Under normal circumstances, California is reliably and unabashedly democratic. Al Gore won the state with 54 percent in 2000 and it even re-elected the uncharismatic Gray Davis after a troubled first term by five points over Bill Simon. Yet the present moment, of course, is not normal. The recall of Davis has gone from a Republican pipe dream to a state-wide obsession, and in a matter of months, California’s gone from the wacky but lovable Land of Fruits and Nuts to the cutthroat headquarters of Recall Mania.
In the words of British magazine The Economist, Gray Davis is “”a disaster.”” Too bad we re-elected him barely nine months ago. Yet, in the long run, what will his recall ‹ assuming it succeeds ‹ accomplish? This is a question to be answered now, before we vote on Oct. 7. Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg of the National Review opposes the recall on the grounds that it “”undermines the accountability of voters, telling them in effect that they can have a do-over whenever they mess things up by electing the wrong guy; the people of California elected Gray Davis and now they must be punished.””
This principle of accountability is crucial. If elected officials are held accountable, as they should be, then voters should be as well ‹ otherwise, what’s the incentive in voting thoughtfully and wisely? (And, further, if we made such a grave mistake in reelecting Gray Davis, how do we know whether we’ve wised up in time to elect the best man for the job this time around?) This point is popular among Republicans, who see continuing time in office for Davis as a sure road to the suicide of the Democratic Party in California and possibly even a George W. Bush win in California in 2004 ‹ a disturbing thought to Democrats, indeed.
Yet, the recall’s ill effects would not end with the message to voters that mistakes in an election can be summarily (albeit expensively) erased. A successful recall would also send a message to elected officials nationwide that they’re toast if their popularity isn’t always comfortably high ‹ in that case, they will have no incentive to take risks that could temporarily hurt their favor among voters for fear of being fired. This should be a frightening thought to Republicans and Democrats alike: every politician has enemies, and an encouraging precedent in California could very easily lead the entire nation into political turmoil and recall mania.
There’s no doubt that this recall is perfectly legal according to the law. That doesn’t, however, mean it’s fair. “”Mr. Davis needs 50 percent of the vote to survive; any rival can win with a mere plurality,”” The Economist points out. In true fairness ‹ mostly fairness to the voters, who are in danger of ending up with a new governor that’s even more incompetent and unpopular than Davis ‹ the numbers should be adjusted. Davis’ required percentage of votes should be lowered or changed to a plurality (that is, the greatest percentage of votes out of any candidate, but not necessarily a simple majority). But that would take time and thoughtfulness, and we’re starved for both at this point.
Further, a replacement would most likely win with only a sizable minority of the vote: say, 30 percent. How would this new governor fare, inheriting a troubled state at an odd time and with only one- third of the state’s voters on his side? And what’s to keep him from being recalled if he makes any sort of mistake? Putting a man in office with a minority vote is a recipe for discontent and upheaval, which is precisely why it’s barred under normal circumstances.
It’s also a bad idea ‹ and a dangerous precedent ‹ to recall someone who hasn’t done anything illegal or unconstitutional. Davis sure made mistakes, but the eyes of the law are a lot more reliable than the whims of fickle voters in judging whether an official should be fired. He hasn’t done anything that he can’t work to correct. By gum, if he got us into this mess (and if we voted him into the job) he should dig us out. Living with our choices as voters is a permanent, and sometimes painful, duty.
All these points may seem moot at a time when a successful recall seems all but inevitable. Yet most polls show that only about 55 percent of people are in support of a recall. In addition, major California newspapers ‹ including the Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, Oakland Tribune, and Sacramento Bee ‹ are all recommending a “”no”” vote on the recall.
The San Diego Union-Tribune urged a “”yes”” vote in an editorial and endorsed Arnold Schwarzenegger as a replacement. This is unsurprising, as San Diego is a pocket of conservatism in California and the home of Rep. Darrell Issa, Davis’s political rival and a $1.7 million donor to the recall campaign.
The very Republicans who brought the recall against Davis in the first place, including Issa, are now waffling in their support. Issa worries that with both Schwarzenegger and State Sen. Tom McClintock (R – Thousand Oaks) representing the GOP as replacement candidates, the Republican vote will be split and Davis will simply be replaced with another Democrat. This scenario is entirely possible, despite Schwarzenegger’s considerable popularity over McClintock and McClintock’s rigid conservative brand of Republicanism that repulses most liberal California Republicans. Thus, Issa is advising a “”no”” vote on the recall, barring the exit of a GOP challenger.
Schwarzenegger, of course, is the GOP challenger who shows no signs of backing off ‹ on the contrary, he’s all set to “”take Sacramento back from the politicians.”” Never mind that he is a politician now whether he likes it or not, and a smooth-talking, shrewd one at that. Arnold appeals to California’s love of star power and brawn, and despite his obvious similarities to Ronald Reagan his brand of Republicanism is liberal, especially on social issues.
After the initial titters when he entered the race, Californians’ cries of “”He’s the Terminator, dude!”” have come to mean that we like him. We like him a lot, or perhaps we just take a perverse thrill in imagining an actor who specializes in playing a robot as the leader of our state. Either way, we’re set to give old Gray the boot and touch off a nationwide fad of recalling (or at least threatening) unpopular officials. Perhaps this time around we’ll learn than a bit of careful voting is much easier to undertake than a $25 million circus.
