The Onion recently ran a story under the headline:
"Democrats Hoping to Take Control of Congress From Minority Republicans in
2010."
If there were a California version
of the Onion, you could run a similar story here, simply by replacing
"Congress" with "The Legislature."
To
repeat briefly what we all know: Under California’s constitutional rules
requiring a 2/3 vote for spending bills and revenue increases, the legislative
minority, if it can stay together, is in charge. And California’s legislative
Republicans have been skilled at taking hostages each year, threatening to send
the state into fiscal chaos unless its demands are met. Democrats have been
unable to figure out how to win these battles, so they have the worst of both
worlds – they’re responsible for the legislature’s failings but don’t really
have the power to do anything about it.
What’s worse, voters seem unwilling
to change the rules to end minority rule and put the majority in control of the
legislature.
Last week, the veteran Democratic
strategist Darry Sragow, acknowledging these realities, advised Democrats to lay low and say little about the budget or the state’s structural
problems so they can keep the legislature and retake the governorship this
fall.
Sragow, in a narrow sort of way, is
right. If Democrats want hollow political victories that don’t change the
reality of the state, then they should follow his advice.
If they want to make California a
better place, and make its budget and governing systems work again, they need
to try something completely different.
What
to do? Here’s a modest proposal for the Democrats.
Surrender
the legislature.
That’s
right. Give the Republicans control.
Lose
now, in order to win later.
Now the only way to do that, given
the fact that nearly any Democrat with a pulse can win in a majority of
districts, is to refuse to run any candidates in a huge number of safe Democrat
seats. The goal: make the Republicans the majority party.
This would be a punishment
disguised as a victory for the GOP. There’s nothing worse for a party than to
be in the majority in a minority rule system.
The Democrats, once they had the
full leverage of the minority status in a 2/3 environment, could start making
demands and taking hostages. Insist upon a tax increase as the price of any
vote for the budget. If the state gets run into the ground, fine-blame the
majority, just as the Republicans do. Gum up the works.
Two things could happen in such a
scenario. First, Democrats might finally convince some Republicans of the
madness of the 2/3 supermajority fiscal issues. Certainly, Democrats would have
a better chance of convincing voters to end 2/3 rule when the Democrats are in
the minority.
And second, even if minority
Democrats couldn’t convince voters to change the supermajority rules,
Californians, after living under a Republican majority with an irresponsible
Democratic minority, would likely restore Democrats to a majority in the next
election. Heck, they might give them a 2/3 majority in both houses.
The only danger is that Democrats
might find minority rule – and the privilege of being in charge without being
responsible – so much fun that they don’t want to go back.