Two Strong Candidates for Mayor--but the Choice Is Woo : Riordan proposes important economic goals but Woo has the skills needed to make things happen in an often-divided community

At a crossroads in its history, at a time when Los Angeles absolutely must demand the possibility of greatness from its leaders, a mayoral campaign that has been anything but great has blanketed this city in a smog of words. The candidates, especially in their ads, have set a negative tone that has resulted in one of the more mean-spirited campaigns in recent memory.

Negative campaigning is hardly new in politics and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. But somehow campaigning as usual is not what this great city--riot-torn and recession-battered--wants, needs and deserves.

The tenor of this 1993 mayoral campaign is unfortunate because the two candidates are doing a disservice to themselves. They are better than their campaigns. Businessman Richard Riordan has rightly emphasized the needs of the city in the economic arena, such as job creation and business competitiveness; City Councilman Michael Woo has emphasized that point--as well as the need for political reform and multicultural harmony. Both agree on the necessity to do more about crime, though they disagree on how to fund more police, and about improving public schools, though no mayor has much power in that area.

But the sheer negativity of the campaign has led many potential voters to think negatively of the candidates. It’s not surprising that a Times poll showed that many people who say they have made up their minds about this race are citing mainly negative reasons: They’re voting against Riordan, or against Woo, not for anyone.

Indeed, voters should be having some difficulty deciding on who should be the next mayor--but not because these two are unworthy. All the negativity notwithstanding, these are plausible and accomplished candidates. Unlike this mayoral campaign, therefore, this endorsement editorial will not seek to tear down one candidate in order to make the case for the other. On the contrary, we propose to emphasize the strengths of both, as a way of explaining the reasons behind our choice.

THE CANDIDATES: Consider this runoff field. One is a shrewd venture-capitalist, lawyer, self-made millionaire and philanthropist. The other is a well-educated, intelligent city councilman with a career ability to relate to people. One brings to this race the wisdom of many years in the private sector; the other brings to it a youthful sense of commitment to public service. Many cities would be fortunate to have one such candidate of this caliber. L.A. has two. But, by their campaigns, the voter is hard-pressed to appreciate this.

THE DICK RIORDAN VISION: The Princeton-educated Riordan, 63, has a first-class financial mind and a deserved sense of himself as a problem-solver. Despite opponents’ propaganda that seeks to paint him as some right-wing nut, this is a sensible man who, not unlike Ross Perot, actually believes that the way to fix the car may in fact be not a whole lot more complicated than lifting up the hood and going to it.

Riordan also brings to his vision of the L.A. mayoralty a deeply held sense that government-only solutions to problems probably cannot get off the ground these days. What’s needed, he insists, is more public-private partnerships--more LEARNs, more unconventional, transsector solutions. And in this regard Riordan is entirely right.

Riordan also brings experience from the private sector. He knows what it takes to meet a payroll, hammer out a business plan, entice investors, satisfy consumers. He also knows that government can be part of business’s problem: that it can be a red-tape machine right out of a Franz Kafka novel, a form-filled nightmare that dispirits entrepreneurs. As mayor, one senses, he would want to take an unkind blowtorch to the problem. We do like that.

THE MIKE WOO STYLE: The Berkeley-educated Woo, 41, arrives on center stage not from the business world but from the highly politicized world of the City Council. And yet, even after eight years in that caldron of Balkanization, Woo emerged an experienced operator--learning to balance pragmatism and ideology. He has his detractors--some reacting negatively to his youthfulness, some disagreeing with him on issues, some with political jealousy due to their own conflicting ambitions. But he has also won many admirers.

Their admiration derives from an appreciation of his style. He is a grand conciliator when that’s required: Woo is, to use John F. Kennedy’s famous phrase in “Profiles in Courage,” willing to “rise above principle” when that’s the ticket to effectiveness. That’s a skill to be admired, not scorned, in politics. And it’s a skill that any modern big-city mayor requires.

At the same time, Woo can be a leader when conciliation is really no more than a cover for inaction or delay. He was the first councilman, for instance, to urge that Daryl F. Gates resign as police chief after the King scandal. That was a politically risky but necessary stand. But it is a measure of the tenor of this negative campaign that Woo is depicted as a politician who never takes a stand.

THE CUTTING-EDGE ISSUES: Both candidates have vigorously championed trademark approaches to coping with L.A’s current impasse. Despite all the negativity, each has remained focused on the issue that each can attack best. For Dick Riordan, that issue is working intently on the public-private sector partnership in order to jump start the near-catatonic L.A. economy. For months and months--in fact for years--Riordan has been preaching the gospel of economic development, of harnessing entrepreneurial energy to move the economy, of getting excessive regulation (however well-intended) off the back of businesses small and large. And with every new month of recession, more people come to understand that all along Riordan has been right.

The Michael Woo issue has been that of bringing all of Los Angeles together--not only all ethnic groups but perhaps even more poignantly the poor and the rich. Mike Woo--the first Asian-American to run for L.A. mayor and the grandson of highly achieving immigrants from China--understands as well as anyone that Los Angeles has turned a corner in its history and there is no turning back. He understands that if we don’t all work together, we shall all fail together. With every new month of tension in the aftermath of the 1992 riots, more people come to understand that Woo has been right.

What makes the choice even more difficult is that just as both candidates have strengths, they also can exhibit worrisome tendencies. Woo grew up in the school that would apply public money as the way to solve many social problems. That solution hasn’t worked in a lot of places and, besides, the money isn’t there. He would have to govern with shrinking resources and diminished expectations. Will his leadership and policies help create more jobs and stimulate the economy, or only create government jobs, expand the bureaucracy, increase taxes and stifle recovery? Will Woo be able to lead and not just conciliate?

As for Riordan, it’s true that any amateur office-seeker has the advantage in some ways of being outside the system. But that also raises questions: Would he be able to work within the legislative-business system to get things done--a task that other outsiders have found so difficult? Or would he become so frustrated as to become immobilized, and then discouraged? Does he have the temperament and staying power--the patience and equanimity--to get the job done?

OUR ENDORSEMENT: Obviously the best candidate running for mayor is Woo-Riordan--a combination of practical politician and tough businessman, a shrewd blend of the insider who compromises and the outsider who charges ahead. But that candidate isn’t running and voters must choose between the two who are.

Of the two, Michael Woo is the preference for Los Angeles. He rates The Times’ endorsement because he has the better chance of being effective. In a city with a hundred different voices straining to be heard--in a city with a lot of conflict and much too much bad feeling--he is the better listener, and so the better conciliator. And in this fragmented city it is the better conciliator who’ll get results.

As mayor, however, Mike Woo must be wary of being too eager to please--of being too quick to compromise. A city councilman’s job may be to cut deals; the mayor’s is to lead. And while it’s understandable that Woo’s policies as mayor would arise out of the classical liberal tradition--that’s his background--he’ll need more than liberal orthodoxy to succeed. He’ll need inventiveness and imagination.

Indeed, as one of his first acts, precisely because job creation and economic development are at top issues on the agenda, Mayor Woo should consider extending to hisopponent the new job he himself proposed during the campaign--city economic czar. Given the personal rhetoric of the campaign, this is an unlikely scenario. But it would be a symbolic gesture that could have real positive results.

In any event, in this important election The Times endorses Woo and hopes very much that he--with the sincere post-election help of his opponent and with the good will of all citizens--will be the great mayor that our future requires.