The Mayoral Race Gets Down to Class Warfare : Campaign: Woo and Riordan both practice traditional politics, but the voters each man appeals to couldn’t be more different.

In politics, as in life, class tells.

Political scientists define “class” as a group of people sharing the same economic, social or political status. In the real world, “class” connotes high quality, elan, savoir-faire, dignity.

The 1993 Los Angeles mayoral race is about both.

Some people were surprised when former mayoral candidate J. Stanley Sanders and attorney Gilbert T. Ray, both prominent African-Americans, endorsed Richard Riordan over Michael Woo in the runoff. They shouldn’t have been.

Just look at who Sanders and Ray are and what they represent. Race aside, they fit the profile of Riordan voters far better than Woo supporters. For both are long-time members of the city’s political and economic Establishment. As is Riordan.

Supervisor Gloria Molina’s endorsement of Woo is as much about class--or the perception of class--as it is about ethnicity or ideology. Molina cited her discomfort with Riordan’s 1988 comment about “taking lessons in learning how to wave to poor people” as one factor in her decision to endorse Woo--despite her opposition, and that of many of her Latino constituents, to the councilman’s controversial plan to deport illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes.

Molina’s constituency typifies the heart of Woo’s coalition in the primary--minorities who tend to be less economically, politically and culturally assimilated into the city’s power structure. And, Woo supporters argue, that reflects the “new,” multiethnic, multicultural Los Angeles that Woo has embraced and is better positioned to lead.

The bad news for Woo is that the lower-income citizens of this “new” metropolis are less likely to vote than Riordan’s high-income supporters. The size and composition of the June 8 turnout will determine the next major. The smaller the turnout, the more likely the dynamics of class will continue to favor Riordan.

Opponents argue that Riordan represents a throwback to the days when Los Angeles was ruled by the “Committee of 25,” a group representing the city’s corporate powerhouses. This almost exclusively male, white, well-to-do “shadow government” used its considerable clout to shape the direction of city policy.

The truth is that Los Angeles is still ruled by a Committee of 25--its membership just looks a little bit more like the rest of the city. The makeup of Rebuild L.A., Mayor Tom Bradley’s response to last year’s civil disturbances, underscores the reality that the city’s governing elite may be more ethnically diverse, but socioeconomic class still tells.

That will continue, no matter who is elected mayor. Riordan and Woo are both selling themselves as agents of change, but peel away their “reform” veneer and you’ll find that each is a product of traditional political mores and techniques.

There is absolutely no getting around the fact that Riordan does fit the profile of the “old” governing elite, despite his positioning himself as an “outsider” candidate of the ‘90s. A perusal of his resume and his contributions to politicians confirms that.

Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Woo is positioning himself as a “different kind of Democrat.” (Code for: “Don’t panic! I’m not about to give the store away to liberals, minorities and the unions.”) But, bowing to the primary election’s arithmetic, Woo has made himself the prisoner of traditional Democratic interest groups. That’s a throwback to the “politics-as-usual” both he and Riordan rail against. It is also politically risky. In the ‘90s, the cost of support from these Democratic constituencies--particularly in terms of appropriations for social programs--is rising and their political clout is waning.

Ask Clinton. Labeled a “traditional tax-and-spend liberal” and fighting the image of a President who promises, panders and then backs off, Clinton is finding it hard to lead. Polls indicate that L.A. voters have similar concerns about Woo.

That, too, relates to “class”--though not the socioeconomic kind. The Romans called it gravitas--a dignity of bearing, weight, seriousness. Voters look for it in a leader.

If you rang up Central Casting and asked for a generic mayor, you’d probably get Riordan. That could mean trouble for Woo. The obvious generational gap could get translated by the media, voters or the candidates themselves into a gravitas gap.

So far, the real gravitas gap appears to lie between public perceptions of the candidates’ images and the expectations Los Angeles voters have for mayoral leadership. The latest Times poll shows neither candidate cited as a leader. Neither seems to have captured the voters’ imagination, loyalty or enthusiasm. Both have significant negatives as far as the voters are concerned.

Woo needs to change his “querulous” image, as one observer described it, to one of strength and resolve. But redefining himself could be difficult. His image, unlike Riordan’s, is set in most voters’ minds and he doesn’t have anywhere near the amount of money Riordan does to shape--and reshape--voters’ perceptions.

That gives control of the ball to Riordan. If he can avoid embarrassing political pratfalls, he can win the “class” contest. That’s not an easy gauntlet to run in the minefields of L.A. politics, but if Riordan can navigate it successfully, he could take himself a long way toward winning the election. But is that all the voters want? Is that all the city needs?

Of course not. In the Times poll, voters who like Woo cite his reputation as a mediator and conciliator. And Los Angeles needs that.

Voters viewed Riordan as more capable of handling what they’ve identified as the city’s two major problems, crime and the economy. Los Angeles needs that, too.

But voters don’t cotton to what they see as Woo’s tendency to “waffle” or Riordan’s reputation as a tough, wealthy businessman spending his way into office.

Like voters everywhere, Los Angelenos are becoming more and more unforgiving of unfulfilled promises and a dysfunctional system. The city’s trashed economy has turned voters sour and the fight for survival has turned them mean. The mayoral candidates and their campaigns reflect all this; they do not ameliorate the city’s problems. But they are all Los Angeles has.

Voters may not be happy with the choices before them. But the simple truth is that voters don’t appear to be happy with any political choices.

There is speculation that the country is entering an era of one-term political leaders, from the presidency on down. Voters everywhere are demanding change, and politicians are promising it. However change can’t be delivered instantly, and voters seem to want instant gratification. When they don’t get it, they become frustrated.

Los Angeles is no exception. Even the most skillful leader cannot deal effectively with the city’s problems until there is consensus among its citizens on how they want those problems handled. From the looks of it, neither a leader nor a city ready to be led is likely to emerge from the mayoral race.

That means it could be a long time before Los Angeles regains its status as a class act.