COLUMN LEFT : Another Loss That Erodes the Coalition : Feinstein took Latinos, blacks, women and labor for granted.

For California liberals, this election generated a sense of deja vu. Like Michael Dukakis, Dianne Feinstein began to reach out to the party’s traditional constituencies toward the end of her campaign: minorities, women, labor groups and social activists. She spoke to their concerns and created a sense of excitement. On the days before the election, my Democratic friends told me that the election would be close, and if they worked hard enough, they could pull off a victory. But the excitement was short-lived. For the third straight time, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in California was defeated.

Compare this with the ebullience at the campaign headquarters of Texas Gov.-elect Ann Richards on election night. Her success can teach California Democrats something about uniting the liberal coalition through straightforward populist appeals. In contrast, early on, Feinstein attempted to conduct a centrist campaign and took her traditional liberal constituency for granted. For example, in the predominantly Latino Eastside of Los Angeles, a Feinstein campaign headquarters wasn’t set up until late September, and Democrats missed a critical opportunity to mount extensive voter-registration efforts.

Yet, despite the early direction of Feinstein’s campaign, who ultimately cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate? As expected, Latinos, blacks, women, organized labor and liberal groups. However, the low turnout of some of these traditional coalition members may indicate that Feinstein failed to mobilize those who would have voted for her; another election has passed and the potential power of a unified liberal voice remains untapped.

Moreover, this election may significantly weaken the traditional liberal political base. Limitations on terms in office, like such other notable “progressive” reforms in California politics as nonpartisanship, fundamentally weaken mass political organizations by eliminating those built by long-term incumbents.

Showing an inexplicable blind spot, many liberals who supported term limitations ignored the fact that the most ardent liberal voices in elected office are longstanding incumbents. For example, in Congress, four of the most liberal California representatives--Democrats Ronald V. Dellums of Berkeley and Augustus F. Hawkins, Edward R. Roybal and Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles--have served an average of 20 years in office. This long service has enabled them to take stands on issues anathema to mainstream politics.

Curiously, some groups (including environmentalists and consumer activists like Ralph Nader) that automatically expect knee-jerk support from all factions of the liberal coalition ignored near-unanimous opposition to term limitations by other coalition members, including minority groups. The liberal supporters of term limitations are apparently so scared of political power (which in reality is what long-term incumbency represents), that they would rather spend their efforts and monies on this issue rather than on naturalization of immigrants and voter-registration activities for liberal constituencies. Ironically, the term-limit initiative backed by that great friend of liberals, Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, was the proposition that voters approved.

There is yet another threat to the liberal coalition--the highly visible appointee that will serve as Gov.-elect Pete Wilson’s Senate replacement. If the Republican Party wants to capitalize on an ideal opportunity, Wilson will appoint Orange County Supervisor Gaddi Vasquez. By doing so, the Republican Party will benefit from having an articulate and charismatic official with a proved track record in the Senate. Vasquez would also become the first Latino from California to hold that position. Imagine how successful Vasquez could be in wooing the state’s largest minority to the Republican column.

Sound far-fetched? Consider the following. The Latino population has grown so large in California that about 6% of their vote can make a 1-point difference in a statewide election. In recent elections, Latinos have supported Democratic statewide candidates by margins of 60% to 70%. If the Republican Party substantially reduces this margin, it will dramatically change statewide and local races in Southern California in years to come.

When liberals look to the future, their post-mortem analysis of this election should focus on the failure of the Democrats to mobilize all segments of the liberal coalition. After reapportionment, California will be a dominant force in presidential politics. Time is running out, and if Democrats don’t get back to basics, the erosion of the coalition will continue and significantly affect the 1992 national election.