THE REAL LOSERS : Deciphering The Election : Political Forecast : Politics: Did California start something?

California voters began the tax revolt when they passed Proposition 13 in 1978. The Times asked ten political observers: Will the results of the 1990 California election again influence political debate in national and state elections in the next few years? Why? Norman Ornstein,senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute:

Is California a harbinger of things to come? In this election, we saw a reflection of politics as they are being played nationwide as much as leadership in trends.

But California’s politics this time will still have a profound impact on the nation’s politics in 1992. Money was a factor everywhere in 1990, but no place more so than in California. And we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Sen. Pete Wilson’s gubernatorial victory means two Golden State Senate seats will be up that year. Add to that seven new House seats, massive redistricting of state legislative and congressional districts, turmoil caused by term limits and many Assembly and state Senate members having to run for other offices, a more significant presidential primary, and 33 other U.S. Senate seats up--and the demand for money in politics will be far more intense than usual.

Politicians everywhere will be obsessed with money in 1992, and especially with money from California. They’d better hope the California economy is strong. Patricia Schroeder,member of Congress (D-Colo.):

What I saw coming out of California looked schizophrenic: On the one side, the same anger with government and incumbents that we saw in Colorado, and on the other side, voters reverted to the biggest incumbent--Wilson--the person most familiar, like an old bedroom slipper.

Maybe this is an election in which for the first time other states might have led the way. To see Ann Richards beat the quintessential cowboy down in Marlboro country, to see a woman win in the Kansas heartland, to see someone win in Florida who wouldn’t accept more than $100 from anybody and no political-action-committee money--I think California has lost its edge. To find the direction the political wind is blowing, now you’d want to look to Florida, Minnesota and Texas for the kind of populist campaigns that were run in those places. Edward J. Rollins,co-chairman, National Republican Campaign Committee:

Tuesday’s election results in California sent a strong message to the rest of the nation that unless government is more responsive to the needs and concerns of the people, it will be changed.

The approval of term limitations for California legislators is an issue that was closely watched by the entire nation. By overwhelmingly approving Proposition 140, California will be the standard to which other states, including the federal government, will look on the issue of limitation of terms.

California also reaffirmed its strong anti-tax stand. Both through ballot initiatives and the victories of candidates opposed to increased taxes, the California message is clear. Tax is controversial at all levels of government and will continue to be debated by all political parties into the 1990s. Hal Bruno,senior political analyst, ABC News:

On a few things, California will have influence. Certainly, term limitations are going to catch on, even though there was no sign of anti-incumbent fever. But other results--the environmental initiatives, the alcohol tax--were so peculiarly California that I’m not sure that the rest of the country will pick up on them.

Last June, when California passed the referendum to build more highways, some people jumped to the conclusion that the anti-tax fever that had begun with Proposition 13 was starting to wind down. That certainly is not true. If anything, the anti-tax fever that began in California a dozen years ago is stronger than ever. Peter H. Hart,Democratic pollster and political consultant:

If 1978 sent a message about how we were going to deal with fiscal matters in the 1980s, then California in 1990 is sending a similar message to the rest of the nation in terms of incumbency, term limitations and how we view our representation in government. There is a new expection and a new set of relationships between the people and those representing them in Washington, and in that I see California as very much a trend state.

But on the environment, we would make a major mistake to conclude that Americans are rethinking their commitment to environmental protection. There is too much other evidence to the contrary. Based on the polling data I have seen, California is still a state that is willing to invest in itself. I honestly believe that, at the end of the 1990s, the entire country is going to be much more demanding about improving our environment. Susan Carlson,regional program coordinator, National Audubon Society:

It is clear that the economic downturn was a major determining factor in the defeat of Big Green and Forests Forever. This is not a hopeful trend for Audubon as we look to funding other critically needed environmental programs.

One problem with Big Green . . . is that (it) ended up being quite expensive. To address this problem over the next few years, we will be looking to define legislation more specifically and designing appropriate payment schemes. But volunteer activism is clearly on the rise. This is a phenomenon we expect to see increase as environmental challenges grow and money is less and less available. Thomas E. Mann,director of governmental studies, the Brookings Institution:

I see California leading the way toward moderation and away from ideological politics. For instance, the Big Green initiative was framed in too extreme a fashion, and people rebelled.

The parties are moving toward the center--sensitive to contemporary concerns such as the environment and abortion, but at the same time trying to respond to the anxieties of middle-class Americans about the economic pinch. But most of all, I think there is a realization that we have a whole host of problems to deal with on the domestic front, and the old, ideological slogans aren’t going to solve them.

Moreover, this election may portend a retreat from California’s excesses with direct democracy. California started the movement, and maybe this resistance to ballot initiatives will slow their use around the country. It may even begin a slow process of revitalizing representative, republican government. Ronald H. Brown,chairman, Democratic National Committee:

Over the last decade, California has had a strong influence on national politics because of its population growth and diversity of its people and industry. The trend will continue. The state has always been on the cusp of change--we’ve seen it in its candidates this year and in referenda like Big Green and term limits.

Despite Dianne Feinstein’s loss . . .the Democratic message was heard nationwide (as) Wilson adopted progressive Democratic positions on child care and choice in order to squeak out a tight win. Norman Cummings,political director, Republican National Committee:

I don’t think there was any major trend coming out of any of the elections this cycle with one possible exception--the term-limitation issue. That will continue to be an issue in states that have the option of putting an initiative on the ballot.

We saw a lot of governors’ seats change party control this cycle, but California was conspicuous by retaining Republican control. From our party’s perspective, that speaks well both for our prospects within the state as well as retaining the White House for years to come. It also speaks to the saleability of the Republican message that Wilson articulated--one of innovative, conservative leadership, fiscal prudence and an opportunity for all segments of society based on a climate of economic growth. The state of the economy and economic growth are always first and foremost in the public’s mind. I expect to see a lot of innovative ideas and solutions coming out of the Wilson administration, ideas that will ensure California’s bellwether status.