COLUMN ONE : Moving Voters, Not Mountains : How much impact does a governor have on crime, immigration and the economy? Not much. Over time, though, a chief executive’s influence can be profound on the state’s psyche and policies.

Pity the poor governor.

Leader of a nation-state of 32 million people, commander of a small army, boss to a quarter of a million civil servants, California’s chief executive seems to hold awesome powers.

But on the issues that people care the most about right now--crime, immigration, the economy and education--a governor’s impact is only marginal.

Some of those problems are simply beyond the reach of a governor’s authority. In other cases, legislators, lobbyists and courts stand in the way. And even when a governor does get something done, it might be years before the public sees the result.

You would never know it though from listening to the campaign now under way for the job. Here, the candidates trawl for votes as if governors move mountains.

Democrat Kathleen Brown accuses Republican Pete Wilson of sleeping at the switch while the state lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, while thugs murdered innocent victims, and while school test scores floundered. She promises to make everything right again.

Wilson takes credit if a factory adds a job or two, or when local crime rates dip. And he boasts of cutting government spending--something that never would have happened had a depressed economy not reduced tax receipts.

These claims and counterclaims tossed about in the heat of the campaign often have little connection to what a governor can or cannot do.

“A governor’s authority, while probably more awesome than any other single Californian in terms of making a difference in people’s lives, is still relatively limited,” said Steven Merksamer, who was former Gov. George Deukmejian’s chief of staff. “It’s not nearly as great as people generally like to think.”

California’s governors, in some respects, are not unlike the managers of baseball teams: They can influence the game by naming the lineup and calling the signals, but the outcome almost always depends on factors outside their control.

Considering these limitations, does it matter who is elected governor? The answer undoubtedly is yes, but not for the reasons that the candidates often would have us believe.

Over time, a governor’s impact can be profound. From Hiram Johnson to Earl Warren to Ronald Reagan, many of California’s leaders have left indelible marks on the state’s psyche and policies.

As the most visible of all the state’s officeholders, governors can rally the public to a cause, whether it be wresting power from a monopolistic corporation, building world-class universities and colleges, or undertaking a historic expansion of the state prison system.

In normal times, a governor’s primary powers are to propose a budget, sign and veto legislation and organize the executive branch, which while it employs about 250,000 souls, has fewer than 1,000 who depend upon the governor’s good graces for their jobs.

Governors also appoint the state’s judges and the members of important regulatory boards that do everything from setting utility rates to directing smog-fighting programs and controlling development along the coast.

The governor has the power to grant clemency, which means that the occupant of the office can decide whether to spare a life or execute a condemned felon.

And during an emergency, a governor can suspend state laws and regulations, commandeer private property and call out the National Guard.

But the National Guard is not much help on the problems that most bedevil California today. There is no law for a governor to suspend when companies complain that Johnny may be able to read but can’t perform other basic tasks required of entry-level employees in the modern world.

A governor does have a say in how much money the schools get and appoints members of the State Board of Education, which sets broad policies. But the schools really are run by locally elected trustees. Fixing what ails them would take years even if everyone in state and local government, the business community and labor were on the same political page, which they aren’t.

The same is true, to some degree, of the other issues in this campaign.

Consider crime.

While experts debate whether tougher laws have much bearing on criminal activity, a recent RAND study concluded that the new “three strikes” sentencing law would reduce serious crime 28%. That is a bullish assessment of the ability of the governor and lawmakers to improve the lives of the citizenry--if they are willing and able to nearly double what the state is spending on its prison system.

But even if that projection is accurate, it means that the lion’s share of the serious felonies being committed would be unaffected by the toughest sentencing law enacted anywhere in the nation. There were 4,158 people murdered in California in 1992. How many fewer killings must there be before Californians feel that crime is no longer an important issue?

A great deal of crime, of course, is beyond the reach of stricter judges, longer sentences and more prisons--the solutions advocated by those who would be governor. Demographics--particularly the number of young males in their peak crime-committing years--is regarded as the most important factor.

“There’s not a whole lot you can do about it,” said Peter Greenwood, an author of the RAND report. “A lot of it reflects larger societal trends.”

The dynamics on other issues are similar.

California’s economy has suffered through an awful downturn mainly because it was hit by the twin blows of a national recession and reduced federal military spending. Governors--in concert with the Legislature--can raise or lower taxes, reduce or increase regulation, offer incentives for companies to stay here or expand, all of which can affect the pace of economic growth.

“The governor’s decisions are important at the margin,” said Lynn Reaser, chief economist for First Interstate Bank.

But in the end, most experts say, the fluctuations in the state’s $800-billion economy are more dependent on whether the Federal Reserve Board raises or lowers interest rates than whether the state, for example, trims the scope of its Endangered Species Act.

On immigration, the other major issue in this year’s race, a governor’s direct powers are even more limited. States have no ability to control the nation’s borders, and they play no role in deportation proceedings. A governor is pretty much limited to pressuring the federal government into action, a task that Wilson has pursued with great vigor.

Although the governor may be the state’s chief executive, the job bears little resemblance to the CEO of a major corporation. Private executives answer only to their board of directors, whose members they often help choose. If the top executives decide that change is needed, they make it, then reap the rewards or suffer the consequences.

But governors must share their power with the other branches of government. There are 80 members of the Assembly and 40 in the Senate. The governor needs a majority of those lawmakers for most major endeavors. The courts also can stand in the way, as they have when Wilson has tried to cut public employee benefits and reduce welfare grants, among other things.

The fact that the Constitution deliberately established competing branches of government to check the power of the executive does not make it any easier for governors to accept the reality of their diluted authority. They know that voters--thanks in part to the way campaigns are run--hold them accountable anyway.

Former Gov. Deukmejian, a Republican, often complained that the Democrats who controlled the Legislature tried to use their leverage to extract concessions from him whenever he proposed a new program or policy.

“That can be very frustrating,” Deukmejian said. “It’s very difficult to understand how after you’ve had a statewide election and the people have chosen this person to go forward and carry out the program, the promises, the pledges he or she made during the campaign, they can be thwarted or blocked or held hostage by one key legislator who was elected by just 1/80th of the people in the state.”

Yet the impact a governor does have can be enormous, if not immediate, and the results can be felt for generations.

Hiram Johnson in his two terms in the 1910s brought forth the Progressive Era, wresting control of the state from the railroads and handing it to the public. More than 70 years after Johnson left office, the ballot initiative--one of his creations--still is being used by the voters to set policy that lawmakers refuse to enact.

This time-release nature of a governor’s accomplishments can make it difficult to judge their record until well after they have left office.

Former Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown was trounced by Reagan when he ran for a third term in 1966. Years later, Brown was more appreciated for the vision he displayed in pushing development of a state water project, parks, highways and the higher education system--the infrastructure upon which California’s boom business years were built.

Deukmejian in his time was seen widely as a passive governor, little more than a caretaker. But by reshaping the state’s judiciary in his conservative image, he accomplished the one major goal he set for himself when he first ran for the job. The young judges he appointed will be dispensing rulings from the bench well into the next century.

Some governors leave lasting legacies that run counter to the popular images we hold of them. Reagan is remembered as a conservative ideologue, but he signed laws responsible for such liberal staples as legalized abortion, automatic annual cost-of-living raises for welfare recipients, and the state’s landmark Environmental Quality Act.

Reagan, however, did articulate a conservative vision for the state, and later the nation, and in doing so took advantage of what may be the governor’s most important power: setting the agenda.

No other state official commands the kind of attention afforded the governor, and a chief executive can exploit that opportunity to move public opinion, or to marshal it to pressure for change.

“Nothing is more powerful than a compelling idea,” said state Controller Gray Davis, who was a top aide to former Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr.

California has become the prism through which the nation first notices fundamental shifts in its demographic composition, its multiculturalism, its relationship to Mexico and other Third World countries. So when governors talk about these subjects, what they say is heard throughout the country and around the world.

“If one would postulate that in the sixth-largest commonwealth on the planet that the executive officer did not have this bully pulpit, then we are really in bad shape, and I don’t think we are,” said historian Kevin Starr. “That’s why the governor’s race is so intense this time. It’s a position worth having.”

A Governor’s Power

REALITY

A governor’s primary powers are to propose a budget, sign and veto legislation and organize the executive branch. Other powers:

* APPOINTMENTS: Governors also appoint the state’s judges and the members of regulatory boards that do everything from setting utility rates to controlling development along the coast.

* CLEMENCY: The governor has the power to

grant clemency, which means deciding whether to

spare a life or execute a condemned felon.

* EMERGENCIES: During an emergency, a governor can suspend state laws and regulations, commandeer private property, and call out the National Guard.

* AGENDA: Many observers say that a governor’s greatest power is enumerated nowhere: the power to set the state’s agenda and marshal public opinion on behalf of a cause.

RHETORIC

KATHLEEN BROWN:

“Pete Wilson has had his chance and he has failed. That is the issue in this campaign.”

*

“I don’t blame Pete Wilson for the national recession or the end of the Cold War any more than I blame him for earthquakes or fires. But I do blame him for his failure to lead California through this time of crisis and to provide leadership when people need it most.”

*

“We need to have leaders who can see the future, who understand it and who are willing to invest in it, who are willing to fight for it, and who care what happens to average Californians. That is why I want to be governor, and I’m mad that this guy hasn’t done the job for the last four years.”

*

“It really does matter who sits in the governor’s chair when it comes to restoring the promise of a quality higher education system to our middle-class families. It matters because, as governor, I will make it my mission to defend the principles of affordability and accessibility that have been under assault these last four years.”

PETE WILSON:

“The governor of California must be many things--a crisis manager when the earth shakes or the forest burns, a booster for California jobs across the country and around the world, a person of conviction who can stand up for what’s right no matter what the consequences or who’s opposed.”

*

“I came back from that pleasant academic cloister, the U.S. Senate, to make change, and I’m running for a second term as governor to continue fighting for the change we need to improve our jobs climate and overhaul our welfare system, to improve the quality of our schools and reclaim our streets from violent crime.”

*

“What has happened to California has happened because of the recession, because of Washington making deep, deep defense cuts. . . . (Voters) clearly think that they’ve been through hell for the past 3 1/2 years, and they have. But they also are smart enough and honest enough to know that that is not of my making.”

About This Series

In the heat of a gubernatorial campaign, the candidates sometimes dwell on matters that have little to do with the larger problems facing Californians in the years ahead. Campaign rhetoric has far more to do with what appeals to voters in the here and now.

Between now and Election Day, Nov. 8., The Times will publish a series of stories--State of the State: The Challenges Confronting California--to provide a foundation for evaluating how the state is faring. Each story will include a description of what the candidates have said or done about these challenges--and what they propose to do should Californians elect them governor.

Today’s story sets the stage by exploring the limits--and possibilities--of gubernatorial power. The other installments:

* Changing population: Are demographic forces reshaping California more quickly than the political system can react?

* Economy and education: Are California’s schools providing an underpinning for the state’s economic future?

* Fiscal straitjacket: Can the state government solve its budget problems and provide for future growth?

* Environment: How will California balance environmental protection against the pressures of economic need?

* Poverty: What are the living conditions of California’s poorest citizens, and what do they auger for the state’s future?