CALLING IT AS THEY SEE IT : When results don’t live up to expectations, perception is reality. : California: The state is in trouble.

Stardate: Wednesday, Nov. 7, 1990. California will go--perhaps--where few states have gone before.

As we mark the beginning of a new political decade, one thing is sure. This election, more than any other in the last decade, is a referendum on government.

It is the logical outgrowth of what went wrong with California politics in the 1980s, when the Me Decade flourished in Sacramento. It began with the brutal 1979-80 speakership battle that left the Assembly polarized and escalated the campaign-financing arms race.

Policy took a back seat to political survival. The lessons learned: Grab what power you can; hold on to it by any means available, and better not use it at all than trust anybody else to exercise it for you. Not an auspicious beginning.

Things worsened in the aftermath of the 1982 election, when Californians elected a Republican governor, George Deukmejian, and a Democratically controlled Legislature. Weak leadership couldn’t--or wouldn’t--overcome the natural tension inherent in the democratic system of checks and balances. Divided government didn’t make leadership any easier.

Critics condemned the policy deadlock resulting from Sacramento’s lack of action and surfeit of partisan bickering over such major policy issues as insurance reform, health care, education and the state budget. Once the affliction had a name, all that the voters demanded was a cure.

That helped get us where we are today--in the middle of a pivotal debate over the direction Californians want their government to take.

What kind of government will face the complex problems of the next decade? Do Californians want to give their leaders more power or less? Do voters want more services or fewer? Are they willing to pay for programs? How do they want them funded--if at all? These are the questions on Tuesday’s ballot.

Leave aside the obvious question inherent in the governor’s contest: Is the nation’s largest state going to elect a woman governor? That reflects a horse race, not a referendum. But it is appropriate to ask: Where might Democrat Dianne Feinstein or Republican Pete Wilson lead the state?

Policy differences between the two candidates are mostly a matter of degree. Both have gone through the campaign as pro-choice, pro-environment and pro-death penalty.

Each will take a more activist approach to government than did Deukmejian. Neither has put both feet in concrete over raising taxes.

Yet it is naive to think that a vote for governor is merely a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.

Look at Proposition 128--Big Green. Feinstein has endorsed it. Wilson opposes it. Should that initiative pass and survive the inevitable court tests that await it, the next administration will be responsible for its implementation. How might each candidate approach that job?

In government, policy implementation is policy-making. A chief executive committed to a program is likely to push it into reality more quickly and to define its charge more rigorously. One who is not may slow its implementation and work to dilute its impact.

A recent object lesson is Deukmejian’s “cautious”--some critics say “laggard”--approach to implementing Proposition 65, the anti-toxics initiative he opposed, which passed in 1986.

Look at reapportionment. Which political party will dominate redistricting after the 1990 census depends, to some extent, on the outcome of the gubernatorial election.

History tells us that when one party controls the process of drawing new district lines--as will be the case if Democrat Feinstein wins and the Legislature remains Democratically controlled--the minority party tends to get its butt kicked. (That’s the technical term for a reapportionment that tends to favor disproportionately the other party.)

If Wilson becomes governor, his veto threat will supply a Republican brake on the creativity of the likely Democratic majority. With the possibility of seven additional California congressional seats, that has implications for the direction of public policy on both the state and national levels.

Will it be the Democrats who add to their legislative majorities, enhancing support for a liberal social agenda? Or will Republicans increase their representation and define a more conservative approach to public policy?

Look at gubernatorial appointments. Every appointee brings a world view--and most likely one close to the governor’s--to his or her job responsibilities. How will each administration reflect the diversity of California?

Judging from the people who have surrounded the candidates over the years, one may see a greater number of minorities and women in a Feinstein administration and a disproportionate percentage of white males in Wilson’s.

Both candidates understand the political necessity of reaching out to various voter groups for appointments, although neither has made it clear whether those appointments will reach to the highest levels of power.

Judicial appointments are among the most important. They allow governors to influence state policy well beyond their tenure in office. They will be particularly significant in an era where the protection of abortion rights is threatened by the possible reversal of Roe vs. Wade and the number of initiatives that find their way to the courts is increasing.

Will Wilson adhere to a pattern of safe, conservative to moderate, Republican appointments? Will Feinstein adhere to her litmus test of selecting judges who are both pro-abortion rights and pro-death penalty? Has anyone ever seen one walking around the California Democratic Party?

In this election, a vote for governor is a vote for U.S. senator. Should Wilson win, he will appoint his successor in the Senate. Will Wilson appease the GOP right wing and name a die-hard conservative? Or will he offer up a moderate, capable of communicating with Democratic colleagues? Might we see a woman or minority senator?

But enough speculation. This referendum goes far beyond hypothetical assessments of gubernatorial style and political makeup. Several proposals offer Californians an up-or-down vote on government--its structure and its ability to function--as we know it today.

Propositions 131 and 140, the term-limitation proposals on the ballot, would dramatically alter the nature of California’s governmental institutions. In each, there are complex constitutional issues voters must decide and basic political choices to be made. Which direction will voters take in search of political reform and responsive government?

Are Californians ready to accept constitutional restrictions on their right to choose their own representatives as a trade-off for venting frustration with a malfunctioning system?

Will voters support Proposition 131’s more liberal approach to government reform: Throw the bums out--eventually--and institute a new system of public campaign funding?

Or will they opt for 140, an unabashedly anti-government statement?

Proposition 136 is a referendum on taxes and the willingness of Californians to allow government to raise and spend them. It would establish new requirements for adopting or raising taxes, including majority voter approval of local taxes and two-thirds voter approval to enact special taxes by initiative.

One analyst called Proposition 136 “the most California-type proposal” on the ballot, because “it really throws a monkey-wrench into things.” Indeed, it would make it even more difficult for government to budget and to pay for services a majority of voters support.

Ironically, on the same ballot that Californians decide whether to make it harder to raise special taxes, they will be voting on Propositions 129, 133 and 134, which contain special taxes--and all of which would be invalidated if Proposition 136 passes with more votes.

Californians could find themselves opting to curb government on one hand, asking government to do more on the other hand and, on the third hand, preventing much of anything from getting done at all.

Overall, the election suggests a severe case of voter schizophrenia. As a result, the outcome of this referendum on government may not be clear-cut. And that will only make matters worse. Without some indication of public consensus, political leaders will lack motivation and direction.

It’s true. We get the kind of government we deserve--or are lazy enough to accept. That’s a chilling thought to contemplate as Californians go to the polls. Or don’t.