Jerry’s Back and Democrats Have Him: So Who Cares? Fund-Raisers, for Starters

He’s back.

By now most Californians and a good part of America have heard that, after six years in political exile, former Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. is the new chairman of the state Democratic Party.

When was the last time the election of a state party chairman made network news? The national coverage of Brown’s victory says something about his return from the political dead, and what it might mean to Democratic politics in this state.

Jerry Brown is a media favorite--he’s interesting to write about and the TV camera loves him. With a bland U.S. senator and no Democratic governor to capture the political spotlight, Brown will give California Democrats a media presence in this age of “sound-bite” politics.

Still, as Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, who endorsed Brown’s opponent, complained: “Star quality may have a place in California politics. But without the will to lead, stars don’t guide.” Other critics have scored Brown’s managerial skills; his record shows little expertise, patience or desire to handle the nuts and bolts of party administration.

So what? It’s staff that does the nuts and bolts--and Brown’s gubernatorial operation had both ethereal gurus and hard-nosed pols. And “stars” may not guide, but they can sure raise money.

California’s party organizations have been weak since Hiram Johnson and the Progressives legislated away the parties’ power in the early 1900s. Today, the real Democratic Party exists in the Legislature and through elected officials.

They held a monopoly until recently on the power and money to dictate party candidates and positions. But there are moves afoot to shift power back to the state central committees. With the election of Brown as Democratic state chairman, things won’t really change--at least that is the plan of some politicians.

Elected officials understand that the era of “the party as eunuch” has ended. And they see an opportunity to enter a new era of “the party as laundry.” They can use it to raise and expend money beyond the stringent voter-approved limits on campaign contributions to candidates and the ban on transfers of funds between candidates--a device that legislative leaders used to infuse massive amounts of money into favored candidates’ campaigns. Taking their cue from how the national parties and candidates adapted to federal limits on contributions and expenditures, California political leaders look to raise money through the state party to finance “voter education” and get-out-the-vote programs. And they want to continue to have a strong say in how and where those funds are used.

It is ironic that the man who rode the white horse of political reform into the governor’s office in 1974 should owe his political resurgence largely to the desire of politicians to get around newly enacted campaign financing restrictions. But Brown--as Proposition 13, Medfly spraying and his flip-flop on abortion during the chairmanship campaign have shown--is nothing if not flexible.

The former governor defeated a long-time party activist--who was in line to inherit control of the party apparatus--because he is a proved fund-raiser whose political-action committee has given millions to Democratic candidates since his own defeat for the U.S. Senate in 1982.

And despite his “flaky” image, he can be a pragmatic politician; he earned his spurs with the party’s legislative leaders by signing a “midnight” Democratic reapportionment bill after the 1982 election.

Reapportionment is important to the timing of Brown’s ascension. Although Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and the political organization of Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) have been antagonists since the 1980 Speakership wars, they are willing to work in tandem to protect Democratic legislative majorities and elect a governor who will sign a Democratic reapportionment plan. As top party hand, Jerry Brown is uniquely acceptable to both Willie Brown and the Waxman-Berman organization in that high-stakes match.

New party clout may also stem from a 1986 California Supreme Court decision striking down Progressive laws prohibiting political parties from making pre-primary endorsements. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the decision, it would limit the power of legislative leaders unilaterally to anoint most Democratic candidates and force lawmakers to be more accountable to their party’s electorate.

Safe districts carved out by reapportionment have meant that, for most legislators, competition emerges in primary elections--if at all. Candidates fight the important battles without party support, and then as incumbents they seldom worry about party accountability. A party endorsement program backed by dollars to get the message and the voters out might make legislators more responsive; it will certainly cause discomfort to the elected politicians now in control. They will want someone they can deal with running that show. That helped Brown gain their support despite charges that the former governor’s substantial political “baggage” will hurt Democratic candidates.

It is unclear whether Brown is viewed negatively by most voters. A California Poll indicates that people think he will do a better job as Democratic state chairman than he did as governor. That is less an endorsement of Brown than a reflection of how little public concern there is over a party chairperson’s job performance. The real danger here is that the mediagenic Brown will overshadow Democratic gubernatorial candidates fighting for voter recognition and prevent them from getting their own messages across.

There’s also concern that Brown is coldly using the party chairmanship to position himself for another run on the Senate or presidency; he has candidly admitted that he doesn’t “intend this to be my terminal position.” Critics argue that he will quickly lose interest in mundane party chores, and the siren song of national politics has distracted Brown before.

More risky is the possibility that, should Brown’s private agenda conflict with the party’s, he will use the bully pulpit of his office to mouth off as he pleases, regardless of the political fallout.

Some Democrats think Brown’s quest for higher office could be a plus. If he bungles this job, he botches his own future. Brown knows, said Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), “that he has more at risk than anybody else, that this is his only way and last chance to rebuild his political image so that he could become politically viable again.”

Risk is central to this story. Like Boss Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, Jerry Brown seen his opportunities and he took ‘em. So did the California Democratic Party.

Democratic Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp aptly described Brown’s election as a gamble. Despite its potential downside, that gamble could pay off if the state party coffers see the $1 million per month Brown has talked about raising. That is why--in an era in which the keys to political power are money and media--Jerry Brown may have been the only choice Democrats could have made in this election.

What will be the impact of that choice? Only one thing is sure: For the next couple of years the news media, politicians and grass-roots activists will have a terrific time debating whether Brown was the right choice.