Candidates, Candidates Everywhere . . .

A strange winter in Los Angeles. For weeks now, it’s been raining cats, dogs and mayoral candidates. Every few days, we get another storm. Every few days, we get another candidate. So far, 26 contenders have announced--three times as many candidates as ran for President last time around.

While the rains can be explained by El Nino, the candidate deluge is something of a mystery, given all that’s gone on lately in L.A. The past year, of course, was marked by riot and recession, and the immediate prospects aren’t much better. Pundits now compare Los Angeles to everything from a slow-motion train wreck to the former Yugoslavia. In this view, fighting to become mayor of Los Angeles seems not unlike stowing away on the Titanic.

Still, the candidates rush in, eager to take advantage of a rare opportunity. While it only seems Tom Bradley was mayor throughout the Machine Age, his decision not to seek reelection in fact has created the first mayoral race without an incumbent since 1929. Now I am sure some of the would-be mayors are blinded by their ambitions to the vexing realities that await the victor, just as others no doubt are driven by a genuine desire to tackle big problems, to save the city. A few probably are just plain nuts.

Whatever their motivations, however, the L.A. 26+ should not be faulted for timing. Counter to the prevailing wisdom, this is a terrific time to run for mayor of Los Angeles. Because of all the city’s problems--and not in spite of them--the office is long on political potential, short on risks.

*

For openers, no one expects the next mayor to do much; we’ve been well-trained. “Absent a historic reversal,” went one typical commentary, “it’s hard to see L.A. becoming anything other than a West Coast horror rivaling that of New York City.” Such sentiments should be sweet music to Bradley’s successor. Lowering expectations often is an elected official’s first task--see Bill Clinton, post-victory--but for the next L.A. mayor the job’s already been done.

Also, Los Angeles remains America’s urban metaphor, having replaced New York a while back when geo-babble about the capital of the Pacific Rim, the City of Quartz, etc., became popular. And with the riots, L.A. solidified its position, moving to the middle of a debate over the failure of American cities. As a result, whatever happens next, L.A. will remain the nation’s most closely watched city, and Bradley’s successor its most closely watched mayor--not bad duty, if a perception of progress can be created. And there will be plenty of people desperate to create precisely this perception.

Bill Clinton is one. He promised to concentrate on domestic issues, and Los Angeles will provide a crucial proving ground of his ability to deliver. Pete Wilson, too, has a huge stake in the city: For the California recession to end, the L.A. economy first must turn around. Similarly, U. S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who must run for reelection in two years, no doubt will place help for Los Angeles high on her agenda. And Peter Ueberroth has made himself a virtual prisoner to Rebuild L.A.; he must make it work in order to regain his reputation as a miracle man.

Finally, the new mayor will have one more advantage--the city itself. For all the reasons to bolt from Los Angeles, there also are a few pretty good ones to stick. The economy will turn around, and last time I checked we still had a beach and access to the markets of Asia. With the right sort of leadership, the energy that now seems bent on pulling this place apart can be redirected toward putting it all back together, toward making Los Angeles work, at least a little. And a little progress, at this point, is more than most people expect.

*

It’s a nice thesis, thank you, but there is one problem. It is possible for things to get worse, for the next mayor--despite advantages--to butcher the job. L.A.’s mayor does not enjoy much real authority. It is a job for someone skilled at commanding attention, at setting a tone and gaining power through the force of personality and ideas. And so far, the race has produced little more than screechy voices and small notions.

I understand the game. Right now, all 26 are desperate to push off from the pack and corral just enough votes to qualify for a two-candidate runoff in June. So they all seem to have picked one tight little issue--immigrants, transportation, you name it--and are sticking to it. This tends to make them look petty, one-dimensional, absurd.

Perhaps in the runoff, the tenor will change. Perhaps one of the finalists will begin to look suited to the Time magazine cover that awaits an even marginally successful successor to Tom Bradley. Also, a few days remain before the filing deadline. Maybe the Big Candidate is lurking out there like the next storm, waiting to come ashore. We can hope.