Wednesday October 08, 2003 at  3:15 PM

You're dead on that my frustration has as much to do the recall "process" as it does with the outcome of the recall itself. Like virtually everyone else in the state, I'm not a big fan of Davis. Neither do I think however that he's solely to blame for the current situation. He was duly elected and it was neither prudent nor appropriate to use a recall provision obviously intended for more egregious situations to overturn the result of our last election. The great irony here of course is that the Republicans are at least as likely to be influenced by the result as the Democrats. Surely the support for Arnold compared to the lack of it for Simon or McClintock in someway reflects the fact that the hard-right social position of many Republicans is out of step with voters -- or at least California voters.

We should also be careful NOT to describe this as a "grassroots effort". This recall would have never taken place without the megalomaniacal ambitions of a multi-millionaire who bought his way into Congress and personally funded a cadre of professional signature gatherers parading as concerned citizens. Likewise however, the recall was not a right-wing conspiracy nor a power grab.

To your final point, while it is true that the recall is consistent with the letter of the law, it is also clearly inconsistent with the spirit of that law. And if we choose to base our civic life on the letter rather than their spirit of our laws, we are going to find ourselves living in an even more litigious, chaotic and uncivil society.

Russ, thanks for the comment -- thoughtful per usual. In particular, thanks for the link to the constitutional text. I have been wanting to read the actual provision but hadn't been successful in finding it.

To your point about the spirit of the law: from a pure philosophical perspective, our entire judicial system rests on the concept of interpreting the spirit of the law. There is no better example than the Bill of Rights, a text simultaneously profound in meaning but devoid of details. Almost without exception, the law lacks the necessary perspicuity to be above interpretation and any time you enter the realm of interpretation you are talking about the spirit versus the letter.

With all that however, you are absolutely correct that Mr. Issa was within his rights to pursue this matter as he did -- although the reports of deception and misconduct do give one pause. To your point however, I would say that my concern is better stated as taking issue with the lack of restraint by Mr. Issa than with the nebulous concept of the spirit of the law.

To expand; civilization depends on the general citizenry voluntarily exercising restraint most of the time. In other words, the system depends on us giving it the benefit of the doubt and trying to do what is right, whether it is or isn't the maximum allowed by law. Without voluntary restraint society would quickly turn into some large-scale version of "Lord of the Flys". In other words, laws don't exist to constrain the population so much as they exist to generally codify what we as a population believe should be the standards of conduct.

To digress for a moment: the concept of restraint is at the heart of what's so shocking about the Republicans and how they are currently conducting themselves. In the memorable past, those in power have always acted with a certain restraint even though they always had the option of exercising the full extent of their power. Now however, the concept of restraint has gone out the window as this administration pursues a unilateral, ideological agenda with no regard for the normal give and take of governance. Whether they're invading and occupying sovereign nations, corrupting the civil rights of Americans, redistricting whole states to ensure future elections, or turning their back on public opinion, e.g. their action on snowmobiles in Yellowstone, this government has taken us into a new era. To paraphrase Molly Ivins, these guys don't want to govern, they want to rule.

But finally, back to the Arnold issue. I'm starting to reconsider my position -- nothing like bald reality to make one reevaluate -- and beginning to believe that what Issa ultimately did was simply to let the genie out of the bottle. Given time, we'll see that Arnold's election turned out to be more an indictment of the Republican right -- those that would never have let him win a primary -- than it was a blow to the Democratic majority.

One last thing, I'm a bit disappointed to hear so much cynicism in your final paragraph. Even I, with enough cynicism for an entire political party still believe that there are a handful of politicians who are in public service because they truly want to serve the public -- unfortunately rare to be sure, but not yet utterly extinct.

Russ, as usual some excellent comments and sources for additional thought. Let me start with the point about Molly Ivins as that's the only easy one. I invoked her name not so much because I do or do not agree with her but rather as attribution for the quotation. However, as to whether or not the quote is an accurate reflection of Republican actions leads us back to your first paragraph and the larger question of whether the current administration poses a serious or "gathering" threat to our Constitution.

Unfortunately, such a question comes down to interpretation. I do believe we are living in a very dangerous and delicate time and that belief stems from unique aspects of our historical situation. First, it always dangerous when a single party controls both the Executive, the House, and the Senate. Such a singular hold on federal power allows the party in power to advance their agenda through party discipline without the public and open debate which serves as the hallmark of a functioning democracy. For examples we need look no further than the Justice Department's unwillingness to appoint an independent investigator over the Valerie Plum affair. If the Congress and the Executive were divided you could be certain that the public would have a much richer understanding of that situation, the pre-Sept 11 intelligent gaffes, the Iraq pre-war intelligence situation, the EPA's ongoing actions, and a true accounting for what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are plenty of other examples but the general point holds: it is dangerous when any single party controls the two activist branches of government.

Second, the era of terrorism is truly the dawning of a different age. We are struggling to live within a culture of fear and threat from an unseen enemy that may or may not be living among us. While the administration has clearly sought to address that threat in a meaningful and effective manner, they have also been willing to repeatedly exploit the emotional climate in order to advance their agenda while the public and the press largely laid-off their normal level of scrutiny. While the press remained virtually cow-towed for the 18 months following Sept. 11th, the public continues to believe the President's distortions and outright lies regarding the connection between Sept. 11 and our actions in Iraq. Again, there are plenty of additional examples but the basic point remains: the fear that pervades our domestic debate provides the President with another opportunity to operate outside the sphere of public debate and Congressional oversight.

Finally, to the point of whether the Republicans are looking to govern are to rule, I believe that we are witnessing a party that is increasingly desperate to hold onto political power because they know they are losing the culture wars. The recent California recall and election of Arnold is a case in point. Arnold could only be elected in California because he was a social moderate and yet it's an accepted fact he would have never won a Republican primary because the extreme elements of the Republican party would have never allowed his views on abortion and gay rights.

In short, the religious right is an increasingly marginalized segment of society but owing to their fervor and electoral discipline they are able to wield a level of political power disproportionate to their numerical power. They are able to do this through their undue influence on the Republican party, chiefly through the persons of John Ashcroft, George Bush, and Bill Frist.

I believe that this segment of society is looking for ways to cement themselves into permanent political power because they know all too well that their religious values and fervor are increasingly unpopular with the democratic majority.

We face a situation where the US citizenry is again divided right down the middle and both the Republicans and Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate tactics for any possible advantage. That desperation combined with my earlier points about full control of the federal government and the pervasive culture of fear, yield a situation which is dangerous to our Constitution, our national future, and the future of the world.