Wilson Zigzagged Through an Ambivalent Electorate : Election: Pete Wilson could position himself well because the right wing let him alone. Now he has to pay for the promises that built his winning coalition.

The first blush of post-election analysis suggested that, from the election of Pete Wilson to the rejection of nearly all initiatives, California voters had no interest in an activist government prepared to aggressively tackle the state’s problems.

It’s not that simple.

Californians approached 1990 with a desire for movement away from the reactive and listless Deukmejian years. Every serious candidate for governor recognized this desire and responded to it. But fears of recession, budget gridlock in Washington and Sacramento and, finally, the Persian Gulf shock produced a tentative electorate uncertain about how much and what kind of “change” it wanted.

From midsummer onward, “Big Green,” “Safe Streets” and “Nickel a Drink” steadily lost support. For Dianne Feinstein’s campaign, an agenda for change that contrasted dramatically and positively with the current Republican status quo lost support among suburban swing voters as their fears of higher taxes overwhelmed their desire for a government that would improve their quality of life.

The small margin between Wilson and Feinstein made it clear how ambivalent the 1990 electorate was in deciding which direction to take California.

The frustration and the failure of we who worked on the Feinstein campaign was our inability to focus the electorate’s attention on the contradictions in the Wilson candidacy.

Much of the substantive thrust of the Wilson campaign involved premises designed to disassociate Pete Wilson from the Republican policies in Washington and Sacramento. On abortion, the environment and social policy, Wilson made it clear that he was not a part of the Republican orthodoxy of the 1980s. His persistent assertion that he would be an activist governor was a constant reminder that he was not George Deukmejian.

The Wilson proposals for a California Environmental Protection Agency, increased funding for the Coastal Commission and transferring pesticide regulation from agriculture to health authorities were an effort to identify with pro-”Big Green” sentiment while opposing the initiative itself. Wilson’s emphasis on expanded prenatal care and his endorsement of integrating social services with the educational system were a clear appeal to a compassionate electorate worried about diminished government commitment to the neediest in society. The fact that he was fuzzy on the details of how to pay for this--or for his even more expensive criminal justice programs--was only a campaign footnote.

Pete Wilson was able to position himself both as a candidate of the satisfied status quo and as the candidate of token change. Throughout the campaign, he zigzagged right and left. He simultaneously attacked Dianne Feinstein for being a “tax and spend” Democrat while refusing to rule out a tax hike to solve California’s fiscal crisis, calling such a declaration “irresponsible.” Only shameless pandering against affirmative action and the 1990 civil-rights bill boosted Wilson with the right wing of his party.

From a campaign manager’s perspective, I am still stunned by the tranquilized Republican right wing. Wilson was spared even token primary opposition and there was hardly a word of criticism from his party’s right flank. This silence not only gave candidate Wilson the opportunity to forge a winning coalition but will also give Gov. Wilson an opportunity to create an agenda for California liberated from the ideological baggage of his party’s past.

The Wilson Administration will define Pete Wilson more clearly than his campaign ever did. The state’s budget crisis will force Gov. Wilson--as it did Govs. Dukakis and Cuomo and Florio--to make policy choices that candidate Wilson successfully avoided.

For Democrats, the next four years afford the opportunity to further define the fairness argument that drove the closing momentum for Dianne Feinstein.

Economic anxiety created pre-election jitters that made change risky and the status quo comfortable. The state’s fiscal crisis and slowing economy will give Democrats an opening to attack Republican policies that favor the wealthy over the middle class and the disadvantaged. Only when Democrats are willing to stand up for working people and for those struggling economically will our party be the credible agent for change that California can trust.