There’s a conceit among self-described “moderate” and “centrist” pundits that their politics are the only legitimate politics – and that those on the left and right are not as legitimate. When the right and left become more dominant in a political system, the moderates view this as deviant, as something bad, as something to be fixed, instead of as just another possible permutation on the political spectrum.
When denunciation of the two “extremes” fails to arrest the collapse of the center, the moderates’ next move is to rig the system to produce outcomes favoring their ideological position.
That’s what is happening in California this June with Proposition 14. Prop 14 would change the way primary elections work in this state, sending the top two votegetters onto the general election regardless of party. That virtually guarantees it will be impossible for third parties to make it onto the November ballot, whereas under the current system, they can.
In many districts this will likely mean two Democrats or two Republicans will be on the ballot in November, making it harder for Democrats to pick up seats in these swing districts.
But the real purpose of Prop 14 is to move the Democratic Party to the right. The logic is this: in many California districts, Democratic primary fights will be pushed out into the general election, where Republican voters can support the moderate Democrat at the expense of the progressive.
Dan Walters laid out that thinking in his column today:
Liberal Democrats and their allies, especially in public employee unions, have the most to lose from a structural shift because they now control the tenor of the Legislature through gerrymandered districts and closed primaries.
Business groups have the most to win because they are now dependent on Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto liberal legislation, and would like a more centrist, business-friendly Legislature.
Of course, this ignores the fact that Californians have embraced the so-called “partisan divide.” Democratic voters regularly pick more progressive candidates in their primaries because California Democratic voters are generally a progressive group of people. Similarly, California Republicans are generally a bunch of wacko wingnuts. I don’t like that fact, but that’s democracy for you.
“Moderate” politics are an anachronism out of touch with reality in 21st century America. Such politics are only possible during periods of sustained prosperity, such as the postwar era, when there was no need to debate basic economic questions. Centrism is in many respects a political bubble phenomenon enabled by prosperity.
As soon as prosperity is gone, basic questions reassert themselves: should we tax the rich to provide public services to the poor and the middle-class in order to provide them security and job growth, or should we cut taxes on the rich and slash government services and let the middle-class and poor fend for themselves?
There is no middle ground between those (unless you use massive amounts of debt to bridge the divide, which as we’ve seen is a failed policy). Everyone eventually has to choose between right or left. In fact, most “moderates” have already chosen the right and have been doing so for 30 years. The continued popularity of the left, as embodied by progressive Democrats, offends “moderate” sensibilities and is seen as cause for trying to rig elections by changing the system.
Other flaws of the Prop 14 model become apparent when looking at how it works in other states and countries.
In Washington State, where the top-two system was used for the first time in 2008, it also had the effect of pushing primary fights into the general election, diverting resources, money, and time away from other Democratic priorities.
Prop 14 would apply to statewide races as well, so one could conceivably face a gubernatorial election where there are two Republicans on the November ballot, especially if there are several Democrats dividing the Dem vote. One could eventually see a replay of the 2002 French presidential election, where the second round was a runoff between a corrupt center-right incumbent (Jacques Chirac) and a fascist (Jean-Marie Le Pen), primarily because the center-left split its votes between three different candidates. The result was that the center-left had to hold their nose and vote for Chirac to prevent Le Pen from winning. Ironically enough, the top-two system in France wound up giving a huge boost to the far right.
I could see something similar happening in 2014 if Jerry Brown weren’t to win this year: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Lt Gov Gavin Newsom, and AG Kamala Harris split the Democratic vote, letting two Republicans – incumbent Meg Whitman and Tom McClintock – come in 1-2 and being the only candidates for governor on the November ballot. I’d rather poke my eyes out with sharp sticks than have to decide between those two.
All in all, it’s a strong case against Prop 14. Let’s hope voters hear that case and vote accordingly in June.
The claim:
“Moderate” politics are an anachronism out of touch with reality in 21st century America. Such politics are only possible during periods of sustained prosperity, such as the postwar era, when there was no need to debate basic economic questions. Centrism is in many respects a political bubble phenomenon enabled by prosperity.
On the contrary, prosperity is created by politics. Since 1978, there has been a sustained assult by the right on the living standards of the American middle class. Nearly every tax policy adopted has caused an increased exacerbation in income inequality (the Clinton tax hikes were an exception, but these were followed with the capital gains cuts in 1997, a policy which the Obama administration seems to want to follow). As in 1984, individuals are taught to eschew “parision” (comparision), and here are the two facts that no one is supposed to compare: one, a lower rate on capital gains is necessary to ensure adequate investment, and two, the world is awash in liquidity and there are insufficient opportunities for returns (this last point has gone away somewhat with the Great Recession but as markets climb back to pre-crash levels, it will be coming back).
Now, this sounds like a classic oversupply of capital based on government intervention in the market to provide differential treatment to a single sector. Conservatives love to talk about how health insurance drives up health care costs (due to its exemption from federal taxation), or how the mortgage interest rate tax deduction creates an oversupply of housing, but, interestingly (not!), the same logic does not apply to taxing capital. But it should. And the main purpose of the right is to keep the “parisions” I just made in this paragraph from ever being discussed, because the logical inference to draw is to tax captial at the same level as labor.
I think one’s position on this proposition and the earlier redistricting proposition is a function of one’s current district. Out here in red-county land, Democrats were gerrymandered out of any meaningful chance to win by their own party. Only recently, largely due to Howard Dean and Democracy for America (who made the push for training and 58-county strategy now endorsed by the party), do we have decent candidates and any semblance of a ground operation out here so that we have a fighting chance (see 2008 results for Carl Wood AD65, and Bill Hedrick CD44 as proof).
Despite the problems with filling the redistricting panels, I’m willing to give it a shot, because leaving it up to the legislature was a disaster for us in the Inland Empire. I’m not willing to give up a chance at meaningful representation for another 10 years because all of the power in the Democratic Party is on the coast and in Northern California.
If we have competitive districts, then there is a chance that the candidates will become more moderate anyway, or at least we will have real candidates and real elections rather than the sham elections we’ve had with the current districts for the last 10 years. This is a much better alternative to me than what we have now.
We’ve suffered enough down here. I say, bring it on!
“There's a conceit among self-described “moderate” and “centrist” pundits that their politics are the only legitimate politics – and that those on the left and right are not as legitimate” – this. A thousand times this.
Some thoughts on moderatism.
It is an interesting take on the reasoning behind Prop 14. I feel it is just a limit on democracy…why only two choices on the November ballot ? How the the smaller parties ever going to grab a foothold or have a chance to influence the GOP or Dems if they are not on the general election ballot ? A few years ago I remember voting for the Green candidate for US Senate rather than Feinstein and the same for Insurance commisioner rather than for Bustemonte or Poizner. If Prop 14 passes I imagine in the future I’ll just have to skip races with similar issues.
I live in SD-37 (Riverside COunty/Palm SPrings). Our recent special primary results had two GOP candidates take the top two spots with the DEMS taking 3,4,5 place. At the general I will have the choice between the top GOP , the top DEM, and a third party. However under Prop 14 rules I would be forced to choose between two conservative GOP candidates. Prop 14, in this instance, would disenfranchise Democrats and AI voters in SD-37. That is bad policy and should not be adopted.
The logic is this: in many California districts, Democratic primary fights will be pushed out into the general election, where Republican voters can support the moderate Democrat at the expense of the progressive.
Ahh, but in other districts where the Republican primary is currently the only election which matters, Republicna primary fights will be pushed out into the general election, where Democratic voters can support the moderate Republican at the expense of the conservative.
The end result: a legislature which is more conservative than the current majority but which is no longer gridlocked by conservatives who refuse to work with the majority.
As others have noted, it really does cut both ways. In my own Republican district, I’ve had the pleasure of watching the two GOP candidates for state Senate — one of whom will assuredly take the seat in November — pander to every tea-party, Republican Assembly chapter, and other assorted right-wing groups, whose members are the ones who will pick the nominee. There’s not the least incentive to campaign as anything but the most fire-breathing conservative. And you know what? They hate Prop. 14 too, because they don’t want to see anyone but fire-breathing conservatives elected.
Our political system did not create polarized politics, but it has plainly shown it can’t function with the current level of senseless partisanship.
On a side note, why do we privilege particular private clubs with the right to nominate their candidates in our elections? Voters choose people, not parties (unlike a parliamentary system with list voting, which has its advantages, but it ain’t our system). I can’t help but notice that the only thing Robert Cruickshank and the gent who runs Flashreport agree about precisely nothing — except for the evil of Prop. 14. What’s that say?