Plebiscitary Democracy

In California, as in quite a number of other states, there is an increase in the use of initiatives (somewhat incorrectly referred to as "direct democracy") to achieve specific legislative results. In CA, we are seeing an increase also in the use of initiatives and special elections as part of executive-legislative bargaining. The word plebiscite is in disfavor because the plebiscite was a tool of dictators to gin up a legitimacy by having the whole public vote (usually under conditions less than free and fair) on such things as whether to still be independent, whether to grant the leader absolute power, and so forth. This word is appropriate for what we see now in California (and other states) where large numbers of particular laws are funded by private special interest groups (nearly all right wing) and then cleverly sold to the public through fancy P.R. campaigns against largely disorganized opposition. The situation is particularly grave where Democrats have control over most traditional levers of power, as in California, so they are organizationally disinclined to combating such maneuvers.

The interesting thing that I am beginnng to wonder about is whether or not this process actually entrenches the legislative majority. In CA, Dems retain power (well over 50%, but not quite 2/3) in the lege because they share the people's values. Wedge issues fail to defeat them. Instead, Republicans use them as ballot measures. Some (like the infamous prop 187) become central issues in legislative and gubernatorial campaigns. On most, the major politicians tend to take no position whatsoever (as with Prop 22, the "Knight Initiative" that pre-emptively banned gay marriage in California in 2000). The initiative did not drive the election. In fact, the proposition passed, but the Democrats (who largely opposed it, at least privately) actually increased their margin in the Assembly to 60%. Thus, rather than peeling away part of the electorate to vote Republicans, the electorate chose to vote Democratic and vote for the popular Republican-inspired wedge issue. Having their cake and eating it too.

The Governator is now using intiatives for another purpose: because he cannot possibly get anything through the legislature. He threatens that unless they negotiate with him on a more favorable basis, he'll get his special interest groups (he doesn't call them that) to fund his own legislative agenda through initiatives or even, if necessary, a whole special election devoted to them. His massive personal popularity won't do diddly for the Republican party - indeed, he loses points if he associates himself too brazenly with Republicans, so he all but pretends to be an indpendent. But, he can get the public to vote as he wishes a plebiscite.

You're asking the right question if you ask, "Why don't the Democrats do the same thing?" Is the problem lack of star power? I doubt it. The answer appears to be the comment I made earlier about how legislators aren't good at fighting against initiatives, so they're also bad at running them. Somehow by holding the legislature the Democratic Party of California (and interest groups aligned with it) they are just not set up to make end runs around the normal legislative process. If the Democrats had only a blocking minority instead (it takes 2/3 of the lege to get a budget, if you non-Californians can believe that) they'd be better at the intiative process.

I bring all this up because this is a huge difference between state and federal politics. There are no federal referenda. I just wonder if that's why the federal courts are so active -- because they remain the only way to bypass the legislative process.