Recall: principle and practice

MoveOn.org is urging you to vote "no" on the recall to "defend democracy." Really.

Now I've written that I'm not a fan of the recall at a conceptual level (nor am I of the initiative system for that matter) but I find it hugely ironic that the "progressives" who were the ones who put this provision in the state constitution in the first place (way back when) and are always yammering about "giving the people a voice" are so offended that when the people get a chance to speak they don't speak in the way that progressives want them to. Just look at the poll results (USA Today/CNN/Gallup and LA Times.)

Who's kidding who here? If there had been a conservative in office and a left-winger mounted a successful recall challenge supported by the majority of Californians then MoveOn would be the first the herald this as a triumph for democracy, and the people vs. the politicians. But clearly this is NOT about principle, it's about politics.

Personally I think the recall is a bad provision and admit that those that have a problem with the recall in principle but support the likely political outcome have a mirrored problem as MoveOn. However, here is my reasoning: like it or not, it is legal, it is democratic, it is constitutional, and it is happening. Voting "no" on the recall will do nothing to "fix" the problem in principle (and practice), which is that we have a recall statute in the first place. The proper course of action is to vote based on what you feel would be the best political outcome on the recall, but for those who dislike the concept of a recall to support changing our constitution. So I would support changing our constitution to remove the recall provision, but as it's here, I am going to vote "yes" because I feel that's in the best interests of me (who, after all is who I represent when I vote) and the state.

People who say you should vote against the recall on principle are focusing on the wrong thing: you should support removing it from the constitution if that's what you believe.

Paradoxically for me I find the same reasoning that compels me to dislike the recall in principle is also the same reasoning that compels me NOT to vote "no" on principle. Follow this: we have to learn to be accountable for our decisions. I think that when we elect people, we should suffer the consequences or else we won't take our obligations seriously in the first place. HOWEVER, the same logic applies to our laws. We also have to live by the consequences of the laws we create for ourselves, otherwise we won't take the crafting of our constitution and our laws seriously. So this recall is law, bad law perhaps, but law. If we don't like its use, we should change the law rather than just trying to neuter it and hope it will go away.

Most (not all) people encouraging a "no" vote on principle are simply using it as a partisan tactic. Let's see what MoveOn does when Arnold's elected. Will these great defenders of democracy support the inevitable drive to recall Arnold?

Finally, I find Davis' complaining about the cost to be especially dishonest: first, the cost is already incurred whether you vote "no" or "yes." Second, it will cost the state MORE if you vote "no" because if the recall fails then the state has to reimburse Davis for his expenses. One more reason to throw the bum out.

Coda: I've been surprised by how much this recall has done to get people engaged in state politics. They are talking about avrecord turn out for Oct. 7th. Big statewide issues that many had no clue about 6 months ago are now the talk of the town. If you care about education and immigration issues, these have received a huge amount of attention from this process. If you care about the challenges confronting the California economy--workers compensation, taxation, litigation, regulation, energy--these too have received a kind of attention that would have been impossible without the recall. Maybe, just maybe, with the political will rallied, some of these issues might get the attention they deserve and get fixed. This is a win for the progressives--the people are getting involved in politics and the special interests are taking a back seat (just look how the Indian gaming connection has hurt Bustamante). Popular democracy is happening in practice, even if the principles are not to the progressives' liking.