California Needs a Leader

The selection of the next governor may be one of the most important decisions that California voters make for years to come. This end-of-the-century election provides a rare opportunity to take a leap forward in developing creative, efficient governance for a booming state in a new technological age.

The economy is strong and many of our institutions, while tattered, are basically sound. Newcomers pursuing the California dream 150 years after the great Gold Rush can be the engine of change and, after years of passive, reactive state government, change is the No. 1 need.

The diverse threads of California life need to be pulled together in unity rather than in factional directions. The only person who can provide that unifying force is the state’s chief executive, our next governor.

The governorship may be more important than ever because of the accelerated turnover in leadership in the Legislature caused by term limits. Only the governor’s office can offer the long-term vision and strategic planning the state so critically needs.

Alas, the 1998 campaign has lapsed into a familiar and disturbing pattern of big money, 30-second TV spots, attack ads and counterattack ads. After deciding not to run for governor herself, Sen. Dianne Feinstein observes that campaigns have become “demolition derbies” and this year’s may be the worst of all. That would be unfortunate. The major candidates know that political food fights do not serve the state well.

And if ever California needed a detailed, rational discussion of the real issues, this is the year. Something must get the process on course. There will be at least one debate--hosted by The Times on May 13--involving the four major gubernatorial candidates. That should help focus the voters’ interest before the primary election, less than five weeks away, which will narrow the gubernatorial field to two.

The voters deserve the opportunity to see and hear the candidates discuss in detail California’s long-term issues, not just a few popular items--everyone’s fervent interest in better education, for instance--that score well with campaign focus groups.

Californians need to know how the state will cope with a population approaching 50 million within the next generation. How will our leaders deal with racial, ethnic and religious friction in this most diverse of all the states?

Where will we get the schools, the universities, safe water supplies, the highways, the transit systems, the health care, the libraries and all the other facilities California will need to sustain a civil society and its economy? Will California develop a more effective approach to drugs, crime prevention and rehabilitation than just tougher sentencing and more prisons?

How will we protect the state’s environment against relentless population and development pressures--the farmland and dwindling habitat, the coast, the lakes and streams and the air? How will we maintain the life style that has made California the special place it has been?

Who will have the political courage to lead long overdue reform of California’s archaic system of state and local government--to make it more efficient and more responsive to people’s needs?

This is the real challenge of 1998. The candidates can rise to it if they wish; they control the agenda. True leaders will not shrink from the task.