We here at Calitics like to call George Skelton a “high Broderist.” That’s not meant as praise. The phrase, which was likely originated by Atrios, refers to David Broder’s prime directive of protecting the dysfunctional and absurd behavior of Washington, D.C. against anyone who would dare suggest change.

Broderists have an especially strong emphasis on bipartisanship, and either refuse to believe that the right-wing is largely responsible for the problems government displays (as well as the other problems experienced by Americans) or if they do occasionally have that recognition, they balance it out by saying “the left is just as bad.”

Skelton plays the role of California’s Broder because his work consistently defends the way things are done in Sacramento – a frequently dyfunctional place – and strives to place bipartisanship above all other political objectives. On the welcome occasions where Skelton does recognize that something needs fixing in Sacramento, his solutions usually involve reforms designed to increase the power of “centrists” at the expense of the “extremists” – which usually happen to be not just a majority of the legislature, but a majority of the state’s population.

Skelton’s column in today’s LA Times is a classic example of this behavior. Skelton dismisses the notion that there was anything wrong with Arnold’s mass veto threat – a dismissal shared by the once and future governor, Jerry Brown, who excused Arnold’s behavior as “an intrinsic part of the legislative process…compromise in the rough-and-tumble legislative process is not achieved by doilies and tea.”

Skelton then goes to agree with Chief Justice Ron George who, hoping to avoid losing a retention election next year after voting to uphold Prop 8, has written about the problems of the initiative process. To Skelton, the problem is that voters have impeded the legislature’s ability to act:

voters should hear George’s: Stop micromanaging, loosen some shackles and let the elected representatives do their jobs.

But Skelton doesn’t go after the actual shackles. He claims the 2/3rds rule isn’t what’s holding back a water deal. But in a very important way, it is. The staggering costs of the proposed water deal are causing many legislators to balk at the idea of adding tens of billions in costs to the general fund at a time when California is in the midst of a crippling budget crisis. If it were easier to raise revenues, the legislature would have many more options at its disposal to pay for water solutions.

Yet Skelton makes no mention of term limits, which has stripped the Legislature of policy experts who might have the ability to stand up to Westlands Water District’s efforts to steal our money and our water. John Laird should still be chairing the budget committee and working on the water solution, instead of writing online columns (as much as I like them) for the San Francisco Chronicle.

The initiative process that Ron George rightly criticized is itself a product of a failed legislative process – both in its 1911 incarnation and the present version. When voters see a legislature unable to deal with problems, even if voters helped created them, they’re not going to be inclined to give legislators more power to “let elected representatives do their jobs.” That just doesn’t work in a totally broken system.

If you don’t recognize and accept that our system of government is broken, you’re never going to change it. All we’ll get is even more inaction and bad policy.

Voters do want change. That was the lesson of yesterday’s Field Poll. Right now they aren’t yet on board with some of the details.

But that shouldn’t be surprising or dispiriting. Progressives have yet to offer the kind of holistic vision that is required to build support for process change.

Californians would be willing to fix the term limits law, restore majority rule, and make the initiative process harder for the wealthy to game – but only if they can be shown that those changes will produce progressive outcomes.

Since that work hasn’t been done, we instead live in a state where conservative frames continue to rule the day, despite the fact that few Californians believe them any longer. Voters will default to the norm if no alternative is offered.

And that’s why Skelton’s Broderism fails to offer California any realistic path forward. Without recognition that the way things are done in Sacramento is hopelessly broken – in large part because the current system empowers right-wingers who actively work to ensure the state fails – and without offering voters a clear progressive alternative, we are never going to produce the better system of government that Californians deserve.