A Welcome Dose of Politics Up Close and Personal

For an antidote to election year cynicism, travel to the heart of Los Angeles County suburbia and watch the final days of the contest between the South Bay’s Democratic Rep. Jane Harman and her Republican challenger, Susan Brooks.

Katharine Hepburn in her prime could play Harman in a movie. Harman has Hepburn’s spare, sharp manner of speaking, along with the actress’ mixture of astringent intelligence and warmth.

Melanie Griffith might play Brooks, the former mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes who came within 812 votes of beating Harman two years ago.

Brooks’ manner at times recalls one of the deceptively fluttery, confused characters that Griffith plays. “I don’t know whether to ask a question about campaign reform or defense,” she told moderator Bill Rosendahl when it was time for her to question Harman at a debate Saturday. “Ask them both,” replied Rosendahl.

But, like Griffith’s character in “Working Girl,” her exterior masks a hard edge, intelligence and a taste for combat equal to Harman’s.

When these two debate the issues of the 1996 campaign, the arguments that sound so rehearsed coming from Bob Dole and Bill Clinton take on life, vigor and relevance in the rugged local political arena--where candidates aren’t shielded by handlers, spin artists and bodyguards.

*

This is a small campaign, where most everybody, friend and foe, knows everyone else.

Two weeks ago, Brooks was speaking to a group at a Manhattan Beach elementary school. In the audience, monitoring her speech, was Dwayne Jones, Harman’s press secretary, who was engaged in traditional campaign spying.

The audio system failed. Nobody in the Brooks campaign could fix it. Jones stepped forward, made the repairs and Brooks went on with her speech.

When the opposing camps meet, they do so on what appears to be friendly terms. I was chatting with Jones before the Saturday debate last weekend when Brooks’ husband, Jim, approached. “Hi, Jim,” said Jones. “How are you, Dwayne?” said Brooks.

Still, Jim Brooks keeps a suspicious eye on what the Harman camp says, easy to do in the close confines of this campaign. After a Harman staffer told me something, Brooks, who was standing nearby, approached me with his version.

The intimate campaign setting permitted Brooks and Harman to engage in a sharp and thorough airing of their differences during Saturday’s debate, sponsored by the American Assn. of Retired Persons. AARP members and others packed the auditorium in the Torrance Civic Center.

Moderator Rosendahl, of Century Cable, gave them plenty of latitude, not imposing the format restrictions of the Clinton-Dole debate. If the discussion took an interesting turn, Rosendahl let them ramble.

For example, their differences on the future of Medicare and Medicaid were thoroughly aired.

As Democratic congressional candidates are doing with rivals elsewhere, Harman sought to link Brooks with the House Republican budget, or as she called it, “the Gingrich budget.” It would have reduced Medicare spending by $243 billion over the next seven years, Harman said, and Medicaid by $182 billion.

Finally, Brooks replied, “My name is not Newt Gingrich. Here is my driver’s license. I am Susan Brooks. Newt Gingrich is 3,000 miles away. I am Susan Brooks.”

Brooks displayed none of Dole’s reluctance to aim for the jugular.

That was clear when she brought up what we campaign watchers have come to call the spy issue. Harman, she said, has been “a registered agent of Communist China”--a conflict of interest, she suggested, for someone who is now serving on the House Intelligence Committee.

She referred to Harman’s days, before Congress, as an associate in a Washington law firm, where she represented the People’s Republic of China. The law firm also represented a German company that allegedly sold equipment for making chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and Libya, Brooks charged.

Earlier in the week, Harman campaign advisor Roy Behr had replied that Harman represented China when the Reagan administration had good relations with that nation. And she never worked on the German firm account, Behr said.

Even in a hometown campaign, things get rough. But at the debate, Harman merely replied, “It’s sad we’re not sticking to the issues.”

*

The next day, there was another debate. Afterward, the small press corps--there were three of us--went backstage for the spinning that has become so much a part of these events.

But here it wasn’t some campaign hack who spun the reporters, giving their scripted interpretations of who won. Harman and Brooks did the spinning themselves. And, we took as much time as we wanted.

It’s enough to give “spin” a good name.