Jerry Brown’s Misleading Clinton Endorsement

And why he hopes you don’t look anything up

On May 31, Governor of California Jerry Brown posted “An Open Letter to California Democrats and Independents,” in which he “respectfully” misled Californians on the procedures of the Democratic primary contest. On its face Brown’s letter appears to be a boilerplate endorsement of Hillary Clinton, but the letter’s tone and substance indicate a deeper sense of panic in the Clinton camp and among her surrogates about her public image.

Hoping to shift the public discourse away from last week’s damning State Department Inspector General report about her mishandling of public records, Clinton and her allies are making a push to reclaim California and the narrative of the secretary’s inevitability. An Associated Press analysis summarized that “over the months,” the secretary “repeatedly misstated key facts” — a cumbersome synonym for “lied” — adding to Democratic woes about the front runner’s credibility. Rather than address those concerns directly, Brown’s endorsement hinged on convincing readers that “the general election has already begun,” and urging California voters to recognize their irrelevance by conceding to Clinton’s supposedly “insurmountable” lead.

To the extent that the governor even makes a point, his most questionable claim has the effect of undermining the state’s voters by misinforming them of the primary process. Asserting “If Clinton were to win only 10 percent of the remaining delegates…she would still exceed the number needed for the nomination,” is a deliberate merging of half-truths — confusing delegates for super-delegates and July for the present. To exceed the 59% necessary to secure the nomination before the Democratic convention, Clinton would need to win 68% of the remaining delegates. Contrary to what Governor Brown claims, it is “wildly improbable” that Clinton would secure the nomination anytime through the remaining primaries. In other words, just as the rules contend, Democrats are virtually guaranteed to have a contested convention in Philadelphia this summer — as Sanders has repeatedly indicated.

Interestingly, the broadcast and cable news networks have made it clear that they plan to “call the nomination” for Secretary Clinton on June 7 — before voting is completed in California. When the same thing happened in Arizona, the public was rightfully outraged that voters still in line were being preempted by broadcasts announcing a winner. As governor, Brown should have a problem with this and his priority should be to ensure the political efficacy of his constituency — and he should make that clear, rather than hoping the collective repetition of the inevitability mantra solidifies a Clinton nomination before the process is complete.

In a push for party unity, Brown echoes the fears of the party elite that “this is no time for Democrats to be fighting,” but the governor is out of touch with his party members — 46% of whom voted for Senator Sanders and a majority of whom want him to remain in the race. Rather than a rushed effort at scaring voters about party discord or desperate warnings of a “new cold war…on the horizon,” Brown could have spent a moment to simply urge voters to vote — given that only 60% turned out for the 2008 primaries. Nor should he fear a contested or raucous convention. Democracy should not be avoided or feigned — voters have considerable grievances and their voices ought to be heard. A public contestation and debate over the platform and nominee of the Democrats moving forward is no “threat,” as the governor implies — it is a necessary and healthy part of the process. And as any California civics textbook would indicate, the national party conventions are exactly where those battles have traditionally been held.

Ultimately, Brown’s endorsement of Clinton and his own track record as governor reveals one particular truth: that he views governing very much as a top-down process. He has not taken kindly to social action from labor or environmental groups, preferring to see governance as a debate between elected officials and business interests. However, the 15$/hr minimum wage was secured in California by the persistent aggravations of social movements, advocating and protesting their cause and even going over the governor’s head to the state’s greater source of power — the voters — when they weren’t being heard by elected officials. When labor groups got enough signatures to qualify for the November 2016 ballot, suddenly and reluctantly Governor Brown decided to negotiate, despite previously rejecting the idea. When asked why, Brown said he hoped the deal would “preempt the need for putting a wage initiative on a ballot.” In other words, the fear of being beaten at the ballot was enough to force legislators and business interests to negotiate. By preempting the ballot initiative, Brown ensured his administration would receive the credit. Admittedly shrewd political optics, but as a matter of fact neither the legislators nor the governor initiated the policy — elected officials were the obstacle until they could no longer afford to be. Among the candidates for the Democratic nomination, only Sanders is with majority public opinion in support of a national $15/hr minimum wage. The lack of endorsement for Sanders is all the more telling of the Governor’s view on civil disobedience and his proclivities for fiscal conservatism.

Finally, Brown urges voters to recognize that the “stakes couldn’t be higher,” and as a warning, cites Donald Trump’s ignorant and bombastic claim that climate change is a “hoax.” But Brown’s own track record on environmental protection gives him little credibility on the subject. No doubt Trump is exceedingly wrong on this and nearly every other issue, but, if Governor Brown believes as he argues, that “global warming is an existential threat,” — maybe he can explain why his administration has been violating the Clean Water Act since 2014. Or why he has approved over 2,000 exemptions for oil companies to dump wastewater into federally protected aquifers reserved for drinking water. Or why no regulatory agency managed to warn of the corrosion along the Santa Barbara pipeline that poured 143,000 gallons of crude oil across one of the most biodiverse Pacific coastlines, or of the storage facility in Los Angeles that dumped 5 billion cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere — which a recent study called “the worst man-made greenhouse-gas disaster in U.S. history.” Governor Brown may sound like a Californian, but he acts like a Texan; and if he truly believed his own rhetoric he would reconsider his priorities and his endorsement. This is not how one responds to an existential threat.

Like the governor, Clinton shares a penchant for campaigning as an environmentalist and governing like a libertarian. As multiple reports have indicated, the former Secretary of State was quietly responsible for exporting the practice of fracking across the globe while loudly declaring her support for strong environmental practices. Only recently has she suggested there ought to be stricter environmental protections against fracking and has vowed both to end and protect coal mining in her administration.

Among the candidates whose energy policy reflects his rhetoric, Sanders stands alone. While Secretary Clinton’s plan offers little more than cutting subsidies to fossil fuels, Senator Sanders’ proposal is far more ambitious: setting a target for an 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050, implementing a carbon tax, banning fracking, forming a climate justice plan and hiring a workforce of 10 million to reshape our energy infrastructure. If the Governor believed sincerely that global warming is a threat and environmental protection a priority, he would not be so cavalier with his state’s energy policy or limited water supply, and he would take greater care to examine the proposals of the two Democratic candidates.