"The voters had a temper tantrum"

When the late Peter Jennings gave the above disgruntled reaction to nationwide Republican wins in the 1994 congressional elections, the comment was widely and rightly interpreted as meaning "The voters voted in a way I didn't like." I'm sure at some level, I'm saying basically the same thing when I apply the ABC anchorman's phrase to Tuesday's results in the California special election—though I stand by the principle that it's always a beautiful thing when voters say no to every single item on a ballot.

But I still challenge anybody to attribute any rationality to an electorate that recalled Gray Davis and enthusiastically elected Arnold Schwarzenegger just two years ago, but now rejects every single measure Schwarzenegger proposed to solve the problems that drove Davis out of office.

Back when the recall was just a glimmer, when Schwarzenegger said he was out of the running and the frontrunner was Rep. Darrell Issa (we were all young and crazy back then), I opposed the recall as another step down the Golden State's path toward mob rule. A popular doomsday scenario at the time was that Gov. Issa himself would be subjected to a recall in no time flat. Obviously that hasn't happened, but the special election result was just as incoherent: You had a state budget crisis so grave it was worth going to the trouble of recalling a governor you'd re-elected less than a year before, but not so grave that you're willing to risk some union dues and and an incremental increase in teacher tenure?

There are two pretty good explanations for this paradox: First, that none of the proposals on the ballot Tuesday would have done much to solve the budget crisis. Second, that we shouldn't expect coherence from any electorate because different interests get represented, shifting subsets of voters come out to the polls in different elections, etc. This second point I'll go into in more detail in an article that's supposed to show up in one of our fine California dailies tomorrow. Meanwhile the pious afterword to the Austrian Oak's debacle is that he needs to go back to the Democrats in Sac and find "bipartisan" solutions. (As Lurch would say, mmmhhhhhuuuuhhhh!). That's a crock: It's because Schwarzenegger couldn't get anything going with the Democrats that he went the special election route in the first place. California is, for the time being at least, an ungovernable state. (But still a helluva nice place to live!)

Comments

[Adam]

But I still challenge anybody to attribute any rationality to an electorate that recalled Gray Davis and enthusiastically elected Arnold Schwarzenegger just two years ago, but now rejects every single measure Schwarzenegger proposed to solve the problems that drove Davis out of office.

Bonus points for explaining why the hell he would want such a thankless and impossible job again.

[Captain Awesome]

Homer Simpson in his election speach for sanitation director-
"can't somebody else do it."

This is the mentality. The voted for Arnold so that he could do it. When he posed the question back to them to get it done, the responded, "can't sombody else do it."

[Shem]

Bread and circuses. The novelty and entertainment of electing another actor governor was great, but not so great that anyone will follow him if he wants to do unpopular things. Nobody can fix California because nobody has the popularity and strength to convince people who've come to see the government as Santa Claus that they're going to have to give up some of their handouts.

Be prepared. Unless something unprecedented happens this is the rest of the country in five years.

[Jason Ligon]

I remain steadfast in the belief that people get the government they want. They don't want to give up anything ever, and they don't want to pay for anything. Voila!

"Oh, I thought he was going to gore THAT guy's ox, not mine."

[Jim Walsh]

I repeat: it all makes perfect sense if you assume the message is gimme gimme...

[Jeff P.]

It might also have to do with the fact that California os a short-minded, shallow, morally superficial state.

[Mark]

Regarding "The voters had a temper tantrum":

It's The Media, Stupid.

[Isaac Bartram]

I remain steadfast in the belief that people get the government they want. They don't want to give up anything ever, and they don't want to pay for anything. Voila!

Reagan's first term drove that message home to me.

[Larry A]

Actually, Arnold has only one problem to overcome before implementing the one effective solution to the budget crisis. The problem is that in real life California has far too much gun control to allow him to implement a reel world solution.

[gaius marius]

But I still challenge anybody to attribute any rationality to an electorate that recalled Gray Davis and enthusiastically elected Arnold Schwarzenegger just two years ago, but now rejects every single measure Schwarzenegger proposed to solve the problems that drove Davis out of office.

i see it as something of an inevitability in a populist democracy for the state to become essentially ungovernable. california is apparently at that stage now.

[joe]

They used to say New York City was ungovernable.

[scape]

Gary Coleman would have been worse.

[kelley]

Mary Carey would have been even worse.

[Ricky]

Is it really "gimme gimme" or are most people voting to give to others? I'm sure the getters are voting to get stuff but alot of the not getters must be voting to give also.

[Tom W]

1) More money spent on this special election than EVER before.
2) Short attention span of electorate educated by California schools and TV.
3) Hostile or non coverage by media of Arnolds attemps to get things fixed by going through the Asse3mbly prior to the election.
4) The opponents had better comercials!

[CRG]

It might also have to do with the fact that California os a short-minded, shallow, morally superficial state.

What a deep, cogent analysis - no one could ever accuse you of being shallow or "short-minded".

[M1EK]

scape, you rock

[MikeP]

Second, that we shouldn't expect coherence from any electorate because different interests get represented, shifting subsets of voters come out to the polls in different elections, etc.

You left out the electorate is an uneducated mob of idiots.

You merely have to read the polls blaming oil companies and government for high gasoline prices to realize that people by and large have no clue how it has come to pass that they live in the wealthiest society in history.

[Jeff]

Mencken's Law is the real law of the California jungle: Democracy is the fine art of running the circus from the monkey cage.

California's political culture (yes, I know, "political culture" in the present context sounds rather like "promiscuous ascetic") is the most empirical evidence on record that plebiscitarian, populist government is neither viable nor sensible at minimum, but it is statism's water carrier at maximum. At least until the moboisie (my term, under the influence of HLM) quits shopping at the superstore that continues to sell the State as the large economy size all-purpose cleaner.

[joe]

It's sort of funny to read libertarians spouting off variants of the thought "the masses are asses," recall all the times I've been accused of elitism for supporting policies, like Social Security and zoning laws, that have been strongly endorsed by the public.

[biggus dickus]

it is a truism that the children of the wealthy are far more expert at spending money than making it, and that is what the vast majority of us (myself included) are in the usa. previous generations have turned this land from a largely barren wilderness into a veritable paradise that most people on the planet would risk death to live in; and we are slowly but surely drying up the cistern of prosperity filled up by their efforts.

i don't receive a dime directly from the government, but i'd be scared shitless to be dropped in somalia one night, where I couldn't even depend on the basic government service of providing law and order. now, maybe that says more about me than about somalia, but i fear more of you are in the same boat than we would like to admit.

[Jim Walsh]

California is, for the time being at least, an ungovernable state. (But still a helluva nice place to live!)

Yeah, what's the deal with California, anyway? All you ever hear out here in flyover country is how the place is one big earthquake-leveled, too-expensive-to-live-in, urban war zone, a cesspool with palm trees...or is that just LA?

[MikeP]

Yeah, what's the deal with California, anyway?

Speaking for the Bay Area at least, California is so nice a place to live that its consumer surplus as such is spectacularly high. That of course raises the price of living as people bid for the privilege. But it also supports high government interference as the state grows, subsisting leech-like off that consumer surplus.

The response of the people is essentially, "Whatever. They haven't taken the whole consumer surplus yet."

[nmg]

It's one thing to have an elitist view, it's another to actually impose it.

nmg

[R C Dean]

It's sort of funny to read libertarians spouting off variants of the thought "the masses are asses," recall all the times I've been accused of elitism for supporting policies, like Social Security and zoning laws, that have been strongly endorsed by the public

Who said being an elitist and being an ass are incompatible?

[Jeff]

It's sort of funny to read libertarians spouting off variants of the thought "the masses are asses," recall all the times I've been accused of elitism for supporting policies, like Social Security and zoning laws, that have been strongly endorsed by the public.

Prosecution rests. 😉

[MustLeaveCalifornia]

Tim,
I agree with you that the voters didn't choose so wisely this time around. But I can never agree with you that, as you said, California is "still a helluva nice place to live!"

Seriously, in Southern California at least, any relatively decent neighborhood is hemmed in by a swelling -- and militant -- Hispanic underclass that exhibits little civic-mindedness, casting litter on the streets in plain sight, overflowing the schools with wanton reproduction, and neither wanting or attempting to assimilate. There's not even much left that's "American" or "Californian" into which they could assimilate anyway. The state is coming to resemble a grimy border town.

Moreover, our local governments don't take even basic pothole repair seriously, instead preferring hollow civic boosterism and shallow photo ops "for the children."

Meanwhile, the public employee unions reign supreme in extorting outrageous salaries and pensions from our goofy zombie legislature.

And in the private sector in this state, what would be a middle class salary almost anywhere else in the country except maybe NYC will barely get you a plywood studio apartment to live in. Nobody in LA even wants to socialize anymore because you can't get anywhere in the traffic.

So, I take it you are not living in Southern California, right?

[clarityiniowa]

Minnesota survived its spasm with Jesse Ventura, California will survive Arnold. My take is that occasionally voters give up en masse, throw up their collective hands and vote for the biggest dumbass on the ballot just to see what happens. Not saying it's a smart thing to do - kind of like the Watts riots or French folks of North African descent torching their kids' own schools - but a unique form of protest nevertheless.

I do something like this in reverse. Every four years I write myself in for county soil commissioner. Someday I'll win. Then they'll be sorry.

[rich]

If you assume that the government is always going to screw you, then at least with mary carey we'd have gotten a professional.

the reason everyone voted for arnold is easy to fathom: he was the only one running with both the charisma to win and the pedigree to take advantage of it. the reason his propositions were defeated is equally easy to fathom: those who believe that it was nothing more than a right wing power grab were more effective in communicating that belief than any other single faction.

[JDM]

"Bonus points for explaining why the hell he would want such a thankless and impossible job again."

Three words: EEE GEE OH.

How many points do I get?

"Seriously, in Southern California at least, any relatively decent neighborhood is hemmed in by a swelling -- and militant -- Hispanic underclass"

Welcome back, Lonewacko!

[trostky]

Two points:

1.) We elected Gov. Hollywood because we like him better than the other guys, not because of his policies, which were at best an empty vessel.

2.) California is ungovernable, but largely for reasons that benefit the kind of people who read Reason. Between Prop. 13's hogtie-ing of local governments and the two-thirds requirement for passing a budget, there is very little real fiscal authority given even to the folks we duly elect. I think this is bad in the long run. If the Democrats in the Lege were given the power to tax and spend as they'd really like to, I reckon the next election would disprove the notion that every lawmaker in California has been gerrymandered into a safe seat. But we'll never get to find out.

[Eddy]

It's The Media, Stupid.

And here I thought it was the stupid media.

[TallDave]

A couple of the Props came pretty close to passing, and a LOT of money was spent to defeat them, enough that it put some groups in serious debt. I think Arnie's going to try for a sequel, knowing they rarely gross as much as the original.

[Kahn]

Shem,

Be prepared. Unless something unprecedented happens this is the rest of the country in five years.

Immediate empirical data says you're right.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_co/budget_cuts;_ylt=AuxOeUGPPck1M4BSRntqQ8qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[Coptin Kark]

KHAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DB]

Seriously, in Southern California at least, any relatively decent neighborhood is hemmed in by a swelling -- and militant -- Hispanic underclass that exhibits little civic-mindedness, casting litter on the streets in plain sight, overflowing the schools with wanton reproduction, and neither wanting or attempting to assimilate

That's the single stupidest and least-accurate description of Southern California I've ever read in my life. You appear to think that the the southern half of the state consists entirely of the shittier parts of Los Angeles. I've lived in San Diego county for fifteen years. Sometimes in bad neighborhoods, sometimes in good. At no point have I even met, let alone be "hemmed in by", militant unassimilated Hispanics.

[ANM]

The democrats put out very fierce, populistic, demogogical propaganda, while the opposition sent mostly calm advertising attempting to be rational (from my recollection at least). After all, you MUST be an evil rich miser if you oppose those great nurses, teachers and firefighters. That, and you will destroy the middle class if unions lose power.

[Larry Edelstein]

Joe, you're actually quite close to a hugely salient point, but you're sort of missing it.

For me, one of the most basic reasons I am skeptical of government's ability to deliver on its promises is that I recognize that man's ability to act in his own self-interest is limited. One dimension of this limit relates to group behavior. To put it pedantically: as a group of people gets bigger and more heterogenous, its members are less capable of acting in the group's best interest _while within the context of the group_.

They're still quite capable when they are acting as individuals, but in groups, decision-making suffers from phenomena like the diffusion of responsbility, mass hysteria, and groupthink.

Since democracy is ENTIRELY about these sorts of group decisions, how seriously can you take it as a means for solving even those problems which have obvious solutions?

Let alone those issues whose resolution is more uncertain. Take the teachers. Which is better - two years or five years? Do you know? Do I? Do the other 30 million Californians? Did they suddenly become experts on teaching?

People have the capability to learn, but it, too, degrades in groups. Particularly in electoral politics, where the feedback loop of adaptation (analyze, theorize, experiment, and repeat) is years long, making it relatively very difficult to refine solutions quickly.

I think you would do well to spend some time considering libertarianism and statism from the vantage point of organizational and group behavior. Also to analyze public and private enterprises from this perspective.

[Isaac Bartram]

It's sort of funny to read libertarians spouting off variants of the thought "the masses are asses," recall all the times I've been accused of elitism for supporting policies, like Social Security and zoning laws, that have been strongly endorsed by the public.

Perhaps there's a difference between an elitist that wants to rule the "unwashed masses" and an elitist that does not want to be ruled by "unwashed masses".

[Russ D]

Voting is an emotional act, not a rational one:

Whatever it is, I'm against it. Unless I get something for free.

And that guy irritates me more than the other guy.

[Russ D]

Larry,

You summed up in one post what I've unsuccessfully tried to say in hundreds of posts over the years.

[joe]

Larry Edelstein,

We don't have any choice. If there is no mechanism for acting the public interest, and there are only individuals acting, competantly, in their owner self-interest, then we end up with no mechanism for protecting the interest of the weaker members of society - particularly when their interests conflict with those of the stronger.

Are there problems with the methods of attending to these interests? You bet there are - but that's why we have to pay particular attention to them, not merely allow the top half of society to (self-servingly) throw up their hands, declare that nothing can be done, and have only their own interests protected.

Isaac, no matter how hard you try, you cannot erase the distinctiton between empowering the less powerful, and ruling them. However you might wish to cast examples of the former as the latter, nobody's buying it.