Whither California Candidates?

Geography could explain why California hasn’t produced a viable candidate for president in a generation: It’s too big. It’s on the wrong coast.

Then there’s demographic theory, the tale of a changing California: The more homogeneous state that was Ronald Reagan’s springboard into the White House no longer exists.

Some blame California’s dearth of presidential aspirants on the polarized state of politics here. Others point to reapportionment, still others to term limits.

Regardless, as California’s 441 delegates -- the most of any state -- stream into Boston for the Democratic National Convention this week, one thing is abundantly clear:

The most populous state, the wealthiest, the most diverse, the state whose residents donate more money to presidential campaigns than any other, hasn’t had a top-tier contender for the Oval Office in nearly a quarter of a century. And no one from either party is waiting in the wings to step into such a national leadership role.

“We haven’t had, until [Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger, our share of larger-than-life folks running for office,” rued Ken Khachigian, a Republican strategist who has worked with candidates and presidents stretching back to Richard Nixon. “It’s sort of sad. We’re the biggest state, the most innovative state, the most creative state, and they’re just not there.”

It’s not that California has no champions on the national scene. Viewers who tune in to convention coverage Monday will see a tribute to America’s nine Democratic women senators. California’s Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein will be on stage, but won’t have speaking parts. On Thursday, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, the leader of House Democrats, will address the delegates.

Schwarzenegger, who is barred by the Constitution from being president because he was not born in the United States, has a prime-time speaking slot during the Republican convention, which begins in late August.

But as many political experts point out, there are men and women with the full package it takes to make a serious presidential run -- stature, message, money, presence. And then there’s everyone else. California politicians these days fall into the latter category.

“The positions from which a candidate gets viable [to run for president] are senator or governor,” said Stephen J. Wayne, professor of government at Georgetown University and author of “The Road to the White House.”

And therein lies part of California’s problem. Boxer, 63, is identified so strongly with liberal causes that her name has never made lists of would-be presidents. Feinstein, 71, has seen her name surface periodically as a strong prospect for vice president. But her wealthy husband’s vast business interests have given some Democratic leaders pause.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown and former Sen. Alan Cranston, both Democrats, and former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, ran for president, but none of them came close to winning a party nomination. Former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis was once mentioned as a possible contender, but his political career ran aground with his recall last fall.

Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, said of California’s lack of major presidential aspirants: “At the most superficial level, it’s because our governors were boring and our senators were women.”

Even a state with an economy bigger than most countries’ can benefit from a home-grown president. Every state has its own dominant concerns -- for California, think immigration, the environment, high technology, the defense industry -- that are especially affected by federal policy.

“You’d like to think that someone coming from California would be more sensitive to those issues,” said Larry Gerston, a political scientist at San Jose State University. “Most people still feel, on a gut level if nothing else, that someone coming from their state won’t turn on them.”

History provides the proof. With 1,100 miles of coastline, vast forests and a wealth of natural resources, California has long been on the forefront of the environmental movement. After he was elected president in 1968, Yorba Linda-born Richard M. Nixon went on to create the Environmental Protection Agency.

During Reagan’s presidency, the state had 10% of the nation’s population, and 20% of the country’s defense dollars were spent here. Today, California is home to 12% of the U.S. population and 10% of the defense spending, Gerston said.

“Reagan’s focus on national security and his consuming concern with communism may well have changed the future of the world,” he said. “At the same time, he was benefiting industries and work forces

And what happens when the state is not on a president’s radar? Consider President Bush’s response to California’s energy crisis, Cain said. The federal government’s response was limited, whereas “a Democrat from this state would have been Johnny-on-the-spot,” Cain said.

But California has changed dramatically since Nixon and Reagan’s day. According to the state Department of Finance, non-Latino whites comprised 67.07% of California’s population when Reagan was elected president in 1980. Latinos made up 19.41% of the population; African Americans, 7.54%; and Asian-Pacific Islanders, 5.23%.

By 1999, non-Latino whites were in the minority. Today, they make up just 47% of the population, with Latinos at 32.5%, Asians at 11% and African Americans at 6.5%.

“The state that produced Ronald Reagan -- a largely white, suburban state -- is no more,” said John Kenneth White, professor of politics at Catholic University of America in Washington.

In fact, like diversity, many of the attributes that make California distinctive are factors that work against candidates who aspire to the nation’s highest office. A key one: geography.

Dan Schnur, a Sacramento consultant who was communications director for the 2000 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said presidential contenders from California were hindered by the distance between it and the crucial early campaign states -- Iowa and New Hampshire.

“The relationships, the networking and the connections all become much more difficult when you’re on the other side of the country,” Schnur said.

If you’re the governor of an Eastern or Midwestern state, it’s just a hop by plane to the first-in-the-nation caucus and primary sites. But a California governor must spend hours just getting to Iowa or New Hampshire to give the requisite speeches at Lincoln Day dinners and fundraisers for congressional candidates.

Brown, a three-time presidential candidate and now mayor of Oakland, takes the geographic argument further.

“We’re in the wrong time zone. The news starts where the sun comes up,” said Brown. “There’s been a dominance of the East Coast elite, the Eurocentric East Coast elite. We’re out of the power loop.”

The state’s political dynamics have also become a hindrance, experts say.

California’s recent governors have been moderates, but its congressional delegation and state Legislature have grown increasingly polarized, with more staunch liberals and staunch conservatives, thanks to reapportionment. As a result, many lawmakers have little cross-over appeal, which can stymie any pursuit of higher office.

“Virtually all the [state’s] members of Congress -- with a few exceptions -- are coming from districts that don’t look like the country as a whole,” said Roy Behr, a Boxer campaign strategist.

Elected officials, political strategists and academics who specialize in state and national government were hard pressed to think of a Californian who’s currently in the pipeline for national greatness.

To Schnur, the most likely path between the Golden State and the Oval Office would be to amend the Constitution to make foreign-born naturalized citizens such as Schwarzenegger eligible for the presidency.

“Once you get past Schwarzenegger, it’s tough seeing a likely prospect,” Schnur said. “There might be a future president in the state Assembly or a city council or a school board somewhere, but it’s like figuring out which rookie home-run hitter is going to break Hank Aaron’s record.”

Added Khachigian, “There’s such a thing as presidential timber. It’s a fairly rare commodity....

“There’s a certain quality you cannot put your finger on, other than to say there’s someone who’s got it.”

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

California not always in lead

California is big and has a lot of clout, but hasn’t produced many presidents.For a state that is so far ahead in so many measures . . .

Top population (in millions)

1. California: 35.5

2. Texas: 22.1

3. New York: 19.2

4. Florida: 17.0

Top political giving (in millions)

1. California: $132.4

2. New York: $96.6

3. Wash. D.C.: $91.4

4. Texas: $75.7

Top electoral votes

1. California: 55

2. Texas: 34

3. New York: 31

4. Florida: 27

Top world economies

(GDP in trillions of dollars)

1. U.S.: $10.98

2. Japan: $4.30

3. Germany: $2.40

4. Britain: $1.79

5. France: $1.75

6. Italy: $1.47

7. California: $1.42

Top manufacturing states

(millions of jobs)

1. California: 1.5

2. Texas: 0.9

Top agricultural states (in billions)

1. California: $26.1

2. Texas: $12.7

3. Iowa: $10.8

4. Nebraska: $9.6

5. Kansas: $7.9

. . . California is far down the list in producing presidents.

Top presidential birthplaces

1. Virginia: 8

2. Ohio: 7

3. Mass.: 4

3. New York: 4

5. N. Carolina: 2

5. Texas: 2

5. Vermont: 2

8. California*: 1

*Tied with 11 other states. Richard Nixon was only president born in California. Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois.

Sources: 2000 U.S. Census, Center for Responsive Politics, Federal Election Commission, Los Angeles Economic Development Corp.