Today’s LA Times has an interesting series of op-eds by historians and authors examining how past governors dealt with budget crises. It’s an interesting look not only at how those governors all helped build the prosperous state that we’re living off of today, but also how the real problem with the budget isn’t a lack of pragmatism or deal-making, but ideology. And since the articles were commissioned by California Backward they are particularly important in shaping how we will respond to this crisis.

The profile of Pete Wilson by Greg Lucas and Ronald Reagan by Lou Cannon both argue that pragmatism and a willingness to deal is the key to budget success. Lucas’ portrait of the contentious 1991 budget negotiations is designed to make us wistful even for Pete Wilson’s leadership (if you forget 1994, that is). Wilson understood that tax increases were going to be necessary to balance the budget AND to get Democratic support, so he outflanked them by proposing his own increases and then spending the summer cutting the deals necessary to get Dems to agree and to turn enough Republicans, one by one, to his view.

Cannon’s portrait of Reagan emphasizes similar qualities – that despite their “novice amateur” abilities, Reagan and his advisors knew that a tax increase was necessary to balance the 1967 budget and avoid crippling cuts. Reagan did so, and therefore helped continue California’s remarkable 20th century economic expansion by supporting the government services that growth depended on.

What both these portraits miss – alongside Jim Newton’s profile of Earl Warren, an unconvincing effort to see Arnold as a latter-day Warren, is the role of ideology in the budget. Warren, Reagan and Wilson were able to negotiate budget solutions because they did not define their Republicanism by a virulent anti-tax conservatism – even in Reagan’s case, and Reagan had spent the 1960s leading the right-wing takeover of the California Republican Party.

They also governed at times when Democrats had spines. This was particularly true in 1991, where Democratic intransigence and demands for a better deal were all that forced Pete Wilson to propose and stick to his tax plans. Most of those taxes survived until the late 1990s, when led by Tom McClintock, the state legislature – including Democrats – voted to spend that tax money on foolish and short-sighted tax cuts rather than putting it in a rainy day fund or investing in infrastructure. During Arnold’s term Democrats have caved in to his demands so often that Arnold no longer sees Democratic demands as worth taking seriously.

The ascension of Tom McClintockism within the Republican Party goes to the heart of the budget matter, showing that it is about ideology, not deal-making. How can today’s Republican cut deals on taxes when the Howard Jarvis Association, CRA, and other right-wing groups are ready to destroy a Republican legislator’s career for doing so? The only Republican not in thrall to those folks, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is instead in thrall to Milton Friedman’s shock doctrine theories.

So it was very welcome to read Ethan Rarick’s profile of Pat Brown. Rarick is the author of the excellent California Rising: The Life and Times of Pat Brown. In his profile Rarick refuses to emphasize Brown’s leadership qualities and instead focuses on the underlying ideological and structural contexts. He was the only author to mention the 2/3 requirement. And he understood the importance of ideology:

More important than procedural changes, however, are ideological ones.

In Brown’s day, the country remained in the grip of the so-called New Deal consensus, a mood far more receptive to the idea that government played a constructive role in our society and had to be amply funded. Brown used to say of himself, “I’m a big-government man,” a phrase that would nowadays be uttered by no politician, left, right or center.

It’s true that Republicans tended to be more skeptical of government than Democrats, but they were neither unanimous nor intransigent on the point….

So I’m quite sure I know what Pat Brown would do if he were governor today, or at least what he would want to do and try to do. He would trumpet government’s positive role, insist that those who benefit the most from our society should pay the most, and set about enacting policies to create a public sector that was funded both fully and fairly. In short, he would raise taxes, especially on the rich.

But the real question is not what Pat Brown would do. Given the differences in ideological climate between his day and ours, the real question is: Would we let him?

It’s an excellent set of points he makes. I wonder though if California Backward will even listen to him. A group composed of centrist high Broderists is much more likely to prefer a call for more deal-making that will nevertheless produce conservative solutions to a rousing defense of the policies that made California great, and an attack on the conservative policies that have produced this budget crisis.

I am honored to be serving as a delegate to the CDP along with Ellis Perlman, a Professor Emeritus in political science from the University of Michigan-Flint.  He has been a keen observer of grassroots politics as it relates to this state for the past 100 years, and I asked him to put together some information on it, to serve as a historical perspective for those of us who don’t quite remember the days of Hiram Johnson and Earl Warren.  There’s some very good information here, and it all speaks to the fact that this “people-powered” movement is nothing new, it’s just being adapted for the 21st century.

The report, on the flip…

Grass Roots and Political Change in California  Jan. 21, 2007

Progressivism, building on earlier populist movements, has spurred a variety of grass roots movements during the past hundred years in California.  The state’s political history is encouraging.  It demonstrates that progressive grass roots movements can achieve power and influence public policy.  The examples below illustrate such achievements and influence.

Two factors should be noted.  One is that the movements typically have been rooted in the middle and upper middle class.  The second is that conservatives have had similar successes, especially in the 1960 and beyond.  -Ellis Perlman  January 24, 2007 

The Progressive movement in California was founded by Chester Rowell and Edward Dickson, two journalists who had become disgusted with the Southern Pacific Railroad’s control of the state legislature.  Their efforts ultimately led to formation of the Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican League, with clubs forming throughout the state.  This was a grass roots movement, largely from within the Republican Party, to clean up California government, and make it more responsive to Progressive ideals.
Source:  Joseph P. Harris, California Politics (Chandler:  1967), pp. 1-13

Another form of grass roots action and accomplishment in California involved the response of women when they first gained the right to vote.  Women’s suffrage was opposed by the elite in Los Angeles, and especially by the Los Angeles Times.  It was approved by 2000 votes in Los Angeles, and by 3587 votes statewide in a special election on October 10, 1911.  By December, more than 82,000 women had registered in Los Angeles, and more than 90% voted in the mayoral election.  Ironically, the Times, having opposed the women’s vote, congratulated women for their “intelligent voting” in defeating the Socialist mayoral candidate, John Harriman. 
Source:  Jane Apostal, “Why Women Should Not Have the Vote:  Anti-Suffrage Views in the Southland in 1911,”  Southern California Quarterly  70:29-42 (Spring, 1988)

A group of Republicans, mainly liberals, met in August, 1923, to organize a campaign to secure a liberal state legislature, and to oppose Friend W. Richardson, the conservative Republican governor.  They created the Progressive Voters League to contest the 1924 and 1926 elections.  The very conservative Richardson followed two progressive governors, Hiram Johnson and William Stephens.  The Democratic Party was weak, commonly winning no more than a third of the gubernatorial vote.  When Richardson was elected in 1922, conservative Republicans had a majority in the Assembly, and almost a majority in the Senate.  The Voters League was instrumental in electing a Progressive, Clement Young, as Governor.  The League then disbanded, and Conservative James Rolfe was elected governor in 1930.  As with most revolts against dominant political authority in 20th century California, grass roots organization played a major role, and the revolt came from within the  Republican Party.

Source:  Russell Posner, “The Progressive Voters League, 1923-1926,” California Historical Society Quarterly  36:251-261 (September, 1957)

Progressivism is generally considered to have faded as a force in California and nationally by the 1920s-1930s period.  Rosanne  M. Barker demonstrated that Progressivism continued as an active movement during this period, sustained by women’s organizations, particularly in small towns.  She highlights the activity of Pearl Chase and other women activists in Santa Barbara, and notes that progressive women activists were achieving success in other towns, as well.  The types of activities and accomplishments described by Barker did not draw much attention, at the time or later.  It represented, however, substantial grass roots effort and achievement of progressive goals.
Source:  Rosanne M. Barker, “Small Town Progressivism:  Pearl Chase and Female Activism in Santa Barbara,” Southern California Quarterly  79:47-100 (Spring, 1997)

The California Republican Assembly was organized in 1934 as a response to Republican losses in 1932.  Clubs were formed throughout the state.  By 1938, Earl Warren had become the key figure in bringing moderate/progressive Republican leadership to power, to control the state for the next twenty years.  Subsequent grass root movements, beginning with United Republicans of California and the John Birch Society regained conservative control of the Republican Party by the 1960s.
Source:  Richard Harvey, Dynamics of  California Government and Politics  (Wadsworth, 1970) ch. 2

The California Democratic Council, with chapters throughout the state and a peak membership of 66,000, grew out of Adlai Stevenson’s unsuccessful 1952 campaign for President.  The political leader most associated with the CDC was Alan Cranston, State Controller and later U. S. Senator.  The CDC was a grass roots movement, one generated from within the Democratic Party.  Its membership tended to be middle class and suburban, as were the several Republican grass roots movements that fostered progressive reform.
Source:  Clyde E. Jacobs and John F. Gallagher, California Government:  One Among Fifty  (Macmillan, 1966), pp. 102-106

I hope you all enjoyed that as much as I did (or perhaps not; I’m a history nerd).  It’s interesting that grassroots movements in this state have traditionally started in the middle and upper-middle classes; not surprising, certainly on the basis of leisure time.  I think our challenge in the netroots is to ensure a multiplicity of voices, to understand and hear from the concerns of the poor and those typically not present in the larger political debate.

The other factor is that our opposition is just as equipped to pull this off, so we must be smarter, and grow larger, and continue to innovate to maintain any kind of advantage.  We also must keep an eye on our legislators in Sacramento, as the “clean up government” mantra has bounced back and forth between the parties over the years.

I’m going to try and get Ellis to write a little more for the site, if you have any specific areas of interest, please put them in the comments.