BASE CLOSURES : Will Californians Get Even With Clinton?

The latest round of base closures proves again that all politics are local. But in this case, playing local politics may prove counterproductive for a President who has behaved more like a California congressman than a national leader.

Bill Clinton had just two tough choices. He could accept the Base Closure and Realignment Commission’s recommendations, which would shut down McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento and the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Or he could reject them, save California jobs--and perhaps the state’s 54 electoral votes, but risk being tarred as an opportunist.

True to form, Clinton managed to find a “third way”--accept the inevitable and try to persuade California that many of the jobs lost with the base closings could be recouped through privatization. Will it keep California in the Clinton column?

A recent CNN-USA Today poll shows that support for accepting the base-closing commission’s findings was slightly higher nationally than in California (41%-37%). Of the Californians sampled, 48% believed that Clinton should reject the commission’s recommendations, compared with 37% nationally.

Of particular significance for California politics is the finding that, while 47% of the national sample said they followed news about the base-closing recommendations either very closely or somewhat closely, fully 62% of the Californians surveyed said they did so. By accepting the commission report, Clinton may stand closer to national public opinion; but Californians appear to be more engaged on the issue. And an engaged minority tends to count for something in politics.

Still, there’s little indication that Clinton’s proposed appeasement will mollify California or its political leaders. Nor is it clear that his decision will have a lasting impact on California’s political loyalties, one way or another.

An interesting subplot of the base-closing drama was the disappearance of the Long Beach Naval Yard from the political radar screen. The White House and others argued that McClellan got the attention because the Long Beach closing was not unexpected and transition plans were already under way. The hit wouldn’t be so hard.

The McClellan closing, on the other hand, was a surprise--the Defense Department hadn’t recommended it. There was no Plan B there. So that’s where the Administration’s energies were focused.

But the shift in focus has everything to do with political reality. Long Beach is represented in Congress by sophomore Republican Steve Horn. McClellan lies in the district of senior Democratic lawmaker Vic Fazio (who barely won a tough reelection fight in 1994) and affects the neighboring district of another important Democrat, Rep. Robert Matsui. Who’s a Democratic President gonna help?

Nonetheless, voters and representatives remain skeptical. Said one congressional source, “even the Sacramento people are not pleased with the deal” crafted by Clinton. Nothing short of the President’s wholesale rejection of the commission’s recommendations would have helped the California congressmen.

It’s a mistake, of course, to think that anybody outside the Sacramento area cares about McClellan. Or, more important, will care about its fortunes a year from now. When voters in Santa Monica or Long Beach or Fresno ask candidate Clinton the bottom-line question: “What have you done for me lately?” they’re unlikely to accept as an answer: “I saved some jobs in Sacramento.”

Clinton’s early handling of the base closures gave California’s two Democratic senators leave to hit the President hard. Both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer dug in their heels against the “third way” proposal. Their resolve tended to make Clinton look like a leader who can’t control his troops. But it helped Feinstein and Boxer send the state the message that they were doing exactly what they are supposed to do--fight for California’s interests and California jobs.

The debate helped Boxer redefine her liberal, soft-on-defense image. And just ask Feinstein about the political wisdom of distancing herself from the President when the issues and the times demand it. That’s what she did last year in her successful race against Mike Huffington.

In the end, the politics of closing military bases in California could only present a no-win situation for Clinton. Upholding outright the commission’s findings would have meant abandoning California. Flatly rejecting them would have intensified the perception of him as a political opportunist. And his “third way” doesn’t appear to satisfy anybody. The question is whether voters will still remember come November, 1996.