The Maverick Tribe

I'm working on a passenger rail project for the urban planning think tank SPUR, and I came across this promotional video for the California high speed rail proposal, funding for which is on this November's ballot:

Not because it's judicial activism - because it's likely to win a popular vote in California.  Not because it's bad for children - because that has been disproven by the facts.  Not because it's an extension of the sexual revolution - because marriage of any kind discourages promiscuity and self-centeredness.  Not because marriage has a consistent definition historically - because the Mormons, Warren Jeffs and old European aristocracy say otherwise.

Same sex marriage is wrong - just because.

The majority Republican California Supreme Court has just ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriages is unconstiutional.  A backlash constitutional amendment is in the works for this November.  Six months away - a long six months.

Barack Obama loves to say he's running for president because of what Martin Luther King called the "fierce urgency of now."  Guess he didn't know we already have a president who already embodies it.  According to Michael Gerson, his former speechwriter:

[Bush] views both meditation on the past and speculation about his legacy with equal suspicion, preferring to live in the urgency of the now.

Dude you're a speechwriter.  You're supposed to be original.

The Iowa caucuses are tomorrow.  If the experts are to be believed, then about six percent of the registered voters in a state containing less than one percent of the nation's inhabitants will all but determine the presidential nominations.  I listened to Pat Buchanan this morning on MSNBC tell me that if Hillary Clinton wins Iowa, she'll have the nomination locked up.  And if Romney secures a convincing win in this mainly rural, 90% white state, then no one can stop him, again according to the experts.

On February 5th I will have the opportunity to cast an irrelevant ballot in the California primary.  (Haven't made up my mind yet as to whether I'll be voting in the superfluous Democratic primary or the pointless Republican one.)  Then I get to look forward to a general election season in which neither major party candidate will so much as utter the word "California", much less have us as an audience.  (Rest assured we'll be hearing plenty of snide pronouncements about "the culture of Hollywood" and "San Francisco values".)

The Soviet-style election absurdity doesn't end with the presidential contest.  Consider my three representatives in the U.S. Congress:  Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and, as a San Francisco resident, Nancy Pelosi.  None of these women have faced a serious contender in their most recent respective reelection campaigns.  (I don't think the Republicans even bother trying to get on the ballot against Pelosi anymore.)

But wait, there's more.  Since the Prague Spring of democracy that resulted in a recall of then-governor Gray Davis in 2003, California statewide politics have been a real snore.  Not one seat in the California Legislature has changed party hands in recent memory.  (Could this have something to do with districts for California legislators being drawn by... California legislators?)  Even Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2006 reelection was contested by a weak and forgettable Democrat.

Then there's San Francisco politics, in which Mayor Gavin Newsom, with a very mixed record and an adulterous relationship with his own campaign manager's wife to his credit, was handed another term in an election that was little more than a formality.

There are lots of things we could do about this:  reform of the primary system, repeal of the electoral college system, term limits, and requiring that legislative districts be drawn by a computer, to name just a few.  Not all of these measures are necessily constructive, but we need to extend the conversation beyond the wonks and political science professors of the world.  Let's get this party started.

What's my obsession with Robert Reich all about, you might ask.  I dunno, I just think he's the coolest economist around... cooler even than those guys who wrote Freakonomics.  Also I recently attended an information session on UC Berkeley's Master of Public Policy program, the school he currently teaches at.  Given Prof. Reich's celebrity status, I figured I wouldn't be running into him, but I was wrong.  He was there and he gave a short talk.  The guy is totally deadpan.  Here are some exerpts.

On Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Back in 1967 I went on a date with one of the current presidential candidates.  Hint:  it's the only one that's a woman.  I don't remember anything about the date except that at the movies she wanted a lot of butter on her popcorn.  Significant?  You decide.

On the current TV and film writers strike:

I'm supposed to be on a plane right now to New York to appear on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  But because of the writers strike, my trip got cancelled.  Now, as a former Secretary of Labor, I'm sympathetic with their cause, but between you and me, I'm pissed.

On the public policy school he works for:

The only reason I'm here at this late hour is because the dean is a real slavedriver.  Other than that, it's an excellent school.

Brought to you by Philip:

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, states the obvious on farm policy.  Getting rid of national farm subsidies and trade barriers to agricultural imports would reduce global poverty, reduce illegal immigration, save taxpayer money, and improve the environment.  Given that repealing farm subsidies and tariffs makes so much sense to everyone except big agribusiness, we can all rest assured that Congress will never do it.

Robert Reich, you are such an adorable little man!  Who's a cute widdle idealist, huh?  You are!  Yes, who's a widdle idealist... Good boy! 

Today White House political advisor Karl Rove ("Bush's Brain") announced that he would be resigning from his duties to spend more time with his family.

 I, for one, am utterly shocked by this.  I mean, Karl Rove has a family?

The Economist is the latest entity to predict an imminent leftward turn for the United States.  Jeez, I could have told you that.  The 60's and 70's were a time of liberal overreach.  LBJ gave us guns and butter, and new era of profligate government spending.  Richard Nixon, a Republican, created the EPA, engaged with communist China, and mentioned God less then your average Democrat of today.

 Ronald Reagan gave us two decades of conservatives winning the national debate and establishing the premises of public policy.  By assumption, government was too big and addressed social problems poorly.  By assumption, liberals were an elite, overly secular segment of the population trying to tell ordinary Americans how to live their lives.  By assumption, Democrats could not be trusted in matters of national defense, or in letting free markets work without government intervention.  Enter Bill Clinton, the New Democrat, the free trader, the triangulator.

We are entering a new era, in which many of these assumptions will change, thanks to the presidency of George W. Bush, a conservative in all the bad ways and in none of the good ways.  The failure of this largely ideological presidency will weigh heavily on the political psyches of the American majority.  Let's just hope the Democrats can assume leadership of this majority with screwing everything up.