THE STATE : POLITICS : Tale of Two Ambitious Democrats--and a Party With an Identity Crisis

The state’s two top Democrats, Lt. Gov. Gray Davis and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, are moving in opposite political directions. And the victim may be the already-strained unity of the state’s Democratic Party.

Brown’s political behavior has become louder and more strident--particularly, his defense of affirmative action. Davis, meanwhile, has been quietly moving to the right and trying not to make waves. The differing rhetoric and actions of these two men reflect contrasting ambitions and political goals. Brown appears to be positioning himself for a future outside state government; Davis would like to move into the governor’s mansion.

With Gov. Pete Wilson a virtual presidential candidate, Davis finds himself an object of national media attention and a target for Republicans who oppose leaving a Democrat in charge while Wilson is out campaigning. GOP Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, is openly hostile toward a Wilson presidential bid. He bemoans the laundry list of state problems that needs the governor’s attention.

But Lungren’s concern for California is not altogether public-spirited. Should Wilson remain in Sacramento, term limits would force an end to his tenure in 1998, and Lungren could compete for an open seat. If Wilson snags a spot on the GOP national ticket and winds up winning--and Davis ascends to the governor’s chair--Lungren could find himself running against an incumbent Democrat. And as conventional wisdom goes, defeating an incumbent is far more daunting than contesting an open seat.

But Californians don’t generally cotton to anointed leaders. Assuming an office through midterm appointment doesn’t mean keeping it come election. John Seymour, John L. Harmer and Pierre Salinger were all appointees whose careers ended once the voters had their say.

Still, the GOP right wing is apoplectic at the thought of Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown’s former chief of staff inheriting the reins of government. Wilson is even pushing an initiative to block such a possibility. But it’s all much ado about little: Gray Davis is no Jerry Brown. He knows he can’t be. He saw what happened to Jerry’s sister, Kathleen.

Unlike Brown--and more like Wilson--Davis has positioned himself as pro-death penalty and pro-choice. He talks the moderate talk of the “new Democrat.” He is actively working to head off a Democratic flame-out over affirmative action.

Davis’ inaugural address and his response to Wilson’s State of the State speech oozed conciliation. Emphasizing job creation, public safety, welfare and regulatory reform, he sounded, well, Republican.

And Davis is no Mike Curb. Republican Curb was lieutenant governor during Jerry Brown’s ill-fated 1980 run for President. His antics in the governor’s absence included a high-speed race to the Capitol to appoint a judge before Brown re-entered California air space. “I don’t believe,” says Davis, “in what I’ve termed Pearl Harbor politics.”

Not so Willie Brown. He told reporters that if he were running the state in the governor’s absence, “Every vacancy would be filled . . . and every executive order I disagreed with would be revoked.” It’s in-your-face politics for Brown these days, and Wilson isn’t his only target: Bill Clinton has also been hit.

After early hints of compromise, Brown has adopted a hard and very personal stance against dismantling affirmative-action programs. He has sternly warned Clinton and other white politicians against making a deal. The Speaker has attacked the California civil rights initiative as “racist.”

Brown’s increasing stridency can mean one, or all, of several things. Speculation is that Brown will run for mayor of San Francisco. If he is positioning himself as the minorities’ candidate--and the purest liberal--in a varied field of opponents, affirmative action could prove a good issue around which to mobilize his voters.

But Brown’s response may go beyond that. One criticism of the Speaker has been that he has drifted away from the concerns of the constituency he was first elected to represent. Brown has been accused of slighting social-justice issues for wheeling and dealing with the power brokers who barter policy and campaign contributions in California. With term limits about to end his Assembly tenure, he may want to redefine his legacy and erase his deal-maker image.

Might Brown also use affirmative action to position himself as a national spokesperson for minority issues and hard-left causes, a la Jesse Jackson? Brown is better at Establishment politics than Jackson, and the national media see Brown as a relatively new face. That makes him more appealing to cover.

For Democrats in California, their leadership’s split personality underscores their lack of unity and focus, which can only further handicap a party already weakened by the 1994 election results.

Davis’ and Brown’s political agendas lead to different strategies. Brown is playing to hard-core Democratic constituencies, while Davis is currying the support of the more moderate, less politically loyal middle class. The problem is that Democrats need both groups to cobble together a winning coalition--and they don’t seem to have a clue about how to do it.*