O.C. VOICES : Fullerton and the Politics of Anger : Government: The city’s recent experiences offer lessons for other local communities.

The recent politics of Fullerton are a distressing microcosm of the politics of the nation. Not only has the normal way of doing business been disrupted by angry citizens who believe that the government does not reflect their interests, but the last two general elections have featured well-financed Huffington-like candidates with little or no background in the city.

These national political phenomena that play themselves out in local communities point out the vulnerabilities of democratic processes in these cities. The lack of strong media or a large informed, inclusive community in Fullerton makes it particularly vulnerable to these phenomena. These are traits that Fullerton shares with many other Southern California cities, and the experiences of this city are apt to be repeated elsewhere.

The angry citizens in Fullerton sought to make the city more responsive to their concerns through a hard-fought recall campaign. This process cost the city more than $250,000 and played itself out over three elections from June to November. In the first election the recall proponents succeeded in removing three members from the council, but in the end no recall supporter gained a long-term seat on the council. To add insult to injury, one of the council members initially recalled regained a seat.

In spite of its ultimate failure at the polls, the recall effort had a major and largely disruptive impact on the city. On Dec. 6, Fullerton will have its third council in six weeks. This council will probably repeal the utility tax that was the immediate cause of the recall campaign. While losing the war the recall proponents won some important battles.

Among the reasons why the recall proponents failed to gain any seats on the City Council were weak candidates and limited funds. More important was the difficulty in repeatedly mobilizing the potential recall constituency. This constituency of anger is ordinarily not involved in politics. Its members get little pleasure from politics and have few political skills. While they can be activated by anger, at some point they turn to activities that are more rewarding. It proved difficult to get this electorate to the polls, and the recall proponents’ percentage of the vote declined in each succeeding election. Anger is a potent force, but one difficult to sustain in most people absent a more gnawing issue than a $4.40-per-month utility tax.

The anti-recall activist community was more easily mobilized. Activists by definition find activism personally rewarding, and in Fullerton they were bolstered by a network of organizations supportive of the local civic culture. They were motivated by a sense of duty to defend public institutions that they believed were doing their best in difficult times. Their commitment to resisting the possibility of a recall-dominated council was so great that conservatives and moderates were able to put aside their differences, however briefly.

The recall effort in Fullerton is an integral part of the national politics of anger and frustration that is displayed daily on radio talk shows and which was evident in recent national elections. While this trend receives attention primarily at the national level it is present--and even organized--at all levels and may have its greatest impact where it gets least attention.

The Fullerton recall leaders are members of United We Stand and are upset at the condition of society and at all levels of government. Local governments are most exposed to this anger, and can be addressed with the least amount of skill or time. Anyone can attend a city council meeting and vent frustration. And as Fullerton clearly demonstrated, a few committed angry leaders with an issue can completely disrupt a city. It has yet to be demonstrated that they can rebuild what they have destroyed and the voters of Fullerton decided not to offer that opportunity.

Another reflection of national politics in this election was the appearance of a candidate in the Huffington mode: well-financed, new to the area and invisible. Although a seat on the Fullerton City Council would not seem to be worth $50,000, for the second time in two years an unknown candidate was willing to put up a great deal of money.

This time it was Stu Stitch, a young man who until this year had lived in Malibu, where he ran unsuccessfully for the state assembly. While not part of the recall drive, he took advantage of the turmoil created by it.

Stu Stitch and the recall effort both failed in part because the community that does exist in Fullerton is effective. Word of mouth is surprisingly important. Through churches, service clubs, social groups, workplaces and educational institutions the word spread about which candidates to support. The Fullerton activist community worked and talked together to win the election. Yet this community is small and unsupported by an active media. While this campaign brought it closer together, it did little to extend it.

Fullerton cannot regain its political stability by withdrawing inside this community. Stability will only be regained if more people understand the possibilities and limits of local government, and understand how to effectively convey their needs to the city. This knowledge comes through participation and communication.

Fullerton needs an aggressive strategy to create an informed citizenry through better communication and through greater involvement of more, and more diverse, elements of the city. Televising City Council meetings, initiated this fall, is an important beginning. But unless concerned individuals and the public and private institutions of Fullerton undertake a campaign of inclusion, the turmoil of the past year will continue.