The Battle for California : Revoting the Revolution

If the November election is as close as many observers expect, then it may all come down to which way California goes. And California could go either way. George Bush’s strength in California can be summarized in two words: Ronald Reagan. The California Republican Party is a shadow of Reagan, and Bush has been careful to stay inside that shadow. But California voters are notoriously trendy. They got tired of Reagan once before, in 1974. After Reagan’s two terms as governor, Californians decided to try something different. They elected Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr.

So what kind of message might work for the Democrats in California? Clinton Reilly, a Democratic political consultant, said, “Your message must be for government to help business grow, to help the economy grow, to be a partner with business in creating jobs and growth. You also need a strong common-sense profile--tough on crime, for efficiency and economy in government.” In other words, a middle-class message.

The key to California politics is, of course, the state’s vast middle class. It was their revolt that created Proposition 13, the Gann initiative and, ultimately, the Reagan revolution. The concerns of middle-class Californians have clearly been drifting away from taxes and toward public services. But how far? “The middle class feels short-changed,” said State Comptroller Gray Davis, who used to be Brown’s chief of staff. “How can their children compete in an information society if 46 other states are investing more in the future (education) than we are? Trauma centers are closing down. We’re 50th in per capita spending on roads. At some point, that will permit a more progressive use of the money that comes in.”

Proposition 13, passed 10 years ago on June 6, 1978, had a profound psychological impact on California politicians. They became terrified of taxing and spending, even to the point of allowing government to deteriorate. “It changed the nature of politics in this state,” said Davis. “The operative question for Democrats used to be, ‘Will you raise taxes?’ Then the question became, ‘Will you lower taxes?’ ”

According to Davis, who is now contemplating a run for governor, the aggregate revenue loss resulting from Proposition 13 and its aftermath amounts to about $20 billion a year--or about half the current state budget. The 1978 property tax limitation measure also gave rise to the Gann initiative, passed by 70% in 1979. The Gann initiative limits the amount of money state and local governments can spend to an amount equivalent to the 1978-79 budget--adjusted for inflation and population growth. The spending cap can be overridden only through special local initiatives.

Is it now safe for Democrats in California to talk about more spending? The answer seems to be, “Yes, but . . . .” But what? “It had better be pretty specific,” said Tom Quinn, a state official under Brown. “For instance, if I’m paying five cents more per gallon of gasoline, show me how it’s going to take me half an hour instead of an hour to get to work five years from now.”

Public works like freeways and public services like crime prevention are fine. They serve a specific, visible need and are universally available. “Social programs” are not fine. They are programs aimed at creating social change and benefiting particular groups. That is precisely the lesson that national Democrats learned, or should have learned, from the Reagan era. The only politically secure programs are “entitlements” that benefit everybody, such as Social Security and Medicare. It is much harder to sustain support for targeted programs like urban mass transit.

The reverse is true of taxes. It is dangerous to propose a general tax increase. Instead, talk about user fees, designated revenues and requiring employers to pay mandated benefits.

The message to national Democrats is, if you want to sell your program in California, keep your spending as broad as possible and your taxes as specific as possible. Don’t threaten middle-class taxpayers with a broad-based tax increase. And don’t promise new programs to create social change. Just promise programs that will serve social needs.

In fact, California politicians may have become overly cautious about spending. Voters are already taking matters into their own hands. In the view of Barbara Y. Johnson, chief aide to Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp and a longtime Democratic activist, spending initiatives represent “a focused repair job, the potholes of our society being fixed by the people.” Initiatives enable localities of increase specific taxes in order to fund specific projects.

Initiatives represent exactly the kind of taxing and spending program that works under the Proposition 13 system--specific taxes earmarked to pay for universally accessible benefits, like highway reconstruction or education.

But there has been another response to Proposition 13, one that seems at odds with the spirit of California. In pollster Mervin Field’s view, “Growth used to be California’s religion. But now people are saying, maybe we don’t want to build more housing. Maybe we don’t want to add a new freeway or another lane. We had a spate of slow-growth initiatives being passed and anti-growth officials getting elected.”

Anti-growth sentiment has resulted in a new urban populism that has surfaced in local elections statewide. Urban populist mayors have been elected in San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento and even growth-oriented San Diego. The president of the Los Angeles City Council was defeated by a candidate running on a slow-growth platform. Mayor Tom Bradley may face a similar challenge if he decides to run for a fifth term. Each of these elections has pitted a development-oriented local Establishment against a neighborhood-oriented populist, with the populist insisting that the rate of growth not be allowed to outstrip the availability of public services.

David Townsend, who has run a number of campaigns for sales-tax initiatives, said the growth issue cuts across party lines: “Republican business types want transportation, while many Democrats immediately favor raising taxes to fix the roads. But there are countertrends in both parties, with Republicans who don’t want to spend money and Democrats who believe in limited growth.”

Reilly talked about a “coastal vote” in California that is increasingly responsive to “quality of life” issues like transportation, the environment and toxic wastes. Russo, too, saw an “East-West axis” in California politics. The distinction corresponds roughly to a split between the inland and coastal parts of the state. People in the coastal areas tend to be more sensitive to quality-of-life issues like education and the environment. Inland voters are more concerned with economic and physical security and respond more positively to law-and-order issues and economic growth. Brown was a perfect coastal candidate. Gov. George Deukmejian epitomizes the values of inland California.

The Democrats enjoyed their greatest success, nationally and in California, as the party of economic growth. Can the Democrats expect to enjoy any success, even in California, by identifying themselves as anti-growth? As Sal Russo, a Republican consultant, remarked, “When economy security is threatened, quality of life concerns go out the door.”

In Russo’s view, support for growth has not diminished in California. Instead, quality of life concerns have emerged alongside it. People want both economic growth and a high quality of life. It would be extremely shortsighted for Democrats to assume that one has displaced the other. “No-growth politics is community specific--we’ve got too many cars in our streets, we don’t need any new development,” said Robert W. Naylor, the GOP state chairman. He added, “Those same folks are very much in favor of economic growth, for an expanding economy, for more jobs. They just don’t want it in their back yard.”

Naylor admits, “In some ways, they are basically contradictory sentiments.” Exactly so. But it is a bad idea for a politician to point out that contradiction.

There are other contradictions in California politics. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans; Democrats control both houses of the state Legislature, the California congressional delegation and almost all state offices below governor. But California has voted Republican in every presidential election since Harry S. Truman--except for Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 landslide. Give the GOP California’s 47 electoral votes and they are one-sixth of their way to an electoral college majority.

There is a tendency for national Democrats to do just that. The enormous cost of campaigning in California is one reason. But there are others. As Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) puts it, “The national Democratic Party will not invest in California. They take money out as if it’s a colony and put nothing back in.” In Hayden’s view, “They don’t understand California, they don’t like California, they don’t want to even think of California as a Democratic state. It’s like they’re run by the mind of Woody Allen.”

If the Democrats make no serious effort and the Republicans have a decent candidate, then Republicans usually have an edge in California. Why, then, do Democrats do so well in state elections? Because Democrats often make an extraordinary effort and Republicans often put up terrible candidates. The Democrats’ advantage is also a result of their brilliant--and controversial--reapportionment following the 1980 Census.

So if the message needed to win in November is one that appeals to the middle class, how can Democrats distinguish themselves from the Republicans? “On the quality of life issues like the environment and education,” said Reilly. Peter D. Kelly, Democratic state chairman, agreed. “There are no great ideological differences that the public perceives between the parties,” he said. Therefore, he concluded, the election will be decided by “the appearance of competence and the appearance of leadership.”

In that case, Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis should make a nice appearance. Competence is his issue, and his record in Massachusetts is one of efficiency, economy and a partnership between government and business. California Republicans view Dukakis as a formidable Democratic nominee. In the Los Angeles Times Poll in May, Dukakis was running 16 points ahead of Bush.

Naylor, the GOP state chairman, praised the probable Democratic candidate. “Dukakis has some of the same appeal as Deukmejian,” he said. “With his record, I think he would be able to tap into almost all the themes that Deukmejian has tapped into in this state. He got his state’s economy moving again. He carried out stringent tax-cutting measures. He also made the state live within its means. He represents high tech and economic growth. Massachusetts is the flagship economy for the East Coast as California is for the West Coast.” “One more thing,” he added, tying the two Dukes together. “In California, we’re used to ethnics.”