An Election in Search of a Defining--and Motivating--Issue

It’s mid-August and California’s gubernatorial candidates have yet to find an issue that will move voters in the fall. Previously, and certainly in the elections this decade, one issue has dominated political debate.

In 1990, it was term limits that energized conservatives and fueled Republican Pete Wilson’s gubernatorial win. In 1992, an issue not on the ballot, the soured economy, helped deliver California to the Democrats. The “hot-button” issue of 1994 was Proposition 187, the anti-immigrant initiative, which played a role in Wilson’s come-from-behind victory against then-state Treasurer Kathleen Brown. The 1996 campaign began with affirmative action on the political front burner, but ultimately the issue didn’t send swing voters scurrying to the GOP column, in part because of the moderate Democratic response to Proposition 209.

One potential 1998 issue, a car-tax cut, conked out early. Republican Dan Lungren hoped to ride it into the governor’s office, much as Republican James Gilmore did last year in Virginia. But Democrats refused to bite. GOP leaders, including Wilson, opted for compromise, too. Most wanted a tax cut to take home and many were nervous about the political impact of a prolonged budget standoff in an election year.

Education tops the public agenda, and both gubernatorial candidates have pledged to make the state’s dysfunctional school system their “top priority.” But neither of them owns the issue. Voters tend to perceive only minor differences between Lungren and Lt. Gov. Gray Davis on many basic reforms.

The most dramatic clash has been over school vouchers. Lungren advocates their use; Davis opposes them. Polls show significant public support for vouchers, but it’s unlikely candidates’ bickering is enough to move voters.

Still, frustration over the state’s failing school system is real, and voters often blame an entrenched education establishment. That could present a problem for Davis, who counts the state’s powerful teachers’ union, the California Teachers Assn. (CTA) among his strongest supporters. If the CTA is perceived as resistant to change, or can be painted as such by Lungren, Davis could lose the Democrats’ popular advantage on the education issue.

Most of the money will be spent on Proposition 5, an initiative qualified by several Indian tribes. It would require the governor to sign compacts with California tribes allowing them to operate video slot machines. Already, $26 million has been spent, and experts predict both sides will spend a combined total of about $80 million. But despite the heat generated over Indian gaming in the first gubernatorial debate, it remains an economic issue affecting just two competing interest groups. Voters are unlikely to get revved up over video slots.

Davis is looking to a trifecta of issues to capture voters: abortion rights, tobacco and gun control. Or maybe the environment. Anything that could position Lungren to the right of California’s general electorate, particularly its women voters. But women, by and large, no longer feel threatened by the issue of reproductive rights. California has a smoking ban in place. Voters are not ready to storm the barricades over quality-of-life issues, when they think the quality of their lives is pretty good.

Lungren would like the dominant themes to be crime and values. But with crime down, the attorney general faces a populace less anxious and fearful--and less swayed by his tough stances. If the crime issue morphs into a debate over gun control, that could hurt Lungren, accused by Davis of “breaking the law” by continuing to register assault weapons beyond the 1992 cutoff date.

The simmering issue of brutality at Corcoran State Prison and its alleged cover-up could present another obstacle for Lungren, whose office was criticized for its handling of the state’s probes of the incidents. But the fact that Corcoran wasn’t raised by Davis in the first debate is telling. Is there political risk in finger-pointing? Do the polls say Californians don’t care whether prisoners were beaten? Is Davis loath to alienate important police-union support?

So far, the Corcoran situation has not energized public opinion, nor does it yet appear to endanger Lungren. Prison-guard unions have been strong allies of the current Republican administration. But the partisan tone of hearings held on the scandal, with state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles) and legislative Democrats leading the charge against the Wilson administration, may have numbed an already cynical electorate.

Lungren’s talk of “values” plays off the sex scandal involving Bill Clinton and Monica S. Lewinsky. Clinton is the “X-factor” in this year’s campaign. Will there be an issue arising out of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s investigation that could galvanize public opinion?

In anticipation of the president’s grand-jury testimony, speculation has been that, if things don’t break Clinton’s way, demoralized Democrats will stay home in November, leaving the ballot box to conservatives--and Lungren voters. There is an alternative scenario: If the perception of partisanship taints any report Starr sends to Capitol Hill, and congressional Republicans embrace it, Democratic turnout may be ginned up, helping Davis.

National churnings have had an impact on state races before. Out of Watergate came the issue of political reform, which had great resonance in California. In June 1974, spurred by Watergate revelations, voters approved Proposition 9, a political-reform initiative. In a crowded field, then-Secretary of State Edmund “Jerry” Brown Jr., the proposal’s most visible champion, won the Democratic nomination for governor. Brown went on to ride his identification with political reform to a narrow victory in the general election.

Perhaps this week’s gubernatorial debate will generate a galvanizing issue. Certainly, both candidates will use the Fresno forum to continue their search for a theme that captures Californians’ attention--and wins the votes of that all- important “moderate middle.”

Something will gel eventually; it almost always does. Maybe the cutting issue will stem from a gaffe by one of the candidates. Or perhaps some riveting event will spotlight a powerful theme.

What the issue is, who controls it and how it resonates with voters are the biggest wild cards in this election--the stuff of which political victories, and defeats, are made.*