Given the election is less than a week away, I figured I would offer my two cents regarding the upcoming gubernatorial election. In an age where it seems like radical and outrageous politics trumps rational discussion, I’m glad California has largely refrained from joining in the unproductive conversation that seems to have gripped the rest of the nation (note the absence of the Tea Party in California elections). Nonetheless, the negativity of the gubernatorial campaigns has obscured some of the facts.
Although the term “career politician” often has negative connotations, I personally do not share the sentiment. In fact, I think Jerry Brown’s career is one of his best attributes. Granted, in the Democratic primary I was pulling for Gavin Newsom (he is highly effective as San Francisco’s mayor), but Jerry Brown is acceptable in his place.
First, as governor of California in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Brown brought a bohemian atmosphere to the office, replacing the state limousine with a Plymouth and shunning the governor’s mansion for a $250 per month apartment. He was a visionary in terms of micro-technology and a green economy and focused efforts on improving mass transit and creating designated lanes for carpools and bikes, efforts that were mocked at the time but are now ubiquitous features of urban planning.
After Brown’s failed presidential bid in 1992, Brown decided to return to California politics as mayor of Oakland in 1997. Despite Meg Whitman’s ads blaming Brown for the problems in Oakland at this time, the truth of the matter is that Brown threw himself into a difficult situation, with Oakland’s schools already in disarray, an escalating crime rate, and an evaporating tax base. As mayor, Brown lived downtown in a loft and could be seen walking the streets without bodyguards, acting like just another member of the community, not some hotshot politician (or CEO for that matter). Brown revitalized the downtown area to attract businesses and attempted to fix the schools by introducing charter schools, designed to be examples for the public schools to follow, although Oakland school kids only performed marginally better. Brown seems to almost have a missionary zeal for politics, demonstrating an appreciation for the value of his work and not just an infatuation with the power.
On the other side is Republican Meg Whitman. An obviously adept CEO, Whitman has no political credentials and had even failed to vote on numerous occasions until 2002, perhaps when she realized she would have to be a registered voter if she ever wanted to hold office. Although many pundits compare a position of political leadership to being a CEO of a business, I am much less inclined to see the connection. There are certainly parallels to the jobs (organization, efficiency, leadership, etc.) but there is a fundamental difference in that the bottom line for a CEO is the almighty dollar, while the bottom line for any politician always comes down to real people and real lives.
Sure Meg Whitman grew eBay by cutting costs and outsourcing jobs, but there is no analogous situation in the political realm except, perhaps, by cutting spending and cutting public jobs. But although these methods may work for a business’s profit margin, I do not believe these methods would work for California. Cutting jobs does not help the unemployment rate nor consumer confidence, which Whitman has repeatedly addressed in her statements. Even though the large investment banks hold primary responsibility for the economic recession, somehow public employees incorrectly entered the conversation with their fat cat checks and bloated pensions. You know, all those policemen, firemen, nurses and teachers who get paid an exorbitant amount of money for how little they contribute to society. Whitman wants to cut public sector jobs and reform welfare (aka take away money from those most in need of it) while eliminating the state capital gains tax, a policy that inevitably favors the wealthy as they tend to own a greater share of stocks and bonds.
It also troubles me that Whitman has spent so much money on her campaign, surpassing $163 million (compared to Brown’s $23 million), including $140 million of her own money. It seems like her constant barrage of slick ads is trying to compensate for a lack of substantive policy. In addition, the manner in which she has campaigned (the negative ads, the false statements) leaves much to be desired in politics and is one of the many reasons people view politics so negatively. In my mind, there is no doubt Jerry Brown would serve California better as governor than Meg Whitman, complete with his years of experience in office and his pragmatic approach to politics.
Jeremy Cutcher is a political science senior and Mustang Daily liberal columnist.