. It should be called the California Democracy Act. From grade school on, we associate democracy with majority rule. It will make sense to voters -- at last!
The term "revenue" would cover taxes without waving a red flag.
Up to now, Democrats have been acting like sheep being herded by the Republican minority. They need to show courage and stand up for what they believe. That's what the voters are waiting for.
On the 2010 ballot initiative:
Get rid of the 55% proposals. People understand that majority rule means democracy. 55% means nothing.
Even if you don't address taxes and just address the budget process, the Republicans will still say you're going to raise taxes. You may as well go for real democracy.
And finally, get a unified message that can be supported by the grassroots. Do grassroots organizing for 2010, starting now. Organize spokespeople to get that message out. Organize bookers to book your spokespeople in the media. You Democrats are a majority. Act like it. The public will respect you for it.
For example, if the Republicans claim that this vote showed a tax rebellion, point out that only Prop 1a was about taxes. The other propositions failed. And the voters rejected a spending cap. What are you waiting for, you Democrats. You have been set free.
If it is claimed that the vote was meaningless because so few people went to the polls, reply that the refusal to vote on these propositions was itself a vote against having such an election and such a lame way of running the state.
The voters have spoken. You Democratic office-holders have chance to come out on the side of the voters. Take it!
George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind, just out in paperback. He is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Couldn't these two things, the budget and taxes be separated?
What about having a supermajority to raise taxes but a simple majority just to pass the budget.
Right now the Republicans are using the 2/3 budget vote to get items they did not earn at the ballot box.
The overall budget should be determined by a simple majority, and the tax threshold should be reduced from two-thirds to three-fifth, just like the current filibuster.
See William Bradley's Profile
That doesn't get you anywhere.
This column is intriguing, to be polite, but not very grounded.
The democratic party IS the problem in California, they will NEVER accept a balanced budget!
Hopefully they will listen to you... and while we're at it let's get rid of the non-democratic elections in which the top GOP and top DEM are placed in runoffs against each other, even when the Republican candidate is (usually) 4th or 5th down the voting list and garners a mere 15-20% of the vote! If the two Democrats have 35% of the vote, it is they who should be in a runoff together..
I suppose the supposition that Americans want to pay more taxes is WRONG!!!
What I find truly absurd about California is that a simple majority can pass any budget initiative but our legislators need a supermajority. The initiatives are generally single issues that do not take the rest of the budget, or the entirety of the budget into account.
We pay our state legislators and provide funds for staff precisely so that they can look at the budget as a whole - revenues and expenditures. They should be looking after the best interests of the state and it's citizenry - if they don't, we can vote them out.
The CA budget process gets worse every year because every year they have to make concessions for the few Republicans that block action. It's the equivalent of playing the float (lost now) whereby one writes checks on the premise that one's next pay check will be deposited before the checks clear. I speak from personal experience! One quickly reaches the point where one has spent one's entire pay check before getting it yet still has bills that are budgeted to be paid from the spent pay check.
Progressiv
The reason we voted the rule in is because WE DON'T TRUST our elected officials to balance the budget with the money they have. It is more then obvious that WE DON'T WANT OUR TAXES RAISED. They are high enough!!!!
Actually I voted these measure down, but have no problem with an increased sales tax, and an increased vehicle registration tax. The fact is, the minority party shouldn't hold such sway when enacting budgets. In fact, if they got rid of the silly runoff rule there wouldn't even be enough GOP members to obstruct government.
What?! Spending and Taxes got killed in the voting? Do I live in a different world.
This guy is delusional. The 2/3 requirements was enacted in 1978 (Prop 13) by 66% of the population. Prop 56 in 2004 that would have lowered it to 55% was defeated by 66%. 1A had funding of 19 million pro and 2 million against. 1A lost in every single county in the state including San Francisco and Alameda County. Statewide it lost by 66%.
Hear this. The SUPER-Majority has said NO! If nothing else, considering the anti 1A group was out spent by a factor of 10. I ask you… Who are the grassroots people.. It’s not the Teachers union who alone spent 4 times the amount the entire No campaign.
I dare you to put simple majority on the 2010 ballot.. IT WILL BE DEFEATED BY 66% OR MORE!
Also, you state this was a defeat of a spending cap. There was no spending cap in that bill. The real spending cap was telling Sacramento they have to balance the budget with what they have. PERIOD!
Where do I sign up? Seriously, this could be a great thing if only the Democratic Leadership in this state would step up to the plate.
"reply that the refusal to vote on these propositions was itself a vote against having such an election and such a lame way of running the state."
My vote exactly. That's why I didn't vote. My non-vote was my vote. These ballot initiatives are a waste of time and money. They cause more harm than good. I usually vote NO on every one but that participation in the system keeps it alive. I'm done with it. Its too corrupt and it allows money-backed minority positions to rule over the whole population. Only minorities with money can succeed. Real minorities--people with no money or power still have no voice.
As to CA propositions: "Whatever it is, I'm against it!"
It does not get any better than Grocho, does it?
Thank you, Prof. Lakoff, for speaking my mind.
I hope that President Obama reads your blog and "takes it to the grassroots
Now is the time for him to make the most of his populatiry, his intelligence and his wit and stick it to those who oppose, for the sake of opposition, his perfectly sound plans to resurrect the economy.
maybe Harpo is better. honk honk
Agree with your proposal, George. Perhaps now that the state is in such dire circumstances, the majority of the legislature will do what is necessary: LEAD!!!
The big problem with your line, Professor, is that the Field Poll shows overwhelming opposition by California voters to changing the 2/3 rule.
This is a pipe dream.
You're also conveniently forgetting that the public employee unions which advertised against these props used a right-wing frame to do so, claiming that the problem with the state spending limit is that it wouldn't have been strong enough!
Progressives, Liberals, and Conservatives were against this ad-hoc, mix and match proposal..
This is the MOST sensible suggestion EVER. CA cannot improve, modernize, or democratize anything with this disgusting tyranny of the minority. Voters do NOT realize that they engage routinely in illegal deals to get their precious votes - demanding concessions on NON budgetary items to get their vote. So we traded away employee lunch hours, environmental regulations, and gave away billions to special interests with tax cuts (that we cannot ever restore because they won't vote for them) - all illegal under Section 86 of the CA Penal Code, but a fact of life nonetheless. It's disgusting, it serves corporate and wealthy people on the backs of working families, and we are kicking the poor into the gutter where the cots of homelessness and illness will mount terrifically. It's stupid, it does not HAVE to occur, and we need to go back to democracy. Thank you Professor Lakoff! Very well thought out. Very well said!
I voted against all the special election props but then I've been voting against all propositions for several years now. The voters in California have packed so much crap into our constitution that the only way make it operative again is to have a constitutional convention. If we do, I have several items for my wish list, the elimination of all super majority requirements, term limits, and recalls. It should be all but impossible to put a proposition on the California ballot by making it mandatory to get permission from the legislature and the governor before going to the electorate. And campaigns, all of them, should be publicly financed. Giving a gift to one of our representatives should be treated as the felony it is.
There seems to be something really wrong with the Democratic Party, they lose their courage almost as quickly as they're elected. That goes for those who are elected to national as well as state positions. I don't believe that advice is going to fix this. What we badly need are some candidates with balls!
Did you read this Obama? This is not the change I voted for! I voted for single payer health care and an investigation into the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the American people committed by the last administration. We need to free ourselves from the petroleum trap we’re in. I could go on, and on, and on but no one is going to do anything about it anyway.
I took the same position voting NO on all propositions. But, now they are on to us. Sometimes, because of the way they word the propositions, a no vote is actually a yes vote. Better read your propositions carefully if you want to continue with this position. That's why I decided to not cast a vote, yes or no, on any of them anymore. Rather, I now will abstain from all future propositio
I couldn't agree with you more!
Prof. Lakoff,
Could you walk over to Boalt Hall this fall and place a citizen's arrest on John Yoo?
Thanks,
The American People.
PS--I'm all for your proposition. Watch out for the onslaught of Norquistian rhetoric that isn't proportional to the minority status of it's proponents.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
