In ‘98, the State Should Turn From the Politics of Spleen

At this moment it would seem the Democratic Party is the one in disarray, having just parted company with its nominal leader, President Clinton, by rebuking him on trade policy. The split reflects a philosophic schism among Democrats going back to Clinton’s first election in 1992--on NAFTA, of course, and balanced budgets, taxes and big government--a division that may set the tone for the party’s battle for the presidential nomination in 2000.

But while the Democrats’ trade war may be getting public attention now, a more basic struggle of ideas is being fought out among Republican conservatives in newspaper columns and political periodicals.

The GOP debate has taken some surprising twists. One of these came recently from former Education Secretary William J. Bennett, who castigated fellow conservatives for devoting too much time to government bashing. Bennett emphasized that he is no fan of big government. “But too often we hear from conservatives unceasing and reckless rhetorical attacks against government itself,” he wrote on the op-ed page of The Times, adding, “Contempt for representative government is corrosive.” In making a broader point, Bennett said that those who are cynical about government will also be cynical about America.

A similar theme was expounded by conservative editors William Kristol and David Brooks in the Wall Street Journal. They wrote that Republicans won Congress in 1994 by rallying people with an aversion to government but that it takes more than a collective dislike of big government to govern effectively.

In California, the Field Poll has done surveys over the years to measure the public’s confidence in 34 institutions, including various levels of federal, state and local government, businesses, professions and religion. In 1997, the survey found that only 10% of the people had much confidence in state government, ranking it 29th among the 34 institutions.

There are plenty of reasons why Americans may be cynical about federal and state government. A major cause surely is the sorry state of political discourse, beginning with negative election campaigns and carrying through to the invective and personal attacks too often heard on the floors of Congress and the Legislature.

Political consultant Victor Kamber notes in his book “Poison Politics” that there is nothing new about negative campaigning. What is new in politics, he adds in an excerpt in the current issue of California Journal, is that the negativism is not balanced by constructive discussion of issues. “Our present political discourse is nothing but spleen,” Kamber says.

Of recent election campaigns, most California political observers believe that the 1990 gubernatorial race between Republican Pete Wilson and Democrat Dianne Feinstein was one of the most articulate and educational in terms of discussing issues facing California. By contrast, the 1994 campaign in which Republican Michael Huffington challenged Feinstein’s reelection to the U.S. Senate consisted almost entirely of personal attacks with virtually no discussion of issues.

In California, the 1998 elections provide an opportunity to turn away from the dark and often irrelevant rhetoric of the recent past. This state faces a vast array of real problems. Improving public education is on nearly everyone’s list. Other issues include revitalization of the state’s transportation system, the fiscal starvation of local government, coping with the expanding prison population and developing adequate water supplies for future growth.

Kamber says there are two standards for measuring political rhetoric: truth and relevance. Truth can be difficult to gauge. But the voters of California will sense quickly whether the rhetoric is relative to California’s problems.