What You Need To Know: A Summary For You Lazy Asses
Here’s why I won’t be voting for Jerry Brown:
· He’s running a conservative campaign.
o “live within our means”
o “take the power from the state capital and move it down to the local level, closer to the people”
o “no new taxes without voter approval”
· His campaign is defensive to the point of reinforcing conservative themes, e.g. his defensively negative attitude towards taxes and spending.
· He tries to appear tough and straightforward but he’s actually weak and full of shit.
o He says he’s not gonna give us any “phony plans or snappy slogans that don’t go anywhere” but he offers us both, in spades.
§ Phony plans: His grand plan to reform the budget consists of talking with legislators… but in November instead of May! Not to mention he has no plan at all on health care.
§ Snappy slogans: He keeps talking about how he’ll bring old enemies like Democrats and Republicans, oil companies and environmentalists, yaddi yaddi ya together, into one great happy family dedicated to California first! <cue sunshine and roses>
o He talks about how he’s going to be making “tough decisions”, but two of his three central themes – move power down to the local level and no new taxes without voter approval – are about handing the “tough decisions” over to other people.
· Oh yeah, and nothing from this guy on single-payer.
· OCTOBER 11 2010 UPDATE: I watched the September 28 2010 debate between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman and, despite a few pleasant surprises from Brown, it did NOT change my opinion of Brown and my decision to not vote for him. The only way I could vote for Brown at this point is if he either does a complete 180 in his campaign, or if I find that all the minor party candidates in the race are even worse than Brown. Both possibilities are highly unlikely.
Today, October 9 2010, was supposedly Jerry Brown’s “Statewide Day of Action”. So what better day for me to explain why Jerry Brown sucks, is running the stupidest, most conservative campaign I’ve ever seen from a California Democrat, and why, barring a complete mind-hijacking on either Brown or myself, I will most certainly NOT be voting for him this November.
Jerry Brown, joke of a candidate. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
I’ve written before in “2010 California Gubernatorial Election, Democratic Primary” on how Brown was a weak-hearted, unprincipled career politician who couldn’t take a strong, principled stand if his life depended on it. This was most noticeable in his non-position on single-payer, which is my number one issue. That right there was enough for me to decide then that I wouldn’t vote for him in the general election (just as I avoided voting for him in the primary), but there was always the off-chance that he might run a liberal campaign and that would convince me to give him a second look. Alas, his campaign has been anything but liberal. In fact, if I didn’t know better I would think that he was running as a conservative. Not just any conservative; a pretentious, posturing, joke candidate of a conservative.
Let’s start with his announcement video, which was like, the exact opposite of impressive. (Note: I wanted to put the videos directly into the entry but unfortunately Xanga has issues with YouTube embedding.)
- He talks about how he would not be a candidate who bamboozles voters with “puffy slogans and platitudes” (1:52), but earlier he does precisely that when he goes to the oldest platitude in the book: “We need… a Governor who can “a leader who can pull people together, Republicans and Democrats, oil companies and environmentalists, unions and businesses. We need to work together as Californians first.” (1:22) C’mon, this whole “I’ll bring these diehard enemies together to work in harmony, motivated by their burning desire to serve the people!” is a giant, tired platitude/slogan because it’s not only vague, but it’s a fantasy and there’s almost zero chance that Brown or even Jesus Christ himself could do it. And by pretending otherwise, Brown, who promised just before the slogans/platitudes thing to “tell you the truth” (1:49), just lied to us.
- He introduces what will later become the conservative trifecta of his campaign: no new taxes without voter approval (2:02), “downsize state government” (2:06), and devolve power to localities (2:09). More on this below.
This next video, called “Serious” (itself a big joke – it’s anything but serious), basically outlines the horrible central themes of Brown’s campaign and the multiple contradictions that make his candidacy a walking craptacular.
- The conservative trifecta strikes again!
- “live within our means” (0:09); i.e. cut government spending that helps those in need
- “take the power from the state capital and move it down to the local level, closer to the people” (0:11); this is essentially devolution, one of the core principles of American conservatism. Devolution is the idea that government power should be more decentralized and that most decision-making should be up to the lower tiers of government like cities and (when argued at the national level) states. Conservatives cherish this idea because they want not just less government, but less government that applies broader standards (e.g. statewide standards instead of local ones), because that means being held responsible for and connected with more people, and conservatives don’t like being responsible for and connected with anyone other than themselves and those they choose to be with. For example, that’s why conservatives argue for less taxes so they can supposedly spend the extra money on charities (do they actually?); with taxation they don’t have as much control over who gets “their” money, but with charities they can pick and choose who gets their help and who doesn’t. Liberals have always championed more control at higher levels of government (e.g. local to state, state to national) because that means that government is taking care of more people and making sure that everyone, regardless of where they are, can benefit from higher standards. That doesn’t mean they reject lower levels of government – in fact, they want them to be involved, since they are theoretically “closer to the people” – but they still want higher levels of government being involved too so that benefits can be spread amongst all. This is in direct contrast to what Brown is explicitly saying: “take the power from the state capital”.
- “no new taxes without voter approval” (0:17); while some have argued, not without reason, that this is an improvement over our current wretched state of affairs since voter initiatives can pass with a simple majority vote rather than a 2/3 supermajority, it still represents a huge conservative frame (taxes suck!) and it closes off even the option of pushing for higher taxes, irrespective of how likely that option is to fail.
- So stupid: Brown contradicts himself twice in the same 32-second ad.
- Just like in the announcement video, he promises no “phony plans or snappy slogans that don’t go anywhere” (0:04) but then he offers just that 16 seconds later when he talks about how “we’ve got to pull together” (0:20).
- Even worse, he talks about how “we have to make some tough decisions” (0:07), even putting up a title card that says “Make Tough Decisions” for the benefit of those of us who are deaf. But two of his three central planks are precisely about avoiding having to make “tough decisions”. His argument that power should be moved from state (where he is) to local levels of government means that “tough decisions” will be made by cities and counties instead of by him. And “no new taxes without voter approval” means that he won’t be the one raising taxes; that “tough decision” will be foisted on to the people to handle.
Brown likes to pride himself as a no-bullshit guy who’ll offer specific, concrete plans and make “tough decisions” (which I’ve already shown is bullshit). His Solutions page does offer some detailed plans on various issues, but it conspicuously avoids talking at all about health care. Seems like someone’s trying to avoid having to make a “tough decision”.
Furthermore, on the toughest and most important issue facing California today, the budget and the ridiculous 2/3 requirements that make passing one almost impossible, Brown ducks the “tough decisions” and avoids taking real stands. First, his page called “Get California’s Government Working Again” looks like it was ripped off a conservative Republican’s website. He brags about how his “philosophy has always been one of frugality and living within our means” and compares himself favorably to Ronald Reagan. Hey Brown, why don’t you visit a crumbling inner-city school and tell the students there how well “frugality and living within our means” has done for them?
Go to his “Detailed Plan” and we get some details on all the state programs he wants to axe. But what about the heart of the matter: the broken budget process? There is a part of the plan called “Reform the budget process.” Finally! So what does he say about the 2/3 requirements?
NOTHING. He offers NO opinion, not even a mention of the horrendous 2/3 requirements that are basically the whole reason our state is perpetually in a shithole. Instead, his grand plan is this: sit down and talk nicely with legislators, in November instead of May. Seriously? The guy who talks about how he won’t offer “phony plans… that don’t go anywhere” is offering us just that. The guy who boasts of how he’ll be making “tough decisions” is avoiding doing just that. Is this seriously the best California Democrats have to offer – a de facto conservative who is long on talk and short on substance?
Finally, his campaign seems to be perpetually in defense mode – and conservative defense mode, at that. His give-and-take with Republican candidate Meg Whitman is essentially as follows: Whitman accuses him of being a liberal, Brown replies that he’s not a liberal and that he’s actually conservative and has done conservative things… so there.
Example: Whitman accuses Brown of having raised taxes. Brown replies, no, I’ve actually cut taxes. Lost in all this is whether or not taxes are good and why is this debate an endless cycle of “you-raised-taxes-no-I-didn’t” instead of a larger discussion on why we need taxes to fund all the important government programs people depend on and how the current tax distribution is incredibly biased towards the rich. Regardless of whether or not this campaign strategy is helping Brown (which it may well be) it doesn’t do a thing for liberal ideas. If anything, it kicks liberal ideas in the head while reinforcing conservative ones.
So in summation, here’s why I won’t be voting for Jerry Brown:
· He’s running a conservative campaign.
o “live within our means”
o “take the power from the state capital and move it down to the local level, closer to the people”
o “no new taxes without voter approval”
· His campaign is defensive to the point of reinforcing conservative themes, e.g. his defensively negative attitude towards taxes and spending.
· He tries to appear tough and straightforward but he’s actually weak and full of shit.
o He says he’s not gonna give us any “phony plans or snappy slogans that don’t go anywhere” but he offers us both, in spades.
§ Phony plans: His grand plan to reform the budget consists of talking with legislators… but in November instead of May! Not to mention he has no plan at all on health care.
§ Snappy slogans: He keeps talking about how he’ll bring old enemies like Democrats and Republicans, oil companies and environmentalists, yaddi yaddi ya together, into one great happy family dedicated to California first! <cue sunshine and roses>
o He talks about how he’s going to be making “tough decisions”, but two of his three central themes – move power down to the local level and no new taxes without voter approval – are about handing the “tough decisions” over to other people.
· Oh yeah, and nothing from this guy on single-payer.
I’m still looking into minor party candidates to see what my options are. Of course, I will have a post up explaining my choice when I have made one.
OCTOBER 10 2010 UPDATE: Added the picture.
OCTOBER 11 2010 UPDATE: After I first published this entry a friend of mine challenged me to watch the debates between Jerry Brown and Republican nominee Meg Whitman. I just finished watching the first debate (which you can find here), held on September 28 2010 at UC Davis. While I got some pleasant surprises from Brown, the debate did not fundamentally change my opinion about him and in some cases reinforced the criticisms I’ve been making of him all along. Here are some of my observations – for the most part I’m focusing on Brown, though I’ll bring up Whitman when I think it’s relevant.
· Brown reiterated some of the same bad themes I’ve discussed before, like “live within our means” and “bring people together”.
· As has been his trend, he likes talking about cutting government, at some points saying “we can cut” and “they’re still fooling around with a lot of fat up there”. If anything, state investment is critically low, so what fat is he talking about? He mentions cutting his own office’s and legislative office’s expenses. That could mean legislator pay (which is fine) but it could also mean staff pay, which is a horrible idea. Everyone loves to go after legislative staff cuz it’s a cheap and easy way to talk about saving money, but if anything our state government needs well-paid legislative staff because with the turnover effects of term limits those staff pretty much run the damn government. Then he talks about going after money in agencies, which are what perform the tasks of government. Bad, bad, bad.
· Then Brown starts talking about government investments: investing in schools, investing in clean energy, investing in Californians. How does this jive with that whole “we’ve got to cut government” and “live within our means” stick he’s been beating this whole time? He’s no better on this contradiction between anti-government themes and pro-government policies than Whitman (more on that in a bit).
· Brown does do a good job attacking Whitman’s huge tax cut for the rich. He emphasizes that repeatedly. It’s one of the few times he shows any message discipline.
· Which leads me to this point: Whitman was much better at message discipline than Brown. Whitman was spreading the conservative government-sucks gospel the whole time. Brown, obviously, was not countering with any pro-government rhetoric; if anything his rhetoric was also conservatively anti-government, in keeping with his stupid, conservative campaign.
· There are two schools of thought when it comes to creating jobs. One is the conservative way, which is to basically whore yourself out to business. That’s what Whitman was constantly talking about when she bemoaned how bad it supposedly is to do business in California. The other way is the liberal way, which is to invest in your people so that they’re attractive enough for businesses to come to them. Brown talked somewhat about education and energy but he didn’t drive home the point that this was how to create jobs. In terms of messaging I’m pretty sure Whitman’s “get on your knees for corporations” was much more memorable than Brown’s “put money into the people”, to the very weak extent that it was even articulated.
· Brown impressed me when he was asked about university tuition hikes. He was honest about not being able to roll back all the tuition increases because of the deficit. Good. He defended maintaining government revenues for universities and, in a very pleasant surprise, struck a populist note when he said “those at the top, those at the commanding heights of our economy, should tuck in their belts first”.
· Whitman was very effective in bashing government and praising the UC and CSU systems, to the point that we could’ve forgotten that those universities are part of government. And this is the conservative dichotomy that frustrates me to no end: they’re able to get away with bashing government in the abstract, while still talking the sweet talk about the certain parts of government that they either like or they can’t bash directly – in this case, universities. This is how Whitman is able to effectively separate “government” from the UC and CSU systems, as if they were two separate entities. On one hand she wants to put more money into public universities, and then she segues smoothly into wanting to “streamline the size of government”, and bemoaning how big government supposedly has gotten. Oh we have so many government employees! Cut government! Cut pensions! Cut welfare! Uh, guess what Meg? University employees are government employees. Universities are part of government. University employees use government pensions. Brown not only lets her get away with it (okay, not entirely his fault, they were moving on to another question) but he practices the same contradictory game when he talks about downsizing government while at the same time investing more in government programs that he favors.
· Brown echoes conservative rhetoric on charter schools (“competitive pressure”).
· Brown made some good points when he was asked about labor’s influence on him, shifting attention instead to business abuses. But he not only ducked a chance to defend public employee unions and public employees in general (how can he, he wants to cut their jobs), he subsequently ducked a chance to push for public financing of elections, instead going after Whitman’s campaign contributors.
· Brown’s closing argument was a rare flash of liberalism. He attacked Whitman’s huge tax cut for the rich again, and then talked about investing in people, protecting schools, and stating his belief that the richest should sacrifice first. Of course, that last part only means that he’d oppose Whitman’s tax cut, and not try to raise taxes on the rich himself. And talking about investments is hardly impressive when it’s in total contradiction with the campaign’s conservative message of living within our means and downsizing government.
· One thing that I noticed is that Brown’s delivery was straightforward, down-to-earth and folksy, a lot like Joe Biden’s – in stark contrast to Whitman’s rather robotic and scripted performance. I liked Brown’s style, but at the end of the day it is just style, and should have no weight on a voter’s decision. It certainly has no weight on mine, and I’m still not going to vote for Brown. The only way I could vote for Brown at this point is if he either does a complete 180 in his campaign, or if I find that all the minor party candidates in the race are even worse than Brown. Both possibilities are highly unlikely.
