DISCUSSING (AND REPENTING) AT LEISURE
Governor-elect Schwarzenegger is publicly floating the idea that--to
take quick advantage of his electoral popularity while it lasts--he is considering
initiating a November, 2004 referendum to ask the voters to put a Constitutional
cap on state spending. And isn't that a chilling reminder of the first days of the
Jerry Brown era in Oakland?
For those readers who don't know the history, Brown was elected Mayor of Oakland
in a landslide victory in the spring of 1998. Even before he took office, Brown
announced plans to ask voters to expand the mayor's powers. The result was the passage
of Measures X and D, the first to give the Mayor (among other things) control of
the city's bureaucracy, the second to allow the Mayor to appoint three members to
a formerly all-elected Oakland Unified School District Board.
We can discuss the details of this when we have more time, but five years later,
with business development stalled, crime soaring, and the public schools seized
by the state, many Oaklanders are now feeling that our arrangement with Jerry Brown--like
that between the young Count Vlad and God in Frances Ford Coppola's "Dracula"--has
not turned out entirely satisfactorily.
Act in haste. Repent at leisure. Or so some people say.
Measures X and D were passed in the euphoria of the original Brown election, without
a lot of reading of the fine print, or much of a discussion of the possible pitfalls
and long-term implications. In preparation for a revote on Measure X next year,
Oaklanders have recently been studying the law at some length, trying to figure
out exactly what it was that we did. This is sort of a barndoor-horse-escape kind
of a thing.
Perhaps Californians in general might want to learn from the Oakland lesson and
do the careful review of Mr. Schwarzenegger's proposed referendum before the
fact, rather than after. But we shall see.
Meanwhile, at the risk of having all of my good Republican friends admonish me to
"get over it," I'm wondering if we are going to have any sort of resolution
of Mr. Schwarzenegger's Affair Of The Fifteen Women.
For those of you who missed that one (or held your hands over your ears and shouted,
"I don't wanna hear it! I don't wanna hear it! I don't wanna hear it!"),
shortly before the recall election, the Los Angeles Times released a story saying
they'd found some 11 women who said that Mr. Schwarzenegger had physically assaulted
them over the past several years. After the story was published, another four women
came forward with similar charges. I deliberately use the term "physically
assaulted" rather than "groped" (the term that most newspapers used
when reporting the incidents) for a reason. "Groped" has a sort of teenage-boy-snicker
sound to it, a sort of "yeah, the girls might have squealed but they really
liked it" feel. "Assault," on the other hand, is the legal term used
when someone puts their hands on you without permission (its close cousin, "battery,"
is used when that assault leads to physical harm). And that's what the 15 women
accused Mr. Schwarzenegger of doing. Not of being boorish. Of breaking the law.
Immediately after the charges against Mr. Schwarzenegger surfaced, my conservative
friends accused my liberal friends of "hypocrisy" because—according to
the argument—liberal Democrats were castigating Mr. Schwarzenegger for the same
activity that they—the liberal Democrats—so recently excused in the former President
Clinton.
This type of thinking must have been filed under the "It Happened To Women
And It Had Something To Do With Sex, So It Must All Be The Same" category.
As far as I can tell from the public record and the public record here is more extensive
than one might desire-Mr. Clinton was never accused of putting his hands on a woman
who did not so desire. Mr. Schwarzenegger was, and is. The difference is enormous.
This does not mean that Mr. Clinton was not wrong. It merely means that Mr. Schwarzenegger-if
he did, indeed, do the things of which he stands accused-was wronger.
I can understand (while not agreeing with) why so many of my conservative friends
chose not to listen to the charges about Schwarzenegger before the election. After
all, if conservatives stood up and took the charges seriously and believed them,
it left these conservatives with a difficult choice. If they went ahead and voted
for Schwarzenegger, they would have to admit--to themselves in the privacy of the
ballot booth, if not to the public-that all this loud and chest-beating self-righteousness
they have subjected the nation to on moral issues these past few years has been
so much blown smoke.
On the other hand, if they followed their consciences and moral compasses and didn't
vote for Schwarzenegger, conservatives risked leaving the state in the hands of
either Gray Davis or Cruz Bustamante (lagging in the polls, Tom McClintock could
probably not pulled it out under any circumstances). So just say that it's all a
liberal plot or a Gray Davis dirty trick.
But the election is now over, and we have no more excuses. For Californians of all
political persuasions, the questions now hang: did our governor-elect assault fifteen
women and, if he did, do we think that's okay?
As the father of four daughters, I'm especially interested in the answer.