COLUMN ONE : Running From, Not For, Office : Potential leaders cite the cost, cheap shots and the invasion of privacy. They’re now opting for more rewarding careers in the private sector.

I’m not a politician , and my other habits are good also. --Artemus Ward 19th-Century American humorist

The punishment of wise men who refuse to take part in the affairs of government is to live under the government of unwise men. --Plato

Campaign Manager Jack Flanigan woke up staring at the ceiling. “It hit me like a lightning bolt,” he recalls. “I was saying to myself, ‘This is really a very difficult lifestyle. I’m not sure I want to do this the rest of my life.’ ”

At the state Capitol, Mike Gage felt “worn down” as an assemblyman and was tired of all “the public shake-and-howdy routine,” he remembers. “So I gave up my (legislative) seat and went off and led white-water rafting expeditions around the world--India, Pakistan, Chile, Peru, Zimbabwe, Zambia. . . .”

In Los Angeles, Lisa Specht ran once for office and lost and was starting to run again when somebody pulled the rug out from under her politically. Now, she’ll probably never run again, she says. “I was ready then, really focused on politics. Now I’m focused on having a well-rounded life. Timing is everything.”

These are three examples of Californians--possibly potential political leaders--who have forsaken elective office for personal reasons.

“Who needs it?” is the common cry--who needs begging for campaign donations, seeing one’s private life exposed in the news media, having one’s reputation sullied by an opponent’s cheap-shot attacks, giving up any semblance of normal family life, taking a pay cut to step off the corporate career ladder and winding up a likely loser on election night?

Meanwhile, there is a clear need for more political leaders with vision and courage to guide the nation’s most diverse and populous state. California’s infrastructure--water, transportation, education, waste facilities--is not keeping pace with its population boom. The consumer-driven, growth-oriented society is losing its battle against pollution. The Legislature for the fourth straight year failed to meet its No. 1 responsibility of passing a state budget in time for the new fiscal year, frustrating and confusing local governments, private contractors and dependent citizens.

Also, representative government has deteriorated to the point where virtually any major state action seems to require a vote of the people on a ballot measure. And symbolic of the politics of avoidance--the ignoring of complex, tough problems in favor of hot-button, crowd-pleasing rhetoric--one of the chief “issues” in the gubernatorial race has been the death penalty, in truth a non-issue that was settled years ago.

It is not certain that either Flanigan, Gage or Specht would be making a difference even if they were holding elective office. What is certain is that they, in a lot of ways, symbolize countless thousands of Californians with a natural bent toward public affairs who have opted out of running for office. As with these three, many are political junkies who may play key campaign roles behind the scenes, but have decided not to test their leadership potentials by entering the often-shallow, mean-spirited public arena that candidates must endure to achieve power.

Flanigan had been managing Republican Pete Wilson’s reelection campaign for San Diego mayor and charting his own political career 15 years ago when he “got the cure,” as he put it. “Until then, practically every waking moment of my entire existence from the time I was 10 years old had been spent preparing myself to run for office.” Now he is an Irvine Co. vice president, running the development firm’s vast lobbying activities while, in his spare time, helping to raise money for U.S. Sen. Wilson’s gubernatorial race.

Former Democratic Assemblyman Gage never has gotten the bug to run again himself. But he did get lured back into politics for a stormy stint as Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s chief deputy. “It was one of the highest and lowest times of my life,” he says. Recently, Gage has become Bradley’s point man on the Water and Power Commission, shepherding the mayor’s efforts to redirect the DWP more toward environmental concerns.

Attorney Specht was outmaneuvered running for Los Angeles city attorney when three opponents dropped out of a crowded field at the last minute and endorsed her main rival, ultimate winner James K. Hahn. Later, she withdrew early from a race for City Council because the incumbent, Zev Yaroslavsky, unexpectedly decided to run for reelection instead of for mayor. Specht insists she wasn’t embittered by these experiences--”All’s fair in war, and politics is war.” But she no longer hungers for elective office. She recently rejoined a Westside law firm headed by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Charles T. Manatt.

Why don’t more good people run for office in California? The Times posed that question to political consultants and activists, former government officials and current officeholders, private executives and academicians and got a variety of responses.

People detest asking friends and special interests for money to finance increasingly costly campaigns, they said. They also object to living in a fishbowl of public scrutiny. They abhor the character assassinations, TV “sound bite” campaigning and trivializing of issues. They know that because of the gerrymandered drawing of legislative districts the odds of a challenger beating an incumbent are slim to none.

Even if they should win, some said, the pay and hours and prestige are lousy. Besides, they observed, there is little hope of really accomplishing anything, of making a substantive difference--if you’re a Democrat, it’s because the GOP refuses to raise taxes for needed programs; if you’re a Republican, it’s because Democrats solidly control the legislative process; if you’re a member of either party, it’s because proliferating ballot measures have straitjacketed Sacramento.

And there is perhaps the most human reason of all: Fear of failure and humiliation. Confided one personal secretary for a highly successful corporate executive who long has been keenly interested in public affairs, “It’s his ego. He couldn’t stand defeat.”

The Los Angeles Times Poll also recently asked ordinary voters for their views about the quality of candidates and state government. The responses were mixed and, in some ways, indicated that the citizenry is even more cynical about elected officials than are the politicians and pundits.

The Times Poll, directed by I.A. Lewis, conducted telephone interviews in late May with 1,730 registered California voters. The margin of error was three percentage points in either direction.

Some of the findings:

* Nearly two-thirds of the voters thought that “California state government is pretty much run by a few big interests” rather than “for the benefit of all the people.” This came on the heels of a Times survey last December which showed that most voters held legislators in low esteem, believing them to be unethical and unproductive. They even thought it commonplace for lawmakers to take bribes.

* Roughly three-fourths contended that political candidates generally “are just saying what they think the voters want to hear” rather than “being honest with the voters.”

* But asked to rate the quality of people who then were running for governor--basically Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and Republican Sen. Wilson--more than eight in 10 voters described them as “good candidates.”

* And when Democratic voters who still were undecided about which gubernatorial candidate to support were asked the reason for their indecision, only a few said it was because they disliked” the contenders. Nearly two-thirds, however, said they didn’t know enough about the candidates, indicating they had not been paying much attention to them.

* Voters were not very impressed with the caliber of “leadership and vision the state government in Sacramento has provided as California prepares for the 21st Century.” Half said it had provided at least some, but four in 10 thought it had offered little if any. Republicans--apparently loyal to Gov. George Deukmejian--thought more highly of Sacramento’s leadership than did Democrats.

* Eight in 10 voters favored “placing limits on the amount of time a public official can stay in office.” Such a proposal will be on the November ballot as part of an ethics package sponsored by Van de Kamp.

* Six in 10 said they would “be willing to have a dollar or two added to (their) state income tax to finance political campaigns and eliminate all private campaign contributions in California.”

* Almost two-thirds said “the current political system discourages the best candidates from running for office.”

* Asked why they figured “more good people don’t run for office,” the leading reasons given were “they can make more money in private business” and “they will be exposed to criticism.” But only a relative few surmised that would-be candidates “don’t like to ask other people for campaign contributions,” an indication the public does not recognize the real problem that money-grubbing creates for politicians and the degree to which it discourages candidacies.

Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, who served as governor from 1958-66, remembered in a recent interview what it is like to ask people to dig into their pockets for political money. “It’s demeaning to go to a. . . .” Then he stopped himself--”not demeaning, that’s not the right word, but it’s . . .”--only to be interrupted by his wife of nearly 60 years, Bernice, who insisted firmly: “That’s not a bad word. It expresses it pretty well, I think.”

Many current politicians would agree. And campaign costs in this high-tech era of computerized mail and $10,000 TV time slots have soared astronomically since Brown’s day. Deukmejian raised roughly $13 million for his reelection campaign in 1986 and Wilson is expected to bank around $20 million this year. About $62 million was raised for legislative races in 1988.

“You have to have the ability to raise significant sums of money,” Deukmejian noted. “Some people are able to do that and others are not. They find it very difficult to go out and ask their friends.”

Did Deukmejian find it difficult? “Oh, yes. It’s a very hard thing to do. And unless you’ve got some close friends who are willing to spend a great deal of time doing that, it’s a very difficult obstacle to conducting a credible campaign. A lot of people decide not to run for office because of that.”

Joseph R. Cerrell, a veteran Los Angeles-based political consultant, said of fund raising: “I never met a politician who enjoyed it. And it absolutely turns off some wonderful people who don’t want anything to do with it.”

Cerrell went on to describe how money distorts campaigns, ethics and representative government:

“This game has become so expensive that 90% of what a politician does today is raise money. They go by newspaper editorial boards to get a story to show contributors. They walk precincts only to get media attention so contributors will see they’re running and raising money. Once they get elected in November, the first thing they have to do is raise money to retire their deficit. Then they have to start raising money for the next election.

“How the hell do I (as an officeholder) sit here with you (as a contributor) at breakfast and then go make a (voting) decision about you two hours later? They never stop thinking money, never stop raising money. As a guy who spends a lot of it for his clients, I’m telling you, it’s a bad deal.”

It certainly is one of the things that drove Gage from the Legislature and discourages him from running again. “The amount of money it takes (to win office) is appalling,” he asserted. “There’s a bit of a sickness about it; it dominates the political landscape.” As a legislator, he added, “I found the process a bit eroding. Some colleagues were voting (certain ways) just to stay in office.”

But for Flanigan and Specht, who excel at fund raising for other politicians, the main downside of holding public office is loss of privacy, free time and family life.

Specht noted the potential damage to a marriage when spouses live apart--one maintaining a career at home while the other spends most of the week in Sacramento. In a comment that was meant to be facetious but nevertheless pointed up a real problem for many couples, she said of her husband, Ron Rogers, who heads his own public relations firm: “I don’t want to leave him alone four nights a week. I’m sure he could find somebody to hang around with.”

Flanigan said: “I love politics. I’m a political junkie. I’m an example of the guy who really wanted to be a candidate, but has found his niche behind the scenes. I get all the upsides without the downsides.” The downsides, he observed, include “the fishbowl existence you lead--not only you but the family--and the grossly unfair ridicule at times, the really cheap shots.”

“One of the things that motivates people to get involved in politics,” he continued, “is that they really enjoy the recognition and acclamation of the crowd. As student body president (in high school and college) I enjoyed that. But somehow I have lost the charge from that recognition. In fact, I think you tend to have a better life in today’s society if you maintain a lower-key visibility and remain anonymous.”

Ask former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart about that. The chronicling of Hart’s extramarital escapades with aspiring actress Donna Rice, in the view of many officeholders, is a shining example of the news media’s excessive scrutiny of politicians’ private lives. These critics usually choose to ignore, for sake of discussion, that Hart’s case was special: He was running for president, the ultimate elective office where aspirants receive much more public scrutiny than, say, candidates for the Legislature; and Hart, having many times denied reports he was a womanizer, virtually challenged reporters to catch him in an affair.

“Nobody’s a saint and everybody’s got a closet and everybody’s got skeletons in their closet,” said Stuart K. Spencer, a veteran Orange County-based political consultant who has managed many campaigns for president, governor and the Legislature. “For years, we had an unwritten code that if it was a matter of public record--like a drunk driving conviction--it was fair game. But if somebody had a drinking problem or had a girlfriend and it wasn’t part of the record, we didn’t get into all that.

“I’m not saying it’s not important. It is important to some people--it’s not to me--as a measure of character and judgment and all that. I’m not making value judgments. But it is a deterrent (to running for office). . . . People say, ‘I don’t want to be exposed to all this hell-raising I did 24 years ago.’ ”

But Spencer, who runs Republican campaigns, said “the first and single biggest problem” in recruiting good candidates “is the economic return of public life. For somebody who’s competent, it doesn’t compare to the private sector.” Several people said that the level of pay is a special impediment for Republicans, who tend to be more attracted to private enterprise than to government anyway.

Currently, California’s governor makes $85,000 annually. The pay is scheduled to rise to $103,308 in January. Legislators earn $40,816--plus a tax-free expense allowance averaging $18,000 and other generous perks. But Proposition 112, approved by voters in the primary election, established a commission that is expected to at least double legislators’ pay and also increase the governor’s. Salaries of Congress members now are almost $100,000.

Meanwhile, top business executives and professional people in California routinely earn in the six figures and some reach seven figures. Opportunities abound in this prosperous, constantly growing, multifaceted state for energetic, talented entrepreneurs to make their fortunes.

Most of these successful people are action-oriented and decisive. They have little patience or respect for the cautious pace and delicate compromising that frequently leads to government gridlock or, at best, only partial solutions to problems. Clearly, in many cases, this inaction is an intended product of democracy’s checks and balances as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. But it is also, in the view of many people, the inevitable result of the cerebral atrophy and finger-to-the-wind timidity of elected officials whose first priority is clinging to public office

Indeed, Peter Ueberroth, a self-made millionaire businessman who headed the acclaimed Los Angeles Olympics and later became commissioner of baseball, was widely regarded as a potentially strong GOP candidate for governor this year. But after much agonizing he decided not to enter the race, one knowledgeable source said, because he “had doubts about whether the governor can make a significant difference--whether a governor effectively can govern anymore.”

“It’s too hard to get the Legislature to cooperate. The contentious, petty nature of the Legislature with the governor discourages people,” the source said. “And all these (ballot) initiatives have emasculated Sacramento.”

On the other hand, successful business people do not necessarily make successful politicians. Different assets and talents are required--including good looks, oratorical skills and a little showmanship--first to get elected, then to coax legislative votes from colleagues and to lead the people. “It’s not something you learn--you either have it or you don’t,” a veteran state Capitol politico noted. “Ronald Reagan had it.”

A longtime GOP strategist, who asked not to be identified, said Ueberroth actually would have made a poor candidate. “He’s too thin-skinned, too dictatorial and too strong-willed,” this person asserted, adding that as with many successful businessmen, “Ueberroth would like to have a coronation, but wouldn’t like to have an election.”

Democratic political consultant Beverly Thomas of Los Angeles put it this way:

“People who are excellent in business and want to ‘show ‘em how it’s done’ find out that politics has its own set of rules. You can’t run it like a business. Politics is being able to bob and weave out there and listening to the people. Business executives don’t have to listen to people. They can make decisions on their own. In politics, you really are trying to convince a whole lot of people to support you. Business types aren’t used to making decisions by consensus.”

Anyway, said Karen Spencer, Stuart’s daughter who has become president of the family’s consulting firm: “Kids coming up these days are a lot more interested in money than in power. If they’re interested in getting into politics, they’re into international trade. They’re more capitalistic.”

She also pointed out that “a lot of people I’d like to see run are single parents (and) women busy raising kids.”

Sandy Muir, a longtime political science professor at UC Berkeley who also wrote speeches in the Reagan White House, said: “For young people, being a Democrat is a lot more fun than being a Republican. Democrats enjoy creating these ‘marvelous’ public policies and they go into politics when they’re young. Republicans go elsewhere, into business. . . . The Reagan era lifted the stigma on private enterprise that was there for young people in the ‘60s and ‘70s.”

But for many, a stigma has developed around politics, largely because of corruption scandals in Washington, Sacramento, Los Angeles and elsewhere, but also--many Democrats contend--because government became an irresistible campaign target for Republicans.

“The public sector has diminished in prestige over the last 20 to 25 years, while the private sector has been elevated to a greater degree of respect,” former Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown said. “Ronald Reagan has diminished the prestige of government (by attacking it). People respected him and still do. And his constant outcry against government has resulted in government not being able to do the things it should do.”

Daniel K. Whitehurst, who once was considered a rising Democratic star but quit as Fresno’s mayor after becoming, he said, “a little jaded and cynical,” was one of several people who said they are discouraged by the increasing superficiality of politics with its frivolous issues. What happens, they said, is that real problems aren’t seriously discussed in campaigns or settled in legislative chambers and dedicated people who would like “to make a difference” see the futility of it all and remain on the sidelines.

“The tendency is to turn non-issues into issues because they’re likely to inflame voters,” Whitehurst said. “You see it with the flag issue. People try to capture media attention with the hot issue of the moment. Meanwhile, declining competitiveness, problems in education, the deteriorating infrastructure, homelessness, all go unaddressed.”

Echoing the view of several people who were interviewed, former Deukmejian chief-of-staff Steven A. Merksamer, now an attorney, said:

“When I was a kid, the person I admired more than anyone else was John Kennedy. I saw politics as an honorable profession, a lot like the clergy. For whatever reason, I don’t believe people have that same sense today. So why should someone who has high self-esteem desire to move into that kind of environment? I don’t think I want my son to run for office.

“In terms of future leadership of the country, we should have some concern. Where are the leaders? They are few and far between.”