Had a good conversation--let's call it a good and spirited conversation--with some friends yesterday about next week's election; the issues--at least those here in California--and the potential impact that the national electoral outcome could have on the presidential legacy of Barack Obama.
It's hard to believe that California is electing a Governor this year; it might be more accurate to say that California is re-electing a Governor, if only from the standpoint of the amount of campaigning that is going on. There's not much. Jerry Brown, the Democratic incumbent, and Neel Kashkari, the Republican challenger, have met in face-to-face televised debate only once, and that was way back in early September.
The debate was inconsequential in that no new ground was plowed by either candidate. Mr. Kashkari, claiming to be fresh and new, managed to establish the fact that he was new; but as for "fresh," I don't think so, if only because he didn't have much room to differentiate himself from the incumbent. Both candidates position themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals; it's hard to tweak those characteristics so as to make them look much different from one person to the next.
Mr. Brown, for his part, used the debate to come across as a fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal curmudgeon who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the ways in which the levers of political and governmental power can be used in California; once again, nothing new there.
Since the debate, Mr. Kashkari has struggled with a poorly-funded campaign organization; at this point, if what we see in reported polling is accurate, he is still trying to gain enough traction to have people recognize his name. Mr. Brown--who seems to be well-known--has mostly ignored his opponent, and has declined to do a real campaign. I'm not sure that he has even once asked that people vote for him. Seems like an odd way to win a political office. We are all allowed our little eccentricities; it looks to me like Jerry Brown perhaps should be recognized for accumulating eccentricities in the way that some people accumulate stamps, coins, cars, models, artwork and other collectibles.
Four years ago Mr. Brown was elected as a fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal curmudgeon with an encyclopedic knowledge of government minutia; he's the same person, he's done much of what he said he would do if he were elected then; the voters are much the same now as they were four years ago; Governor Brown will likely be re-elected next week.
The California ballot has the usual array of initiatives and candidates for various other offices (why oh why do we vote for so many judges?). With few exceptions, there's not much to generate a lot of enthusiasm; which, of course, has done little to tamp down on the generation of misleading and uninformative campaign advertising, whether done by direct mail, television or radio. Though I am not a great consumer of campaign advertising, my guess will be that 95% of it is misleading and/or uninformative.
(On which point I have to give favorable mention to the small amount of campaigning that Mr. Brown has done: his testimonials for a small number of fellow Democratic candidates, as well as for two ballot initiatives that he has sponsored (#1 and #2), conjure up images of General Patton strutting in front of an audience and proclaiming "Do this for me because I want it done!" Not real smooth, perhaps, but concise. Interviews with him seem to be different; he rambles.)
Regarding the Obama presidential legacy: opinions on that during our spirited conversation ranged the spectrum from "total failure" to "very good." Here's how we got there. I asked this question: Suppose that the upcoming election hands control of the U.S. Senate over to the Republicans (as seems likely, if not certain) so that Mr. Obama is confronted by a totally non-cooperative Congress for the final two years of his presidency, and so we can safely assume that he will add no more accomplishments to his record; after the passage of a few years, what will be the general assessment of his time in office? (I asked the question and moderated the conversation, so the resulting opinions are those of others; you will have to wait for my answer to that question.)
The two liberal-leaning participants agreed that the assessment of the Obama presidency would be "very good;" supporting reasoning for this focused mainly on the Affordable Care Act and responsive actions to the financial crisis and succeeding recession. Mention was also made of progressive environmental and civil rights policies and actions; mention of foreign policy was brief, but perhaps significant for reasons that we can get to later.
The single conservative-leaning participant offered "moderate, at best" as his assessment, largely because of a feeling that the accomplishments during the Obama presidency were not his alone, but were the product of the efforts of others, too. The assessment of "total failure" was offered up in response to my question regarding the opinion of another individual, not present, but well-known in his political leanings (proudly and definitely conservative) and well-known by the conservative-leaning participant in a personal way; so, therefore, I think it an accurate representation of the opinion of one who was with us in spirit if not in person.
Reflecting on this conversation, I am struck by a startling omission: no mention, whether positive or negative, was made of Barack Obama's racial heritage. He is the first black American president--perhaps the second if we allow that Bill Clinton was the first; but that's an old conversation and metaphorical--and that by itself establishes a remarkable legacy for the man.
Furthermore, the absence of mention of this fundamental, observable and so far unique presidential accomplishment--that is, the accomplishment that was not only the election of 2008, but also the re-election of 2012--is perhaps testimony to growth in the maturity of American social inclusion. If the conversation of a small circle of friends is in some way representative of the population at large,then I would say that we as a nation have achieved, or on our way to achieving, a monumental goal.
More on this subject later as there is more contributing conversation and thought.
As for thoughts on the California election: mostly I like the Democratic candidates (no surprise there!) with the realization that one or two Republican candidates for state-wide office are probably as well-qualified and as acceptable as are their Democratic opponents (surprise!). Well, heck, even Mr. Kashkari isn't all that objectionable, but Gov. Brown has performed in the way that he was elected to perform, and so he is deserving of re-election.
On the various propositions: #1 is good, because it gets the state started on some water cleanup and storage projects that should have been started years ago (a fact made obvious by the current drought). #2 (establishing the so-called state "rainy day fund" for use in future fiscal emergencies) is deserving only because the real fix to the problem will have to be through some dramatic changes to the state's taxation and budgeting policies, and that's not happening any time soon, so this proposition is the next best thing currently on offer.
None of the other state-wide propositions--there are four others on the ballot--is of existential importance, although I believe that two of them have merit and deserve approval:
#45 will give the state's Insurance Commissioner the power to reject rate increases by health insurers if those increases are deemed to be excessive; this is a power that this same office has held for the last quarter century over auto insurance rates (as a result of a previous ballot proposition that was approved by California voters) and which experience has shown to have been exercised carefully and prudently in favor of the state's consumers.
#46 would address a couple of major issues regarding medical practice that have been brewing for several years: if approved, it would adjust the current limitation ("cap") on malpractice lawsuits for pain-and-suffering from $250,000--an amount established back in the 1970s--to a current inflation-adjusted value of $1.25 million, with a provision for future adjustments for inflation; and, it would implement drug/alcohol testing of doctors. This one has some rough edges in the details, but those are the major goals, and I believe them to offer fair and even-handed treatment to those seeking medical services, as well as to those who provide the services.
Finally, I hope that California's electoral turnout for this election surpasses the turnout for the primaries a few months ago, because that turnout was dismal.
I have voted.
No comments:
Post a Comment