What’s a Republican To Do?

On April 10, about 325,000 registered Republicans in Los Angeles were effectively disenfranchised. Sure, we still have a choice in the June 5 mayoral runoff--we can hold our noses and vote for one of two liberal Democratic candidates, or we can sit it out.

How did this happen? An arcane “nonpartisan” election system has left voters with the two top vote-getters, former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa and City Atty. James K. Hahn. Left out (among others) was Republican Steve Soboroff, who failed to coalesce moderate and conservative support around his candidacy.

The California Constitution declares that “all judicial, school, county and city offices shall be nonpartisan.” It’s an appealing concept for candidates to vie for these offices on the basis of their ideas and records rather than their partisan affiliations. But this “good government” system does little to add substance to campaigns. Or reduce the rancor. Or diminish the role of contributions and special interests.

And, when there’s a crowded field of candidates competing for a jumble of constituencies, sometimes, like this mayoral race, voters find that in the end they’re left with choosing between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

I’ve been watching in frustration while media pundits gush about the potentially historic nature of the race, mostly because of the candidacy of Villaraigosa, a charismatic Latino who wears a coat of Teflon that would make Ronald Reagan envious.

Because he successfully schmoozed and cut a few deals in the back rooms of the state Capitol, Villaraigosa is characterized as a great conciliator who can bring Los Angeles together. But there’s little to indicate that once in office this former union organizer and ACLU proselytizer will speak for all residents. His sympathies clearly side with labor unions over businesses, tax consumers over taxpayers, the criminally accused over police and prosecutors.

As for Hahn, his campaign against Villaraigosa brings to mind Hubert H. Humphrey’s last hurrah in the Democratic primaries of 1972 against George McGovern--a liberal attacking a liberal for being too liberal.

It’s true that Hahn’s candidacy could prove effective if voters get upset about rising crime or if significant numbers of Anglo and African American voters, out of ethnic rivalry or racial animus, decide to deny the ascension of a Latino to such a prominent position. But it would be a shame if racial antagonism provides the reason to vote for or against a candidate.

The fact is there is nothing new or historically significant about the choice now facing Los Angeles voters. Instead, this campaign signals a disappointing return to a brand of old-school liberal urban politics that hobbled America’s great cities from the ‘60s through the ‘80s--an era marked by kowtowing to unions and special interests along with a dispiriting indifference to taxpayers, employers, homeowners and quality municipal services.

As a Republican, I’m concerned that this election marks another significant step in California’s headlong lurch to the left. With virtually all top offices held by Democrats and crushing Democratic majorities in the state Legislature and congressional delegation, California risks becoming a one-party state like Hawaii or Massachusetts are for the Democrats, and Utah and Wyoming are for the Republicans. Vesting so much power in the hands of one party breeds arrogance and abuse and smothers other policy choices and ideas.

Inexplicably, some of California’s Republican leaders are jumping on the Villaraigosa express. The Times’ George Skelton has reported that at least one Republican told him that the party hopes to score points with the emerging Latino voting bloc by lending Villaraigosa a hand.

I’d like just one of these Republicans to explain how endorsing a candidate who opposes most of the Republican philosophy will translate into a rush of new Latino Republican registrants and voters in future elections.

The more likely outcome is a Villaraigosa victory and the creation of a powerhouse Democratic successor to Gov. Gray Davis in 2006, assuming Davis wins reelection in 2002.

As for this Republican, I do not intend to punch either mayoral candidate’s chad on June 5. Am I a sore loser? No, I’m just sore at our dysfunctional “nonpartisan” election process and the sorry state of my party.

Together they have left this great city without a real choice on election day.