Is California governable?? A friend of mine wondered this to me a few days ago as we talked briefly of the candidates for Governor of our great state. I hadn't really considered the idea of the state being ungoverable before, but only that it would take a very special person to be a successful governor. In comes our 2 main candidates: Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown. At first blush not exactly inspiring! Now, I'm no political junkie. I'm just a simple guy trying to understand which of the candidates is most appealing to me as a citizen and voter. Now, as full disclosure, I am a conservative white male registered as a Rebulican, although I'm not exactly happy with the Republican party. Anyway, as I said I'm a simple guy, so from a simple guys perspective, here's what I see:
- Meg Whitman (Republican): former President of eBay. Took a small but growing company in 1998 and made it a bigger small company (based on employee size, not revenue which would make eBay a HUGE company) through 2008. Her claim in the campaign is she created a company of 15000 employees. I don't know if this is true (but I'll take it as such for now), and I'm not sure I really care. She also claims her experience of running a major company qualifies her with the experience needed to be Governor of California. She also touts herself as a political outsider which provides her with a strategic advantage over her competition.
- Jerry Brown (Democrat): currently the states Attorney General and former 2 term elected Governor of California (1975-1983). Now, that sounds impressive. Someone who has been there...done that!! Basically, this sentiment is the main thrust of his campaign, been there...done that...can do it again. Jerry Brown is a career politician who has been in public service in California since 1969 when he ran for and won election to the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees. Basically, 41 years in some form of political office. Now, whether or not he has done a good job in those 41 years is a highly debated topic, but for now (for the sake of argument) I'll assume he did an adequate job.
Now, I have to confess I only saw 2 of the 3 debates between these candidates, but I don't believe (from my perspective) that either of the candidates did anything to really affect the constituency. If you were a Meg supporter before the debates you were likely one after. For Jerry, it was the same. If you were undecided, you're probably still undecided. Now, as you probably have guessed, I fall unfortunately in the last category. Still undecided and not seeing a clear candidate that can make the significant changes to California necessary for success. Here's my challenge with each candidate:
- Meg Whitman it seems to me is a real novice and not entirely in touch with what it will take to make the kind of changes necessary for California to recover from financials woes and challenges facing it. Running a company is not the same as running a state (or I could say a country since California is bigger and more complicated that many countries). As President, she reported to the Board of Directors, but she had the ability to initiate and make change happen of her own accord. In state government she would have to work through others (the state senate, assembly and judiciary) to effect the necessary changes and have them stick. These bodies don't "report" to her and as such she doesn't have direct control over them. This is completely different than running a company. Additionally, she has introduced some good thoughts (from my perspective) which will be very difficult for many people in the state to support. Changes in welfare to reduce the benefit period and move funding to our failing educational systems, or making it easier for companies to work in the state so as to increase revenues and lower unemployment, for example. While I appreciate these ideas and the specific focus and plans, for these ideas to come to fruition it would require those on unemployment for a lengthy time to get off unemployment and if they don't have jobs they may end up homeless with their families which would likely increase crime in the state amongst other things. Asking more of weary Californians I expect will be a hard pill for many to swallow.
- Jerry Brown's message has been one that I frankly haven't understood. Let me explain with an analogy. If I was Governor of the state in 1920, post WWI, and then I became Governor again in 1950, post WWII. The question I have is, would the skills needed be the same to govern the state at these 2 times in our history? I expect they wouldn't be. The world had significantly changed technologically, socially, financially etc between the 2 time periods. Think back to 1975 - 1983 when Jerry Brown last was Governor. Technology has changed our lives, social issues and challenges were in their infancy if they existed at all, economically we were different. So the question becomes, does the skills and abilities gained in 8 years of service in the late 70's and early 80's sufficient to manage the state of California today? Now, aside from this analogy, all I have seen from Jerry's campaign is the "done it before...can do it again" slogan. No real view or perspective on HOW he will do it again and WHY his previous experience is so vital for California in 2010 and beyond.
So, no real answers here. I believe the only thing we really can do is look for candidates for office (not just Governor) at the federal, state and local levels that have strong morals and character. Men and women who will look for what is best for the country, state or community and do their best to achieve it. Do I think California is ungovernable? No. As I said early on, it will take a special individual(s) to accomplish it though. People who are willing to make hard decisions. Most importantly, if California is going to recover, it will take fortitude by the citizens to accept those hard decisions and look for what is best for our state and not what is best for them. To quote a Star Trek movie "the needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few, or the one".
California is a great state and can be governed, but only by those willing to do the "right" thing regardless of the consequences.
I welcome your thoughts.
