The Ojai Post

The following is from the Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, George Lakoff. He is also a very good political strategist who understands framing and its importance in political debate.

"The Democratic leadership should listen to its grassroots.

They should immediately stop negotiating with the governor and other Republicans on how to destroy even more of what makes our state human. The Democrats, as a whole body, not just the leadership, should assert their majority, decide for themselves how they want to deal with the shortfall, and then invite the defeated Republicans publicly to join them and take their proposals to the public, first organizing serious grassroots support. "

We must immediately reject the frame that the Governor and the Republicans are trying to put on this special election. They are trying to claim that the voters have spoken and that they/we want cuts and only cuts. Already some moderate and weak Democrats in the legislature are beginning to parrot this idiocy. It is important that we reach out to our Democratic Assembly members and Senators and let them know that we want them to fight, not just cut cut cut. I could go into my justifications for this position, but I think I will rely on some people that know much more about polling and what actually happened in this election instead. From a polling memo by David Binder Research, here are the facts on this recent special election:

Contrary to what the Governor is saying after the defeat of his proposals, Prop 1A did not fail because voters delivered a message to “go all out” in cutting government spending. The all-time record low turnout for a statewide special election clearly demonstrates the lack of depth to that argument. Prop 1A did not generate a spike in turnout and taxes were not cited as the main reason why voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop 1A. Support for a state budget that relies solely on spending cuts is very limited – even among those voting no on Prop 1a.

Voters in this election were more likely to be Republicans and less likely to be Independents, whereas Democratic voters came out in proportions consistent with past turnout. Of those that voted in this election, 43% were Democrats, 42% were Republicans and 15% were Independents or minor party voters. This past November, the electorate consisted of 46% Democrats, 32% Republicans and 22% Independents or minor party voters.

In November 2010, the electorate will be a group that is more supportive of the revenue options tested in the survey, and more strongly opposed to only using cuts to balance the state budget. While only 36% of voters that turned out for the May 19th election supported using entirely budget cuts to balance the budget, even fewer – only 24% -- of non-voters felt the same way.

As I've been writing recently the real culprits in this situation are the 2/3 rules that give inordinate, undemocratic power to the minority party. We need to stand up and point the finger at the Republicans and dare them to destroy the largest economy in the entire United States. If they choose this incredibly irresponsible option, we need to hold them accountable by any legal means necessary. These may include recall proceedings on reckless, recalcitrant Republican Senators who obstruct and refuse to compromise on their already demonstrably failed ideology. Further, we need to target the 2/3 rules and eliminate their undemocratic influences. It is irrational to cling to the same failed, anti-tax, free-market ideology of the likes Grover Norquist. Our own State Senator, Tony Strickland, won his Senate seat by the thinnest of margins, yet he ignored at least 50% of his constituency and stood against passing a reasonable budget. Now that the special election has failed it is time to get to work on repealing the 2/3 rules and returning Democracy to California. More from George Lakoff:

The Democratic leadership should immediately take the initiative on a 2010 ballot measure, a supremely simple one-sentence measure. It would go something like this:

All budgetary and revenue issues shall be decided by a majority vote in both houses of the legislature.

One sentence. Simple. Straightforward. Understandable. And democratic. It should be called the California Democracy Act. From grade school on, we associate democracy with majority rule. It will make sense to voters – at last!

The term “revenue” would cover taxes without waving a red flag.

Up to now, Democrats have been acting like sheep being herded by the Republican minority. They need to show courage and stand up for what they believe. That’s what the voters are waiting for... The voters have spoken. You Democratic office-holders have(sic) chance to come out on the side of the voters. Take it!

Now, this is likely to be an ugly fight and we need to be prepared for the long haul. In addition to the repeal of the 2/3 rules, we have another good idea lying around that we should pursue. The Constitutional Convention. I've been researching this possibility whereby delegates would get together and either revise or change entirely the state's Constitution. Just this morning I was converted to be supporter of a Constitutional Convention. My initial fears centered around just who exactly these delegates would be. I was, and am still concerned about the process by which decisions would be made on any new Constitution, but many of my fears were allayed by a person with far more understanding of the process than I. Blogger and Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign, Robert Cruickshank addressed my fears on Calitics:

1. There are two possible routes to a convention. The first is the existing route - 2/3 of the Legislature votes to call one. Under Article 18 of the Constitution delegates would then be elected by Assembly district. There is some gray area here - how many delegates per district? Would the convention's scope be limited to exclude social issues? (One method is to say the convention cannot propose to voters anything amending Article 1). It's unclear whether a 2/3 majority can be obtained for a convention in this Legislature. The obstacle would not necessarily be the GOP, but instead might be established interests who fear what a convention might do.

The second route is through two initiatives. "Prop A" would change the Constitution to allow voters to call a convention without the Legislature. "Prop B" would then actually call the convention pursuant to the approval of Prop A. Prop B is where the key details would be - how are delegates picked? What would the scope be?

2. The key debate over the details will indeed be how delegates are picked. Some want a "jury" style method, such as the British Columbia Citizens Assembly used (where a random sample gets sent a request to serve, those who want to serve send it back, and that gets whittled down to a certain number through various processes). Others want a election process. That could be big and progressive - say, 15 per assembly district, elected under public financing rules. There are Voting Rights Act and maybe even Prop 209 considerations to this, although one could write the initiative to specifically exempt it from Prop 209. We could also exempt current and former legislators, as Montana did in their Con-Con in 1972.

3. It is possible that a Con-Con push could suck air away from 2/3rds. My own view is we need to fight a multi-front war. A Con-Con would not present its recommendations to voters until 2011 or 2012. We could get a 2/3rds change on the November 2010 ballot.

4. This is by no means a Republican trick. The Courage Campaign has backed this ever since 90%+ of our members said "yes" to the idea in September. The Bay Area Council are a group of moderates, are by no means anti-government wackos, and understand and embrace the goals of empowerment. We have other progressive groups like Common Cause on board and we're working in building a bigger coalition. Sure, the Republicans and the C of C will want to game it. But that's why we go to the people. That's why we empower the people through a Convention.

I cannot imagine that a convention comprised of the people would embrace Republican solutions. Those solutions are deeply unpopular. Even if the convention did propose that, we can kill it when it goes before voters for ratification (they would ratify the package as an up-or-down vote).

5. The status quo is a failure. We cannot continue like this - and in fact, we will not continue like this. We have had a slow-motion Constitutional Convention since 1978, driven mostly by the right. Arnold's proposals have all be amendments to the Constitution. Some of these have already passed - like Prop 11. Others will pass, like the open primary. If we don't get out in front via a Convention of the people, progressives will fall behind and the Constitution will change through other means into something more conservative.

We need to contact our Democratic State Senators and Assembly members let them know that we have their back. That we want them to fight and not cut. That we want a repeal of the 2/3 rules. That it is okay to behave like the majority party.

Here is a list of Democratic State Senators and Assembly members in our area. Unfortunately here in Ojai we are represented by Republicans, Tony Strickland in the 19th District in the Senate and his wife Audra Strickland in the 37th Assembly District. I'll include their information, though they will not listen to us:

ASSEMBLY

37th - N Ventura County and NW LA County - Strickland, Audra (916) 319-2037 - Room 4208 - email

35th - SB County -Nava, Pedro (916) 319-2035 - Room 2148 - email

40th - W LA County - Blumenfield, Bob (916) 319-2040 - Room 6011 - email

41st - S Ventura County and W LA County- Brownley, Julia (916) 319-2041 - Room 2163 - email

42nd - LA County - Feuer, Mike (916) 319-2042 - Room 3146 - Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov

44th - LA County- Portantino, Anthony J. (916) 319-2044 - Room 2003 - Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

53rd - SW LA County - Lieu, Ted W. (916) 319-2053 - Room 3173 - Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov

57th - E LA County - Hernandez, Edward P. (916) 319-2057 - Room 4112 - Assemblymember.Hernandez@assembly.ca.gov

SENATE

19th - SB County and Central Ventura County - Strickland, Tony - email
Thousand Oaks Sacramento Santa Barbara
(805) 494-8808 (805) 965-0862 (916) 651-4019

16th - Kern County - Florez, Dean - email
Fresno Sacramento Bakersfield
(559) 264-3070 (916) 651-4016 (661) 395-2620

20th - E. Ventura County and W. LA - Padilla, Alex - email
Van Nuys Sacramento
(818) 901-5588 (916) 651-4020

21st - LA - Liu, Carol - email
Glendale Sacramento
(626) 683-0282 (916) 651-4021

23rd - W LA - Pavley, Fran - email
Santa Monica Sacramento
(310)441-9084 (916) 651-4023

24th - SE LA - Romero, Gloria - senator.romero@sen.ca.gov
Los Angeles Sacramento Baldwin Park
(323) 881-0100 (916) 651-4024 (626) 337-2760

25th - S LA - Wright, Rod - email
Inglewood Sacramento Long Beach
(310) 412-0393 (916) 651-4025 (562) 427-1028

27th - S LA - Lowenthal, Alan - senator.lowenthal@sen.ca.gov
Long Beach Sacramento Paramount
(562) 495-4766 (916) 651-4027 (562) 529-6659

28th - S LA - Oropeza, Jenny - email
Redondo Beach Sacramento
(310) 318-6994 (916) 651-4028

Call or email these folks and let them know that you support them and that you want to see them fight against the undemocratic 2/3 rules and place the blame where it belongs, on the minority party.

To my mind, getting a functional California out of this is the ultimate goal. We are the richest economy within the richest country on Earth. There are so many things we could do here in our state that would help everyone. Just take our vehicle fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions efforts for instance. We have the highest standards in the country and in most of the world. Tuesday, President Obama made California's standards the new national standards. That's a far cry from the dark days of the Bush Administration when we were told that we couldn't set our own standards. Of course it was kind of funny that Schwarzenegger was invited by Obama to the announcement in DC just as the Governator was being severely beaten here at home.