WHAT PRICE LEADERSHIP?

As Americans struggle to make ends meet in an increasingly unequal society and are forced to make tough lifestyle adjustments because of the increase in energy prices, many look for a new kind of leadership that will propose and enact novel or creative solutions. At the federal level, Barack Obama promises a new type of leadership, while his Republican party opponent prefers a continuation of the Bush policies without the Bush bull. Whether Obama can deliver is an open question, even if he does manage a victory in November. Whether we want or need what McCain wishes to deliver should be answered by November.

Still, any successful transition to a new America embracing the challenges posed by a global economy and a world-wide demand for expensive oil must manage the hurdles posed by an antiquated political system and the patchwork pattern of state government across the continent. In California, we face a devilish dilemma as a result of a flawed initiative process that has balkanized part of the budgetary process, a skewed tax structure that is difficult to repair in light of the two-thirds requirement for the passage of any new state taxes, and the boom-and-bust cycle that makes a mess of the entire budget process.

Just a couple of years ago, Governor Schwarzenegger promised to fix the poor budgetary process once and for all if only we would agree to borrow another $15 billion to patch the then budget deficit. Two years later and we are another $15 to $20 billion dollars in the red. Since taxes are practically impossible to raise in California, the budget axe seems likely to be the only tool applied.

To solve the present problem, the governor first proposed an across the board cut of 10%, as well as the elimination of many state parks. That proposal did not sit well with many Democrats in Sacramento nor many voters deeply concerned about the direction California is headed. Of course, the lunatic fringe wants to blame everything on immigrants without ever wondering who would do a lot of the back-breaking work in California's fields or in its low-paying manufacturing and service industries. Nor do they seem to care that undocument immigration and its costs on California are principally the problem of the federal government, a government that seems both unwilling to offset the costs borne by California and other heavily affected states and incapable of dealing with the status of perhaps 10 million undocumented residents/workers/taxpayers in the United States.

As an educator, I am deeply worried about cutbacks in education. California already ranks at or near the bottom in educational spending. And, yes, it is expensive to educate many children whose first language is not English. But, how can we rectify the problem? A recent proposal by United Teachers of Los Angeles seems likely to miss its mark and leads this union member to question what the leadership was thinking.

Consider this: on 6 June 2008, UTLA has asked its members to walk off their jobs for one hour between 7:50 am and 8:50 am. Besides, the chaos that might ensue should every union member meet the call to action, what else will this "strike" accomplish? Will it persuade anyone in Sacramento to hold off cutting education or encourage them to insist on maintaining the present level of resources devoted to education in light of the glaring budget deficit? Will anyone in Sacramento even notice?

An even larger problem is perhaps the absence of groundwork laid in order to accomplish this job action. Teachers are conflicted and openly questioning the advisability of this action. Were we even asked our opinion before this was popped on us? How silly will we look if at least half of the membership refuses to participate?

There are other ways to accomplish our goal, methods that go beyond traditional lobbying in the state house. We could mobilize our members to protest these cuts during the summer on a day of the week that does not mess with the education of our students. We could also educate the public about the general problem that California faces: boom-bust state spending; the rigidities imposed by Proposition 13 and the two-thirds requirement for passage of new state taxes; and the iniquities inherent in the present tax system.

Instead, our leadership seem to have chosen the least effective means to accomplish the vaguest of goals. Worse: to accomplish this wispiest of goals, UTLA's leadership requires full support from its members, lest a public humiliation of the union be its fate. Thus, membership is left between a rock and a hard place. We can cooperate with the union's call to action and thus cut our noses off to spite our faces. Or, we can ignore the call to action and see the union leadership humiliated for the paltry response. Neither is a palatable choice. In either event, we are going to look pretty silly! By definition, THAT is not leadership!

Real leadership, on the other hand, crafts specific actions that have a reasonable chance to make an impact and carry the full weight of interested stakeholders behind them. Wouldn't it, therefore, make more sense to organize in as many cities, towns, suburbs and rural centers possible a state-wide protest against proposed budget cuts. Many districts, especially smaller, less urban districts, have already made difficult decisions regarding lay-offs. Let's also invite parents and students to participate by holding the event on a Saturday or a Sunday after school is finished for the year. Here's a suggestion: let's do this on Saturday, 28 June 2008, just before a final budget is due on 1 July 2008.

Change starts locally. If we allow local leadership - whether it's the mayors of our cities, the supervisors of our counties or the leaders of our unions - to call for senseless actions that have precious little chance at success and avoid creative steps that might lead to radical change, how can we expect leadership at the state, federal or global level to behave any differently. The revolution emerges from the base and eventually consumes the summit just as lava works it way from the mantle and explodes from the top of the volcano. That is change! Lead the way, please!

HILLARY, SHUT THE HELL UP!

It's one thing to lose a race gracefully. It's another thing to compare a train wreck to the civil rights struggle. Why is it that the Clinton campaign cannot accept the fact that they ran a horrible campaign predicated on an early knock-out strategy? Her nomination became neither inevitable nor successful when Obama showed the Democratic party how to raise funds away from Wall Street and big boosters and how to organize effectively and storm the early caucuses. It is true that Mrs. Clinton has campaigned well in the large states. She has a solid core of supporters. And, I would not wish for her to bow out before the voters in Montana and South Dakota had their say on 3 June, as well as the voters on Puerto Rico on 1 June.

Still, it is difficult to contain one's fury when the Clinton campaign bends over backwards to adopt the Karl Rove perspective that she has a majority of the popular vote - if we count Florida and Michigan for Ms. Clinton and do not count the undecided vote in Michigan, where Mr. Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot. Ms. Clinton, you are in this situation because you ran a campaign badly. You might have had a legitimate shot, but that was squandered when you went for a knock-out blow. It's not sexism to acknowledge that you will probably lose the nomination. It's not 2000 redux when the DNC attempts to enforce its rules vis-a-vis Michigan and Florida, rules that you agreed to back in the snows of winter.

That was then, and this is now. The only way for your twisted mathematics to work is to repudiate past deals and declare the attempt to deny Michigan and Florida delegates proper seating as a failure to count all the votes. What it does not do is improve your image. Indeed, it does the opposite. You act like a child who wishes to take home all of his or her toys when friends don't want to play according to your rules.

There is a case to be made for reform of the primary process. As I noted in my previous blog, the length of the primary season needs to be shortened. Caucuses should not be allowed to allocate final delegates to the party convention. They can and should still be used early in the season to vet a lengthy list of would-be nominees. But, as the effectively organized Bamistas demonstrated, good local organization can hijack the caucus process and cause a majority vote in Texas to be overturned. If we truly wish to democratize the nomination process, then all states should have primary elections restricted to party registered voters for state-wide races.

As for the current situation: the Florida situation is perhaps the easier of the two to decide. Unfortunately, the Democrats in Florida were placed in a difficult position by Republican Governor Charlie Crist. Either vote for paper ballots and a primary election in January that would violate Democratic party rules or vote against paper ballots in order to abide by Democratic party rules. Given the horrible mess that Florida has presented the nation in 2000 and 2004 with its sloppy election process, it must have been extremely difficult for Democrats to vote against paper ballots. Though this put them in direct conflict with the DNC, their actions are understandable. As a result, let them attend the convention and apportion the delegates according to the results of the primary election where neither candidate campaigned.

Michigan, however, deserves some form of punishment. It willfully sought to violate DNC rules in order to have an impact on the election. Unfortunately, just as New Jersey and California would have been better off this year to leave well enough alone, Michigan's impact would have been greater had its primary been scheduled in February. There were no Republican machinations in Ann Arbor when this was done. It was the result of a short-sighted Democratic party leadership in Michigan who deserve derision and some form of punishment.

How should Michigan be punished? After all, it is an important state whose voters cannot be ignored or treated as second-class citizens. It's unfortunate that Mrs. Clinton's name appeared on the ballot while Obama's did not. There is no way to disentangle the uncommitted vote to see how many supported Obama or Edwards. In a sense, it doesn't matter at this stage. One could simply assign all of the uncommitted voters to Obama since he is the only candidate other than Mrs. Clinton left standing. To apportion delegates in this way treats the voters of Michigan with respect.

If the Michigan delegation is seated at the convention, should they be forbidden from casting a vote until the second or third ballots perhaps? It is a suggestion worth considering, at least in the abstract. Once again, however, it treats the opinion of Michigan voters with disrespect. Whoever went to the polls in January surely went with the expectation that they were casting a valid ballot. True, Obama's name was not on the ballot. Nor was Edwards' nor other Democratic party candidates at that time. Hillary's name was and voters who cast their ballots for her surely felt that they were casting a valid ballot.

Perhaps the Michigan delegation should be denied attendance at the convention as delegates. They could just show up as invited guests. True, the Democratic nominee might need their help at election time. However, if Obama is the nominee, he has shown a willingness to break the rules of traditional politics. His campaign refused to pay street money in Philly and in other metropolises. And, Obama's campaign has developed its own, non-traditional leadership. Maybe candidate Obama would not need the Michigan leaders who made this mess in order to succeed in the Fall. But wouldn't this also punish the voters who had a role in shaping this delegation? Do we really wish to so anger Michigan that McCain has even the slightest chance of carrying this state in November? I, for one, think attendance denial is too extreme as punishment. It does not just target the party leaders, but any delegate - no matter how trivial a role he or she played in that ill-fated decision to move up the February primary - and thus risks overkill.

Still, some punishment for violating DNC rules seems in order. Whatever the ultimate punishment is, it surely should target those who placed Michigan squarely in this mess, namely, those party leaders who tried to sneak Michigan onto center stage. It should not target voters who trudged to the polls in January to cast a vote in a primary that never should have been held in violation of DNC rules.

One can hear the anger of the Michigan bosses who might have to pay a price. You gambled and lost. Move on. And why should we kowtow to Senator Levin anyhow? Isn't it bad enough that we are slow to compel Detroit to increase fuel standards just to please GM and Ford and not to anger Senator Levin? At some point, you need to consider the greater good. And, the greater good is to allow the DNC to have some teeth as it tries to bring order to the presidential primary system. Yes, it's a mess. But, it's not as undemocratic a mess as the Republican process with its winner take all primaries.

Is it too pie-in-the-sky to hope that perhaps the Michigan party bosses could suggest their own form of punishment rather than have their cake and eat it too? If they don't like what the Storm Sewer would mete out, then what would they accept as punishment, for there should be some consequence for willfully violating DNC rules. Isn't that what good parenting is all about?

DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT

The campaign continues, as it should. Why the pundits in the media wish to see Mrs. Clinton quit the race is beyond me. Yes, the mathematics is practically impossible. And, yes, it does not seem likely that fate will suddenly shift in her favor. But, who are the media to demand an end to her campaign? Has the expense of covering primary campaigns gotten so out of hand that the news media would rather cutback coverage by eliminating the chance for ordinary voters to have a say. I haven't noticed voter unwillingness to participate in these primary elections, be they in Kentucky or Oregon.

Of course, this is not to excuse Mrs. Clinton or her former campaign advisor Mark Penn for the incredibly horrible campaign they elected to pursue. The Clinton campaign seemed blindsided by the ability of the Bamistas to gain support at various caucuses and to score early primary victories. The knockout blow did not ensue in early February. Ever since then, the Clinton campaign has played catch-up and sought to redefine what success - and entitlement to the nomination - means.

What have we learned from this seemingly endless situation? First, the primary season lasts too long. How many voters who cast ballots in February or attended caucuses in January have reconsidered their opinions based on new information about the candidates. Couldn't all of this be accomplished between, say, March and June?

Second, the mixture of caucus chosen delegates and primary assigned delegates is just plain crazy. Look at the results in Texas where Ms. Clinton won the primary, but lost the caucuses. Is it right for Obama to gain more delegates than Ms. Clinton, despite the fact that she bested him in the voting booth?

Third, caucuses are a good way for a small slice of the electorate to get to meet the candidates. They also help winnow down a large field. In other words, caucuses have a role to play. However, once the winnowing process has set in, shouldn't the voters of Iowa or Kansas or any of the other caucus states have the opportunity to select their candidate?

Fourth, we need some uniformity in the primary process. Why should some states allow non-Democrats, defined in terms of party registration, have any role in the selection of the Democratic party nominee? The putative reason: allowing independent - and more centrist - voters the right to participate in a primary helps ensure that the candidate selected will not come from the party's extreme has some merit. Equally, too, does the proposal to require a mimimum participation of registered voters for a primary election to be valid. Why should a tiny minority be able to impose its will during an election when few are expected to turn out? And, isn't the general election the place where a party should be punished if it chooses candidates from the fringe? That's what happened to George McGovern in 1972. Since statewide-elections cannot be gerrymandered, there seems no reason to allow independents to participate in statewide, Democratic primaries. As long as locally gerrymandered districts persists, then I can accept the participation of independent voters.

The reforms of the 70s and 80s within the Democratic Party got us this far. What is now required are further reforms, reforms that address the issues I have raised.

RAISON D'ETRE

Storm sewer has little, if anything, to do with waste management. Nor is it fixated upon the weather. Global warming is one of our concerns, however. An even larger concern is the pitiful state of the American political system. To say it has faults is to admit nothing. Every political system imaginable has faults. What America has are severe structural deficiencies that prevent economic and social reforms from occurring.

Perhaps the Founding Fathers intended it that way. Place barriers in the way of majoritarian reforms that might improve the social well-being of the many and thus preserve the power of elites. The point is: we are not beholden to the creators of the American Constitution, though we may be guided by some of its principles. We are emboldened to believe that we can create a more rational society, one that can emerge from the depths of the sewer into which the American political system has guided us, especially in my lifetime.

In short, we might begin by calling for a political system that eliminates the gerrymandering of legislative districts by adopting something along the lines of the German political system that combines single-member constituencies with a modified proportional representative system. We might follow that up with demands for a radical restructuring of the taxation system so that inherited wealth and income deriving from financial speculations will be treated less generously than wages earned through honest effort.

Still, we exist in the society in which we have been born and raised. There are issues that do not touch upon these core beliefs that nevertheless must be addressed, if we are ever to achieve the greater political goals we seek.

Revolutionary, perhaps. Evolutionary, certainly. The point is: unless we begin to stand on our feet and take the first hesitant steps forward, we will certainly never have the opportunity to succeed, let alone learn from our mistakes.