Davis’ Middle Road Is Seen as Logical Course

What makes California’s governor act the way he does?

Elected as a Democrat last November, Gov. Gray Davis often performs more like a moderate Republican. Of the 14 measures he vetoed in his first eight months or so in office, 13 were from his own party. On crime and punishment, he is virtually indistinguishable from his GOP predecessor.

Democratic legislators have groused repeatedly about the purposeful way in which Davis has pursued a middle course. But the key to understanding the governor’s cautious gate-keeping, say thoughtful colleagues, political scientists and some fellow governors, is that in many ways he is a prisoner of his position.

When Davis took over in January, for the first time in 16 years California Democrats were in firm control of the executive and legislative branches. Expectations were high. Now, it seemed, they could pass a backlog of changes for labor, education, the environment, health care and the poor that had been blocked by GOP governors.

Instead, Davis soon found himself sparring publicly with his own party. Tensions continued as Davis deterred a host of partisan-charged legislation before lawmakers ended their 1999 session Friday.

Scholars say that such tension is not only predictable for a single party government, but it is the natural product of the rivalry between the two branches of government. “It is at least as common as harmony,” said David R. Mayhew, a Yale political scientist who wrote a book on divided government.

Gov. Bill Owens of Colorado knows something about this. He and his fellow Republicans had big plans when they took control of their statehouse last fall for the first time in 24 years. They cut taxes, debated new abortion limits and offered sweeping expansion of the right to carry concealed guns.

Then the Columbine High School shootings opened a tear in GOP ranks. Republican leaders blasted their new governor when he joined the Democrats on gun controls.

“What I tried to do is avoid some of the politicization of that issue,” Owens explained recently. “But a Legislature is made up of many disparate people . . . and sometimes there is not that unity of purpose that a governor can bring. There are similarities between Gov. Davis and myself.”

California’s Democratic frictions are commonly described as troubling philosophical rifts or personality clashes. The acrimony has been fueled by sharp language, particularly Davis’ controversial suggestion that the Legislature subordinate itself to his vision.

The true source of the tension, experts say, is the vastly different constituencies of a governor who is elected statewide and the legislators who are most outspoken when they come from ideologically concentrated districts.

That difference explains why most governors are political centrists. California is a particularly good example because the governor is chosen by a widely disparate electorate and the Legislature’s power bases are the liberal strongholds of San Francisco and inner-city Los Angeles.

“There can be just as many differences between Davis and some legislators as there was between Davis and [former Gov. Pete] Wilson,” said Morris P. Fiorina, a political scientist at Stanford University who has studied divided and same-party governments.

“There is no evidence that same-party governments are any more productive than divided party governments. . . . If you look at the Davis constituency and then you look at the constituency of the legislators, those two arenas just throw forth different politicians.”

When Davis took office, there was speculation about whether his administration would reflect the liberalism of former Gov. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr.--whom Davis served as chief of staff--or whether he would implement the centrism he espoused in the campaign. Davis aides say that there was never a doubt in the governor’s mind, largely because of the lessons he learned from earlier Democratic stumbles.

One influential episode was President Clinton’s ill-fated attempt to seize the momentum of his 1992 election and overhaul the nation’s health care system. It failed, and Republicans captured Congress in the next election. Heading into his own reelection campaign in 1996, Clinton tacked back to the center by signing GOP-sponsored welfare reforms.

Another lesson came from Davis’ front-row seat in the Brown administration when it misread the electorate and opposed Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 tax cut.

“I readily admit to being cautious and an incrementalist,” Davis said in a recent interview. “Part of that . . . was influenced by my experience with Gov. Brown. I recall everybody telling us that Proposition 13 would never pass . . . and [instead] it changed the character of government probably more than any other initiative in my lifetime.”

Davis said the tendency for governors to reflect the political center was illustrated to him at national gatherings of state executives this year. At closed-door sessions for governors only, Davis said, “you probably couldn’t tell the difference [between the Republicans and Democrats] if you just listened to what the governors said.”

In fact, during the election campaign last year, Davis aides tried to stress the common ground between Davis, the Democratic nominee, and the Republican incumbent, Wilson. The message was clear when Davis introduced himself at a debate with Republican opponent Dan Lungren in San Diego.

“Now there are a number of differences you will hear about in this election,” Davis began. “One candidate is pro-choice. One opposes a woman’s right to choose. One has spent a good part of his life opposing offshore oil drilling. Another has spent most of his life in favor of offshore oil drilling. . . . And those are just a few of the differences between Dan Lungren and Pete Wilson.”

Davis advisor Garry South notes that the Wilson comparison worked, so it should be no surprise that Davis’ tenure has produced no dramatic shift in state policy.

Davis’ victory “was a vote of continuity,” he said. “To [voters], this was almost like electing a vice president because [Davis] was already the lieutenant governor. For anyone to think this was a mandate to turn the world upside-down is utterly crazy.”

Davis wasn’t even sworn in when his squabbles with fellow Democrats began.

Labor groups that strongly backed his campaign threatened to picket inaugural events after Davis tried to temper their hopes for a pay raise. Later, he angered the traditionally Democratic teachers union with his plan to require job evaluations. And he tangled briefly with liberal environmentalists over a water claim by farmers.

There was more to come.

Davis had a public falling out with Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante over the governor’s decision to mediate a court settlement of Proposition 187, the anti-illegal immigrant measure. In June, when he signed the state’s $81-billion budget, he vetoed nearly $600 million in spending requests from Democrats, most of it from their plans to expand health and welfare services for the poor.

Last week, philosophical differences were blamed for delays in a proposal for health care reform.

“We are not monolithic and we are not an appendage of the executive branch,” said Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles). “But I think anybody in politics will tell you they would prefer the problems associated with same-party government to the problems associated with a divided party government.”

There have been a number of major accomplishments for the Democrats, including the health care reforms that went to the governor’s desk Friday.

Davis authored a package of education reforms adding more scrutiny and accountability for teachers, students and school administrators. He passed a $500-million tax cut and signed a state budget before the June 30 deadline--only the second on-time budget in this decade.

And the Democrats passed a series of landmark gun control bills that included a toughened ban on assault rifles and a new attempt to outlaw cheaply made handguns.

Other new same-party governments, notably those in Colorado and Florida, have similar records of accomplishment despite similar tensions. Florida’s rookie Republican Gov. Jeb Bush signed a $1-billion tax cut and drew national attention this year for winning passage of the nation’s first education voucher offering parents state money for private schools.

But he also vetoed a record $313 million from the state budget, so much of it from Republican pet projects that the GOP House speaker threatened in June to sue his own governor. Meanwhile, Bush reached out to Democrats, inviting them to join him on the golf course and on a high-profile trade mission to Mexico City.

In Colorado, Owens also passed tax cuts and vetoed many of his own party’s spending requests. He won early praise from Democrats for moderate appointments to his administration, and the legislative session ended on a high note.

“There have been frankly some growing pains,” said Colorado House Majority Leader Doug Dean, who told reporters earlier that he was “furious” with Owens’ plan for gun control bills. “Our governor is a pretty conservative Republican governor, but on some issues he does go more moderate than I might have thought.”

The transition to chief executive was particularly sharp for Owens because he was a leader of the conservative Republican ranks in the Legislature before his narrow election last November. As one of their own, GOP lawmakers were not only surprised when he seemed to modify his conservative course--some felt betrayed.

“We are kind of feeling ourselves out,” Owens said in an interview. “It is different than when I was a [state] senator representing a 35th of the state. I haven’t changed my underlying principles . . . but when you are the chief executive, it’s very different.”

As a former legislator himself, Davis describes a similar dramatic change in his own outlook.

“As a legislator, I didn’t feel I was responsible for the state’s economic well-being,” Davis said recently. “So I was prepared to call for any program whether it was fiscally responsible or not. And I probably wouldn’t be held accountable by the voters afterward.

“People are not looking to governors to be advocates of rigid ideologies,” he added. “That is not always the case when someone comes from an individual district. They are more ideologically motivated and they view their job [as being] to make a statement or express a point of view as opposed to solving problems.”