Richard Katz : Democrats See Assembly From a New Perspective--the Minority

Question: Why did the Democrats lose their majority in the Assembly in the 1994 election? Were you in power too long?

Answer: A combination. First, the perspective. We lost two seats by a total of 800 votes, five seats by a total 10,000 votes. So out of some 30-odd million Californians, 10,000 voters is the difference between 39 Democrats and 44 Democrats. So unlike the overwhelming tide in D.C., this is a narrow victory for the Republicans in California.

Had it not been for the size of the wave that started on the East Coast, we might have survived. I think part of it was a frustration the voters felt at anyone in office, and the majority of them were Democrats.

The voters were taken in--and have found themselves to feel like they were taken in . . . . The voters thought they were getting one thing: They were voting against the status quo; they were voting against people in power; they were voting for change. And, instead, they got an extremist agenda that was not what mainstream voters were about.

Q: Even so, did the Democrats lose touch with voters in addressing those issues?

A: The Democratic Party has struggled for years. Years ago, mistakes were made, particularly relative to our base of working men and women. I’ve always been astounded that the Democrats let the crime issue be a Republican issue. I’m pro-death penalty. I wrote laws tougher than “three strikes.” I’ve always been amazed that Democrats let that get away. Because the people hurt most by crime are the people we represent: middle-class Americans, working men and women, minorities and poor communities--all of whom have no security guards, no gated communities, no armed patrols, no insur- ance and no ability to recover from crime.

In the ‘70s and early ‘80s, Democrats lost the constituency because they failed to fight for the people we had traditionally represented. Clinton got a lot of those back in 1992.

Q: Republicans have taken full control of the Assembly under Speaker Curt Pringle with a vengeance. Does that surprise you?

A: Oh, that doesn’t surprise me. I’m a little surprised their agenda is as extremist as it is and that the contrasts are as stark as they are. In one day last week, Republicans voted to stop paying overtime for people who work more than eight hours a day--a real working-men-and-women issue because it affects nonunion hourly employees.

At the same time, they’re promoting legislation to give a second tax break in two years to the super-wealthy, and to lower taxes on people who make more than $100,000 by 28%. What greater contrast can you have of who’s fighting for who and who’s protecting who?

Q: Could there be this pent-up desire to get their program through after so many years of Democratic control?

A: I think there is an element of control in the Republican Party in California--call it Gingrich-like or whatever you want--that believes in that.

[But] this is not just a venting of 15 years of frustration. These are people who really believe we ought to eliminate workplace safety, that we ought to punish children with paddles but not corporate criminals who put more asbestos in the environment, who believe it makes sense to let the rich get richer and not pay overtime to working stiffs . . . .

Q: With the new allocation of Assembly resources, aren’t you all being paid back for what Willie Brown did all these years?

A: I said the Republicans had a right to do this. The only thing I pointed out was that a year ago, when the house was divided 40-40, Republicans circulated a memo they all signed, saying the committees ought to be split 50-50, the vice chairs ought to be 50-50, the chairs 50-50 and the resources 50-50.

After their numbers swelled to 41--and that one election is being investigated by the Orange County D.A. for dirty tricks--they decided that 75-25 made more sense. They have the right to do it. It’s interesting what a difference one vote and a year will make.

The other point I’d make is, if that’s the reason they’re doing it, they ought not claim to be something different. They ought to own up, to say, “Yeah, they’re the same old thing.” Because if it was wrong when Willie did it--as I said it was--then I said it’s wrong when they do it. If they’re going to engage in payback, they ought to just call it what it is, say, “It’s payback. We’re doing it because we have the power. We want to do it. We want to punish people. And we’re no different than all those old politicians we used to criticize.” And they should not represent themselves as something new and different.

One thing Willie never did in all the years he was here: He never took Republican experts off policy committees the way Republicans did this time . . . . This is an attempt to stifle the hard questioning.

Q: Your job now is to win back control?

A: It’s to do a couple things. One is, obviously, 41 seats in November. But it’s also to put forth a Democratic agenda that people can run on and to transition power and experience from senior members to the junior and freshman members who are returning next year.

Q: Now that Republicans are in control, the experts are saying they will be able to raise far more funds than you will for the 1996 election.

A: We have less cash on hand than they do at this point. Democrats will have adequate funds by November. But it will be different funding than we’ve had in the past. One is, we’re going to return to more grass-roots fund-raising, because, obviously, the Third House is going to load up on the Republican side. Additionally, I think we’re going to see the return of what I call “ideological money” to the Democratic Party.

There are donors to the Democratic Party who did not get involved in Assembly races because we had the majority. In some cases, they didn’t like Willie. In other cases, they assumed California would always be pro-choice, it would always be pro-environment and it would always be safe in the workplace. So they didn’t have to get involved in legislative races.

Over the next several months, as people understand that a woman’s right to choose is under attack, that trashing the environment is becoming popular among the Assembly Republicans, and gutting workplace safety is very real, then a lot of those people who would get involved in elections in other states will come home to take care of their own state.

Q: What does the Democratic Party stand for now? Don’t you have to do more than to say, “We have to stop this ideological assault”?

A: There’s no question. The Democratic Party stands, fundamentally, for fairness and for a level playing field. We believe that every man and woman ought to have the ability to go to work in a safe environment; that every child has a right to a good public education, and that the diversity that makes up California ought to be viewed as a strength and not a weakness. You will see legislation this year that tries to move that agenda forward.

I think we believe that the tax codes ought to be fair to working people and not benefit one group over the next. We are going to try to help public education but also make sure that the governor’s agenda, or the Republican agenda, that takes money from the aged, blind and disabled and from public schools to pass a tax cut for the rich doesn’t go forward, because it doesn’t make sense.

Q: The state of President Clinton’s popularity in California--will that help you or hurt?

A: It’ll help. In a presidential year, Democratic turnout is generally 5% higher than in a gubernatorial election year. Five percent would have made the difference in those two 800-vote races. Clinton will do well in California--particularly against a Bob Dole or a Forbes.

I’d love the opportunity to run against Forbes. What better contrast, in terms of the super-wealthy versus working men and women, the elimination of overtime pay and Democrats trying to raise the minimum wage and Forbes, on the other side, representing everything that is blue blood and wealthy and aristocratic in this country.

Q: Why did you want this job?

A: That’s a really good question. My wife, Ginnie, is convinced it’s to avoid thinking about getting a job in December when I’m termed out. She may be right.

It’s a challenge. It’s the opportunity to take what has been one of the most incredible experiences in my life and pass it on to the people who are going to be here after me, to work with them. The idea of working with returning members and mentoring them and helping them become skilled at passing policy and doing good things and helping people seemed like a good opportunity.

I’m not comfortable walking away from a fight. The idea of leaving this building in the hands of the Newt Gingriches, the Curt Pringles and the Rob Hurtts [the Senate GOP leader] is something that bothers me and scares me, and is something I’m not prepared to do.

Q: There is an impression that both parties have become more ideological--that ideologues tend to win the primaries and, therefore, the center is much weaker and there’s less potential for compromise.

A: It’s happening, and I think term limits may even exacerbate that. If you turn over every two, four, six years, it’ll be people who run because of a single issue or a single peeve. That person with the shrillest voice gets elected. It’s like a flash, and they’re gone. You don’t have the time to develop the relationships and do the long-term planning or policy.

If your first year is spent finding the bathroom and your last year is spent figuring out what to do next, it only leaves you a couple years in between to try to do the right thing. The atmosphere up to now has not been conducive to that. That’s got to seriously change or this whole system will fall apart.

Q: How can it be changed?

A: I would hope that the Constitution Revision Commission, which is looking at the whole relationship of state and local government, would address such things as at least modifying term limits to 10 and 12 years, instead of six and eight. That gives you enough time to get secure enough in your district to take risks, secure enough in what you’re doing to know how to compromise, secure enough and educated enough in what you’re trying to fight for to know where the good compromises are.

You need a little more time up here than just two to four years to do that, because there’s a lot of demand on legislators to produce immediately for the folks at home.