California Conservatives Freaking Out Over Non-Partisan Primary Initiative

Joe: You have been around enough to understand that Democracy is not very pretty. At the base of it should be voluntary association. You lose some of that when you force people to join political parties, and that is what a union is, it is a political party, mostly connected to the Democrat Party.

Then you have single issue folks, pro-lifers, Planned Parenthood types, pro and anti Second American folks. Of course you have your trial attorneys, chamber of commerce people, the Boone Pickens types who want to use government of their own benefit, etc. Government consists of a very of interest groups.

In the United States, these groups mostly form around two political parties, the Republicans and Democrats--both are coalitions of interest groups. built around a philosophy. The Republicans believe in limited government and that the people are supreme. Democrats believe in an activist government and that the people are unable to govern themselves, that government is smarter and more capable.

So, candidates representing, more or less, the two philosophies run against against other for legislative office, plus you have some minor parties to keep the major parties "honest".

By taking away the organizational factor of politics, you become like Italy--a nation with dozens of political parties, coalitions and fringe groups all vying for control.

With no two or three parties in permanent control of the system, it becomes a mess--with some governments lasting a few months. Constant turmoil. Imagine who a budget battle would would out if we had all the interest groups now represented by the GOP and Dems being their own political party. Try negotiating a budget under those circumstances.

In political science you learn about "log rolling" the art of making a deal on one matter by passing or defeating another bill. Try doing that with 7-10 strong groups (political parties) in the legislature.

Democracy is ugly, but the alternative is ugly and nasty. that is why I support the current two party system.

Joe, I am sorry if I did not read your book about Arnold, so I do not know if the following was reported by you in the book.

During the 2006 campaign it became obvious that while Schwarzenegger was the Republican nominee he had great disdain for the GOP. Steve Schmidt, his chief campaign consultant, was asked if Arnold was really a Republican and his answer explains this new ballot measure, he said, "Arnold is a member of a political party, the Arnold party and he is the only member.".

The Governor is looking at the Austrian model, where currently there are six separate parties represented in national legislature, SIX. While the food and drink may be great, it is not a nation of innovation, commerce or leadership. Could it be they are too busy building government and creating coalitions to be successful?

The question for Californians is this, for all its ugliness in Sacramento, does a two party system work better than a multi-party system. (I should note that you can never take away partisanship in races--groups will form, they will endorse, even the GOP and the Dems will do this--currently neither Party endorses in a contested partisan primary, that policy will end, and you will have "official" candidates of both parties in the race for office. As you know, candidates for non partisan city council and school board races try to get the GOP leadership or Democrat leadership to endorse them so they can proclaim the GOP or Democrat mantel in a "non partisan" race.)

Lastly, because someone opposes the Governor on a ballot does not mean they are part of the "angry right' When you discuss Art Torres and his opposition to Prop. 11 you do not say he is part of the "angry left wing". Joe, by having your comment about my blog as an angry right winger shows the bias of your reporting--which you have every right to have. But, please, in the future be an equal opportunity writer, if there is an angry right wing, then you need to report on the angry left wing, and I do not remember you doing so.

Steve, I thank you for your post. Unfortunately, I can't agree with any of it, and I stand by what i wrote. Right-wingers aren't always angry--but they are about this. And their anger feels like hysteria. I'm a middle-of-the-roader--which is very clear if you read my work. I call 'em as I see 'em, and on this, your objections are off the wall. Most people are members of political parties, and they're not going to vote for something that bars such parties. And there's no evidence the governor is behind this. Perhaps Mr. Peace thinks he can convince the governor, but I would doubt that. And your conjecture about Schwarzenegger and Austria and his desire for a European model is off the wall, and wrong. I spent a lot of time talking with Schwarzenegger's Austrian friends, many of whom are involved in politics, and they are all strong party men, of the two major Austrian parties. Schwarzenegger himself has been a consistent supporter of the Austrian People's Party, or OVP, publicly endorsing candidates in their elections for years (until he became governor in 2003). He even talked about running for president of Austria and governor of Styria, his home province, as an OVP member. Austria has traditionally been a two-party system. It certainly was when Schwarzenegger grew up--every institution was affiliated either with the Reds (the social dems) or the blacks (the ovp). The challenge to that has come not from Schwarzenegger friends who are part of that system -- but from Austria's very angry right. Austria may be far away, but that dynamic isn't. The threat to the two-party system in this country is not from the middle. The nature of the parties means that the middle is well represented. The threat comes from the extremes, the far left and far right. If we see a third party in our state or our country, it will undoubtedly come from those extremes. Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/