Does opposing the governorship make me a hypocrite?

When I wrote recently that California’s recall election process was woefully flawed and in need of serious reform, angry messages poured in calling me a hypocrite.

The writers didn’t believe for a second that I opposed the recall on principle – they assumed that as a loyal Democrat, I was only paying Governor Gavin Newsom.

“You’re in his pocket,” said a dismissive tweet.

Is it true? Am I a hypocrite? Would I still be fiercely opposed to the recall if, instead of being used against a Democratic governor, it targeted a right-wing governor backing Trump – someone who, say, sparked the fossil fuel industry, hoping to end the minimum wage and combat masks and vaccine mandates? Would I still have the feeling that the recall was a disturbing, ill-structured, overused, undemocratic tool that should be reformed or abolished?

Or would I conveniently and timely change my position and support the recall?

This is an important question because we live at a time when confidence decreases, the motives are suspect and few believe their political opponents deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I admit it a lot: I would be less unhappy with the California recall if a conservative Republican risked being kicked out of office rather than a liberal Democrat. It is quite natural, given my policy.

But would I suddenly become a recalls lover? I wouldn’t, and I hope I would argue my case vigorously against them, even if it would benefit someone whose politics I hated.

After all, in a democracy it is important that we share a faith in the underlying system despite our disagreements. One of the articles of this faith is that the rules of the game must be applied impartially.

So if the recall is a badly structured and undemocratic thing when the target candidate is a Democrat, then it’s bad when he is also a Republican.

There was a time when this kind of impartiality would have been taken for granted. But I know more and more people on the right and left who are ready to play hardball without rules, because they say the stakes are so high now and, well, the other side has done it. first.

In other words, forget the intellectual coherence and the shared rules. Attack the callback when it’s your man online, but back him up when it’s theirs. Ditto for obstruction. Ditto for the candidates for the Supreme Court. Everything is fair. Everything else is sucker game.

I do not agree. As frustrating as it can be when the system makes a winner out of someone you don’t like, it will completely collapse if we throw the rules out the window.

Of Classes I’m afraid Newsom may be replaced by an inexperienced talk show host with dangerous views. But my reasons for opposing the recall are non-partisan.

On the one hand, California’s dismissal rules allow a governor to be ousted and a new one to be elected even if the former has several times the support of the latter. It may or may not be unconstitutional, but it is certainly undemocratic and stupid.

On the other hand, the progressive politicians who created the recall in the early 20th century wanted it to be used infrequently. Theodore Roosevelt said: “I do not wish to use the booster if it is possible to avoid doing so.” Woodrow Wilson noted with approval that it was “rarely used” and called it a safeguard. They were right.

Recall, if we need it, should be reserved for crime, corruption and genuine embezzlement. It should not be used cavalierly as a partisan ploy to eliminate those you disagree with but cannot beat in a fair and fair election.

This is the sixth recall effort against Newsom; the others fizzled out. California cannot have a stable and efficient government if its officials are to fight against dismissals as soon as they are elected.

To qualify a recall for the ballot, all you need to do is collect signatures equal to 12% of the votes for that position in the previous election. To become a candidate this time around, you only needed 7,000 signatures and a fee of $ 4,200. These ridiculously low barriers should be considerably tightened.

I can hear the next round of accusations: Why, if I think officials should be dismissed infrequently and only for gross misconduct, have I supported President Trump’s impeachment over Ukraine?

Here’s why.

Trump was extraordinary; he was absurd. But I have long opposed his impeachment, even though many Congressional Democrats have called for it, because disgusting policies are not enough. But his bad behavior towards Ukraine pushed me to the limit. It was blatant – a clear attempt to use his presidential power to extort a favor from a foreign leader to aid in his re-election. It smacked of Nixon’s dirty tricks.

Newsom hasn’t done anything like it. The French Laundry getaway is a bad outlook, and it speaks volumes about the governor’s character. But it is not the same.

Once the vote is over, whether Newsom stays or leaves, Californians must correct or end the recall.

As the United States enters what the Washington Post recently called an “era of perpetual dismissals,” perhaps California could shift gears and help us return to a healthy, stable and fair rules-based system. .

@Nick_Goldberg