He'll Be Back

When a high profile politician does something that unites in opposition the party bosses from one end of the political spectrum to the other, it's a safe bet he's looking after the people's interests.  Who can claim this rare accolade?  Step forward California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger was one of the moving forces behind a California ballot referendum proposal,  Proposition 14, that was approved in that state's primary election last  week by a majority of 54% to 46%.  Although the political pundits focused on the outcome of a few specific primary contests,  Proposition 14 will likely have a more profound long-term impact on U.S. politics than any individual race, especially if other states follow California's lead.  

Proposition 14 changes the way in which Californians will elect candidates to statewide and Congressional office by replacing the traditional "primary" system with a two-stage general election.  The function of the primary election is to pick the candidates that will represent each party in the general election.   Rules differ from state to state, but the general principle is that a voter has to chose which party primary to vote in, and in many cases must register his or her affiliation with that party on or prior to the primary day.  In many states  a party affiliation,  one registered, can be changed only if the voter complies with certain bureaucratic formalities some time prior to the primary election date.  In place of this system, California will now have a two-stage open election in which anyone that meets the applicable eligibility criteria could stand as a candidate.  The candidates with the highest and second highest votes in the first round would then advance to the second round of voting - even if both were from the same party (or, indeed, from no party at all).

Supporters of the measure claim it will makes politics less partisan and allow voters to focus on the qualifications of the individual candidates.  It will empower individual voters at the expense of party bosses, increase voter turnout at elections and sharply reduce the need for candidates to pander to extremist fringe groups in order to get elected.  It will help open up the system to candidates who are not lifelong professional politicians and aren't beholden to others once they get elected.  I agree, and so apparently do the party bosses - that's why they opposed it, with dire warnings that Proposition 14 will not only increase the costs of elections but will also eliminate freedom of choice and abridge the freedom of speech!  Such threats could only be made in the Kafkaesque world of American politics, where the  "freedom" political parties value most is the freedom they currently enjoy to control the outcome of elections.

To understand the absurdity of the primary system the bosses want to retain, consider the primary election in which I had the opportunity to "vote"last week.  In my electoral district there were seven positions on the primary ballot, ranging from township government to the U.S. House of Representatives (neither of New Jersey's U.S. Senators face re-election this year).  One the Democratic side of the ballot, all seven positions were uncontested - i.e., there was no choice for the voters to exercise.  It was a ballot Joe Stalin would have been proud of.  It was almost as bad on the Republican side; only one position was contested.  The situation was similar throughout the state - which is why the turnout was dismal - only 7 percent in the county I live in.  Although voters seem to be sick and tired of politicians in general, the re-election rate for Congressional incumbents is over 90 percent.  Blame that on the grip that the party machine exercises over the primary process. 

Even where there is a genuine primary contest, primary elections tend to attract a lower voter turnout, and thus the party activists exercise disproportionate influence over who runs in the general election.   True, a politician who loses a primary can run as an independent in the general election;  Joe Lieberman did, and won.  But it rarely happens - challenging the official party candidate in a general election usually signals the end of a political career.  And because middle-of-the-road and unaffiliated voters are less likely to vote in a primary, the major party candidates tend to favor the extreme wing of their party.

This is particularly true in the case of the Republicans, where the party organization has hijacked in recent years by extremist fringe groups like the so-called "Moral Majority" and more recently the Tea Party crowd.  Such is the new found influence of the Tea Party that Republicans are finding it increasingly difficult to pick candidates that appeal to the key swing voters who often decide the outcome of general elections.   Rand Paul's recent victory in the Republican Senatorial primary in Kentucky is a case in point.  A self-defined libertarian (albeit one now officially disowned by the Libertarian Party), Rand won the primary with the strong backing of the Tea Partiers.  He's an interesting character; in the warm afterglow of his primary victory, he confided to interviewers his view that private business owners should be free to discriminate against minorities because, after all, it's their business.  Following the predictable public outcry, the Republican party dispatched its spin doctors to muzzle Mr. Paul, who has since wisely confined his media appearances to the likes of Fox News, where sympathetic hosts have given him the opportunity to explain how his comments were "misunderstood", "taken out of context" and misrepresented by the "liberal media".  Republican  party bosses may wishing they'd had a Proposition 14-style system in place in Kentucky.  They are now stuck with Rand Paul and Kentucky Democrats must be licking their lips in anticipation of the fall general election.

Democratic bosses in Pennsylvania dodged a bullet when their efforts to clear the way for aging political turncoat Arlen Specter came up short and primary voters opted instead for Rep. Joe Sestak.  The Democratic "leadership" tried everything to keep Sestak out of the race - Obama even offered him a cushy post in the Administration if he would stand aside - but he stood his ground, and the party, despite itself, will have an engaging and well-qualified candidate on the ballot in the fall, someone who represents the Democratic Party's future, not the Republican Party's past.  Sestak's case, unfortunately, is the exception not the rule.

But back to California and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

It's rare for politicians to put the electorate's interests ahead of their own, and cynics may see more than a hint of self-interest in Schwarzenegger's support for Proposition 14.  Now in his second term as California's governor he is ineligible to run again for re-election in November, and will be looking for future employment opportunities.  He may fancy his chances against incumbent U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has to face the voters in 2012.  Schwarzenegger knows he likely could not win the Republican nomination in a conventional primary system - he's said as much.  He's viewed as too liberal by many of the party activists and in particular is no friend of the nut jobs in the Tea Party.  But he does have appeal among moderate democrats, especially of the well-heeled variety, among whom his marriage to a member of the Kennedy family and his status as one of the "Hollywood elite" are seen as positive credentials.  Those moderate democrats wouldn't be eligible to vote in a Republican primary, but in a two stage general election, with a higher turnout, and no voting restrictions based on registered party affiliation, my money would be on Schwarzenegger to advance comfortably, not just to the second stage of the election, but on to Washington D.C.  

It's early days yet, but don't be surprised to hear Arnold reprise his famous catch phrase as he leaves the governor's office early next year.   "I'll be back".