The California Recall 

The California Recall

I just have a few points on all this. Perhaps the silliest point being made is that Arnold is a mere celebrity; his campaign cheapens politics, or belittles it, or something. Wait a minute. Isn't show business one of the biggest industries in California? Isn't Arnold hugely successful, not just as a star or a pretty face, but as a producer/business person? (I think Slate has rushed to tell the story of the failre of the Hard Rock Cafe; one failure?) Update August 23: it is Planet Hollywood; here's the link.)

So Arnold is really a leading business person, like the CEO of a steel company or something. And in a democracy, are there credentials required to run for governor? Do our "normal" politicians have some kind of credential that Arnold lacks?

In general, I don't think the recall is a bad thing. As
Mickey Kaus
has said enthusiastically, voters are participating a lot more this time than they did in the general election. And they haven't risen up like a mob; they are more or less soberly concerned about the state budget.

Recalling incumbents, as long as the threshold for the number of signatures to do so is high, may cause less trouble than the proliferation of initiatives to amend the state constitution, which California has also seen. The latter gives the appearance of democracy, while it actually encourages the power of experts who can interpret what the legislature is and is not allowed to do, with all the restrictions on taxing and spending. Lawyers, accountants and lobbyists rule. Still, Californians are so used to this, in a funny way the process ends up being quite transparent.

Having said all this, the political scientist in me says you either want representative government, or you don't. If you do, you had better elect representatives either for a fixed term (the American system) or for the life of a parliament (British/Canadian), and then let them do their jobs. Contrary to what some people think, representative government was developed as a superior alternative to direct democracy, in which deliberation would be more of a factor. (I owe this observation to an old paper by Clifford Orwin). It is not simply an unfortunate substitute from which we are simply waiting for technology to free us--say, by allowing for electronic voting from home on every issue.

Of course, we are used to the idea that the sovereign people should get exactly what they want, all the time. They are polled constantly; as Harvey Mansfield has said, the implication is that so-called leaders should follow the majority view, otherwise why ask?

Tocqueville wrote that in the days of absolute monarchs and tyrants, it was almost unheard of for these individuals to be flattered as intensely as the sovereign people are in a democracy. You are right, as always; you are always right. Is there anything else we can do for you?

The classic argument that elected representatives should act and vote according to their own opinions and consciences, not those of their constituents, was made by Edmund Burke in his speech to the Electors of Bristol on November 3, 1774--just after Burke had been elected MP.

"...[a representative's] opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living....If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide....?

"To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men....But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution....parliament is a deliberative assembly...."

I'm no expert on the history of the relevant California laws, but many people have commented that both recall and "initiatives" go back to the Progressive era, when the attempt was to make the system more democratic and weaken the old machines. The House of Commons that Burke served in would obviously not be seen as very democratic today. Elie Halevy wrote a big study of Britain at the end of the Napoleonic wars (1814), in which he argued that the crazy-quilt electoral system was the most democratic in Europe. Intelligent defenders of such an old system, like Lord Salisbury at the end of the 19th century, argued that the most important thing was not whether the representatives tended to represent a certain class (or gender); but whether they succeeded, once elected, in using their reason and judgment in order to deliberate.

Isn't it true that many of the people who love the "democratic" short-cuts don't actually believe in using reason and judgment in order to deliberate in politics? They might say they simply don't trust the present incumbents, but if they support reforms that, as Burke says, impose mandates directly from the people, the implication is that deliberation has ended.

In Canada it is the Alliance party, and before them the Reform party, who keep advancing the idea of more plebiscites or referenda on specific issues, and possibly even recalls of incumbents. We have a problem that the U.S. does not: a first minister with a majority, like Chretien, is practically all-powerful. Maybe a stronger case for democratic short-cuts can be made here.

I'll end with one more thought. When Arthur Meighen was leader of the federal PC party, he was constantly dogged by the "conscription" issue--which was always short-hand for: should soldiers be conscripted to fight on behalf of Britain, even though a great many Quebeckers will object? In World War I, Tories in general were for conscription. Mackenzie King (not very prominent at the time) was a somewhat unusual anglophone Liberal who opposed it. This fact later helped him become leader, and helped ensure a solid block of Quebec seats, which in turn helped ensure Liberal governments--practically forever, it seems.

In World War II, Meighen once again said "conscription now!" Mackenzie King, the old fox, instead held a referendum on the subject. Eventually some Canadian troops were drafted, but all the toing and froing had taken so long, the war was practically over.

At some point--I can't find it on the web--Meighen (poor, frustrated Meighen) gave a speech in Hamilton in which he called for referenda--in situations where Canadian troops had been requested, and before any troops were actually sent. Now this may be the stupidest idea ever proposed by the leader of a major party in Canada; and Meighen's defenders always describe him as extraordinarily bright.