California's Flaky Image Analysis

In her essay, “We’re Only Confirming California’s Flaky Image”, Anita Creamer explains why the rest of the country views Californians as “flakes”. Her prime example of this is the 2003 gubernatorial election, where Californians elected body builder and reality TV star Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor. Californians put in office someone with absolutely no political experience in office not because of the merit of his policies, but because of the entertainment value he offered. “They blame attack ads for alienating them and the candidates themselves for offending them. The truth is, they're simply not interested because they’re not entertained. The ordinary day-to-day developments of politics and current events bore them senseless” (Creamer 433).
She perceived that politics were simply
too boring for Californians, who would rather be watching reality TV than engaging in the political process. She believed that this disengagement created a vicious cycle where Californians elected those whom they found entertaining and then disengage until they realize that something must be done about the state of their government. “Every dozen years or so, Californians arise from their apathy, look around at the state, get really upset—oh, no!—and decide the people in power are to blame” (Creamer 433). Simply put, our flaky image is a direct result of our inability to care about the politics. As a result, our government is run by people who only care about the wealthy and corporate lobbyists: those from whom they receive generous campaign contributions. “Regardless of who's in office, it’s the lobbyists and consultants who really run the show. Too bad we can’t vote them out” (Creamer 433).
I believe that Anita Creamer accurately described the state of California’s politics and its image in her essay "We're Only Confirming California's Flaky Image". It showed how Californians have short attention spans for something that isn't entertainment, such as politics. She described how "it's really lobbyists and consultants who really run the show" (Creamer 433). In my experience with Californian politics, it is evident that despite most of our politicians having liberal views, many of them still vote for policies that will benefit those who are already wealthy at the expense of those who are less fortunate. This hypocrisy worsens the wide class disparities in America.
California has always had a history of electing entertainment over brains. Creamer didn’t mention this, but Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t even the first actor to become governor. Ronald Reagan was elected the governor of California in 1966 even though he had absolutely no experience in government. Republicans nominated a “political outsider”, who had no business in politics but was charismatic and charming to uninformed voters (sound familiar?). Creamer sayid that this was why the rest of the country believes Californians are “flaky”. Sadly, I have to agree; we have a history of electing the unqualified for entertainment value.
Thankfully, since Governor Jerry Brown was elected, we have improved on that trend. Brown is no angel; he has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from big oil, healthcare, and insurance. Despite being a Democrat and having liberal views, he seems very focused on building a sixty-eight billion dollar bullet train. Sixty-eight billion dollars is enough to give every Californian household five thousand and six hundred dollars. Maybe he should ask the Californian people how they would prefer that money to be spent. We are living in a housing crisis and have schools starving for supplies. According to Creamer, this is the time period where Californians stop caring about politics and go back to watching reality TV and sipping mimosas. “Post recall, they'll drift back into apathy for another dozen years, until its time for the next great California citizen revolt when they'll continue refusing to take the smallest shred of responsibility for having helped to create the complicated mess they suddenly and desperately want easy answers to fix” (Creamer 433).
It is sad to say that she is right; we seem to care little for the policy of those we elect.
However, a considerable amount of time has passed since Creamer wrote her essay on California’s state of affairs. The recent election has woken up Californians, and overwhelming two-thirds of Californians said a solid no to fascism, demagoguery, and bigotry. Immediately after that last votes were tallied, huge protests like the Women's March were organized. Californians have finally begun to stand up for what is right. We have grown up since we put Schwarzenegger in the governor’s office, and I hope this trend continues. Gavin Newsom is running for governor in 2018, the man who brought universal healthcare to San Francisco, an achievement that I hope he can bring to the rest of the state. Bernie Sanders sent a huge message to Wall Street and the one percent who own more wealth than the bottom ninety-nine: a political revolution is brewing. Despite California’s voting record in the past, it seems to me that we have a hopeful future ahead of us, despite the setback we faced last November. Hopefully, we won’t ever recede into the lethargic state of political disengagement that Creamer
describes.
The future of our state lies in the hands of those we elect to govern it. Hopefully, Californians have learned from their past mistakes and will elect people who have their constituent’s needs in mind rather than lobbyists. Californians realize every election cycle that there is something terribly wrong with the state, whether it’s the economy or corporate corruption, but only now are they realizing that the answers to these problems are not simple. If we want to reinforce the California dream and create a society where everyone can prosper, our tradition of tuning out of politics until we are desperate must end.