A Perversely Funny Proposition

Teenage pregnancy and abortion are no laughing matter. But there’s something perversely amusing about watching “conservatives” contort themselves into twisted caricatures of social-policy-through-legislation “liberals.” It’s a case of throwing under the bus the idea of small, non-intrusive government and replacing it with big daddy government. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Prop. 85 requirements for parental notification when teenagers seek abortions is the same as asking the government to act as godparent or nanny. But no, it’s not the government’s job to parent children and establish loving, communicative relationships with them. That’s what parents are for. If one values individual responsibility and freedom, then it makes no sense to advocate for more government interference in often highly traumatic personal situations.

This Land Is My Land

The real bad boy of all the propositions is Prop. 90, which would restrict — but not eliminate — governmental use of eminent domain. In principle, I’m all for this. Private property isn’t private property if the government can come along and take it. That’s like saying that all property really belongs to the government. But private owners are allowed exclusive use as long as it suits the government’s purpose. Still the case for “public use” justifications for using eminent domain can’t be entirely discounted, although cases like that of Les Surfas show that there is something wrong.

But is Prop. 90 a solution? Opponents fear that everything from historic preservation to the environment will suffer if 90 is passed. Worse, it might cost taxpayers a lot of money as government gets embroiled in lawsuit after lawsuit. The problem seems to be in the proposition’s occasionally ambiguous wording, something that even the legislative analyst takes note of.

However, the wording isn’t hopelessly vague, and we have to look at Prop. 90’s broader philosophical framework. The question is, do we see community management as the role of government or should people themselves bear the responsibility of managing their communities? Let’s rephrase that. Do we view communities as deriving from a top-down process in which government shapes the community’s form? Or should communities arise organically from a bottoms-up form of voluntary organization? Maybe it’s mixture of both, with the current system overly favoring the government.

With eminent domain restricted, the power to mold communities and achieve common goals will go where it belongs — with the people themselves, who have to learn to work together, compromise and cooperate to achieve goals of common interest.

An Overdue Cleanup

“Prop. 89 spells disaster for business in politics and gives anti-business forces the upper hand in campaigns,” wrote President Steve Rose on behalf of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce in last weekend’s edition of thefrontpageoline.com (“Chamber Offers a Shopping List for Election Day,” Oct. 27). In other words, Prop. 89 would restrict the ability of business to oppose or support candidates and initiatives. But this argument is actually misleading. While Prop. 89 may restrict the ability of legal entities, like corporations, from funding political campaigns, it doesn’t restrict any individual’s ability to participate in the political process. Corporations are restricted, but business people as individuals are not.

There are two ways to put Prop. 89 in context. The first is idealistic. If politicians are beholden to their funding sources, it’s quite right to wonder to what extent they serve their constituents and to what extent they serve their corporate donors. But if campaigns are publicly financed, there is no such conflict of interest. Politicians answer to the public they are supposed to represent.

In the end, business interests are not the only interests legislation has to be concerned about. There’s also health, education, the environment, housing and others. Narrow interests, like corporations, typically view individual pieces of legislation through the lens of their interests. Politicians, however, have to consider the bigger picture.

Second is practical. The status quo is filled with corporate donations, big spending, and all those negative ads Prop. 89 opponents are afraid the proposition will encourage. I can only assume that the Chamber of Commerce and like-minded groups are satisfied with the way businesses can currently spend their money. The question for voters is, do you think the system is working for you? Do you feel as if politicians have your interests at heart? In other words, do you have faith in elections and their results?

Finally, opponents decry Prop. 89 as a means to encourage fringe candidates. But here’s another question. Is it really so bad to have different people voice different, perhaps even innovative, ideas?

Whew. Thus ends my review of the propositions. Does anyone else have a headache?