Gray Davis

A year ago, pundits dismissed Gray Davis as “political road kill.” A boring white man in a state that wants stars. An establishment figure in a state that likes outsiders. A career politician in a state that resents politicos. A man of no great wealth facing rich competitors. The near-universal consensus: “Stick a fork in him. He’s done.”

But Davis ended up running the nation’s toughest, most disciplined campaign last year. He won by an astonishing 20 points and led California Democrats to their biggest victory in 40 years. Last weekend, the Democratic Party’s royalty went to Sacramento to celebrate the inauguration of California’s first Democratic governor in 16 years.

Davis, 56, has been called “perhaps the best-prepared governor in California history” by one newspaper. Talking to him, you get the sense you’re dealing with a pro, someone who’s been around a long time--23 years, in fact--and knows how government works. Davis describes himself as “centrist,” “moderate” and “pragmatic.” For him, the purpose of government is “problem solving.” No one has ever called Davis a visionary.

Which leads you to wonder: How did he ever get elected? Where does he want to lead the state? For a man known primarily as a policy wonk, Davis has an unusually clear sense of the historical “moment.” He understands exactly why Californians have suddenly become so receptive to a professional politician. They want a governor who can fix the state’s deteriorating public services, particularly education, without disrupting the system they created 20 years ago with Proposition 13.

Davis also understands Californians’ longing for consensus after eight years of Gov. Pete Wilson. The biggest applause line in Davis’ inaugural address on Monday came when he said, “I pledged that the day I took the oath of office, the era of wedge-issue politics in California would be over. Well, my fellow Californians, that day is here. That time has come. And you can finally ring down the curtain on the politics of division.” The partisan audience roared, while Wilson sat on stage in evident discomfort.

Vice President Al Gore was there. The Clinton administration has made no secret of the fact it sees California as the beachhead of the Democrats’ new national coalition.

In a conversation in Los Angeles the weekend before his inauguration, Davis blamed Wilson for exploiting division to gain political advantage. But isn’t that what the GOP Congress is doing with impeachment? Republicans nationally have been sounding ever more extreme and divisive. They seem to be abandoning the center. Which is why Democrats are trying to market themselves as moderates and consensus builders.

Davis sounds like the very model of Clinton’s “new Democrat.” He sold the message in California. Now, there’s a longing for consensus in national politics. Could Davis’ historical “moment” be coming on the national scene?

****

Question: By your own description, you campaigned as a moderate and promised to govern as a moderate. President Clinton calls his approach the “third way.” Is that your philosophy, and if so, what does it mean?

Answer: I think the voters of California are moderate in temperament and outlook. The elections proved that. I’m a moderate and pragmatist. That’s who I am. That’s how I campaigned. That’s how I’m going to govern. It doesn’t make one bit of difference to me whether an idea comes from the right or the left. What matters is whether it works.

*

Q: Do you identify that with President Clinton’s mode of governing?

A: Sometimes a person meets his moment. I have always been a moderate. I have always been a pragmatist. I have always wanted to solve problems. I liked to work with puzzles as a kid, where I could figure out solutions.

It just happens that in 1998, that is the profile the voters were looking for. If I had run in an era when it was “throw the rascals out,” when experience was a liability rather than an asset, I probably would not be talking to you here today.

*

Q: You say you “met the moment.” Why do you think that was? For most of the 1990s, experience was a liability. Voters distrusted career politicians. Why did they suddenly change?

A: I give Bill Clinton a lot of credit. He is the ultimate pol. He spent his whole life in politics. He took an economy that was in recession in 1992 and has lifted the economic prospects of every American. They know that, and to varying degrees, they give him credit. People were saying in 1998, “Let’s not rock the boat. We’re happy with our economic fortunes. We want someone who will continue the momentum that began in Washington.”

*

Q: What can you do to eliminate so-called “wedge-issue” politics, when three wedge-issue propositions have been approved by the voters in the last four years?

A: I don’t blame voters for casting a ballot in favor of them. I was critical of Gov. Wilson for putting these issues on the ballot primarily to advance his own political purposes.

The governor has done some good things in this state. He helped change laws to make it more likely companies will succeed. He encouraged economic growth and cracked down on criminals, and I support his effort in both regards. But I think he made a big mistake in pitting one Californian against another. It is a huge distraction. It does not create a single job or educate one child. And it leaves a very bitter aftertaste.

*

Q: Will there be any litmus tests for judges you appoint? Will they have to be pro-choice or support the death penalty?

A: I certainly want them to know how strongly I feel on both issues. I don’t want them to embarrass themselves, or embarrass me, by being of a different mind. I ran on those issues, and every appointment I make to the administrative branch and to the bench is supposed to reflect the ideology that I shared with the voters of California. That’s how a representative democracy works. If I appoint people whose views are contrary to mine, I’m dishonoring the process from which I have just recently emerged successful.

*

Q: You are a career politician. How have you seen politics in this state change over the course of your career?

A: Since 1982 I’ve been on the ballot at least every 4 years.

When I first started to work in government in the mid-’70s, there was much more bipartisanship and civility. People would be critical of one another’s positions and take exception on issues raised by a colleague. But the battle was never personal. In fact, I thought it was healthy that afterwards people would have dinner together or would socialize.

All that seemed to stop. Now, it’s like two armed camps that only occasionally come together in a bipartisan fashion to serve the interests of the public. I’m going to do my level best to reduce the decibel level. . . . It is my hope that, by setting the right example, I can not only eliminate the inflammatory issues on the ballot but create a better and more civil environment in which bipartisan activity can occur in Sacramento.

I’m certainly going to reach out to Republican members of the Legislature, as well as Democrats, and see if we can’t form bipartisan coalitions. There’s no reason why, on crime, education and the environment, you can’t have a bipartisan coalition. Both parties profess to support all three of those agendas, and there’s no reason why we can’t come together.

*

Q: You have the biggest Democratic majority in the Legislature since the Watergate era. Why not govern on the Democratic agenda? Why do you need to find common ground with Republicans?

A: I believe in governing from the center. Any lasting change requires bipartisan participation. Unless all the stakeholders feel vested in a new law or a new initiative, you can’t be sure the initiative will last.

*

Q: But wasn’t the 1998 election a mandate for Democrats?

A: I believe it was a mandate for problem solvers. I’m convinced of this to my core.

People send us up there to solve their problems, not to give them a lecture. What they deeply resent is someone from Washington or Sacramento telling them how they feel. They know exactly how they feel. We’re working for them. We’re their employees. And they want us, collectively, to solve problems that are too big for them [to solve as individuals].

*

Q: After 16 years of Republican governors, is there anything Govs. George Deukmejian or Wilson did that you will try to reverse?

A: Yes. Whether this was purposeful or not, certain forms of work were stigmatized during those administrations. Public employees, teachers, carpenters, painters, plumbers, all were put down. In 1987, Deukmejian tried to take away Cal/OSHA [California Occupational Safety and Health Administration]. [They felt] maybe we don’t need our own safety agency in California. We can let the federal government do this one because [President Ronald] Reagan was running the government. But employers and employees alike saw the wisdom of keeping this agency . . . because everyone benefited from the increased oversight of people’s working environment. . . .

I want the richest person in Silicon Valley and Beverly Hills to understand that they’re all connected in this society. We all stand on the shoulders of our predecessors, and we all are the beneficiaries of the good work of the people who surround us. So if I can communicate a sense of connectedness, that we’re all part of a community that depends on all others doing their part, we’ll go a long away toward making people feel better about being Californians.

*

Q: You believe that sense of connectedness was damaged in the past 16 years?

A: No question about it. Just look at the initiatives on the ballot. We had the Cal/OSHA initiative in 1988 [Proposition 97, which restored funding Deukmejian had cut]. Then we had [Propositions] 209 and 187. Then we had [Proposition] 226, which was a blatant attempt to change the rules solely for working people. It seemed to backfire, but it was put on the ballot out of what I believe to be a punitive mentality. My hope is that that sort of initiative goes away because there won’t be any support for this divide-and-conquer concept.

*

Q: Is there any governor you regard as a model for your administration?

A: I’d pick two: Pat Brown and Earl Warren.

Pat Brown because he was a pragmatist. He got things done. He built 11 universities. His tough-mindedness established the [state’s] water project. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be nearly as many people in Southern California.

And Earl Warren because he brought a sense of nonpartisanship to the office.

*

Q: What would you like to be remembered for?

A: That’s easy. I want to be remembered as the governor who turned around the schools, who improved student performance and who changed society’s attitude toward public education.

Public education was extraordinarily important to our founding fathers, particularly [James] Madison and [Thomas] Jefferson, because when the country was founded some 220 years ago, public education was the exception, not the rule. In most societies, where you were born was where you ended up. They began this bold experiment called public education, which allowed for upward mobility. It didn’t matter where you were born. It didn’t matter that much who your parents were. It mattered what you learned and what you could do.

That is particularly true in California. If there’s a place in the country where pedigree and your parents count for very little and your talent counts for a lot, it’s California. In the last 20 or 25 years, what I call this American promise, or the great American experiment, has run into tough sledding here in California. But I am not about to abandon it.