Schwarzenegger, Democrats Each Have Reasons to Compromise

The state of the state? It’s sputtering, if not stagnant. State government is on a life-support system called borrowing.

Yet, the governor who’s in charge remains extremely popular. He is entertaining and projects strength. He promises to fight with the people against “the special interests” -- the Democrats’ interests, not his. He frames himself as a reformer.

The state of Arnold Schwarzenegger? Still supreme.

But the state of the opposition party? Slipping. Democrats are in decline.

No way, you say? Democrats hold every other statewide office, control the Legislature, outnumber Republicans on the U.S. House delegation, occupy both U.S. Senate seats and have an advantage in voter registration.

OK, start with Congress. Because Republicans control both houses and the presidency, any real California clout in Washington is exercised by a handful of powerful GOP House committee chairmen from this state.

In Sacramento, Democrats possess all the key positions outside the governor’s office, but their power and potential are problematic.

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley seems finished because of federal and state probes into suspicious campaign fundraising and misuse of public funds. Making the Democrats’ black eye worse, party loyalists are trying to whitewash the Shelley scandals in the Legislature.

Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer is an effective public servant. But at age 63, it’s probably up -- to governor -- or out in 2006.

Treasurer Phil Angelides is the Democrats’ most articulate, outspoken critic of Schwarzenegger. But he often sounds shrill and opportunistic. Last week, he referred repeatedly to the governor’s budget cuts as a devastating “tsunami.”

Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante blew it with his clumsy race for governor in the recall of Democrat Gray Davis.

The Democrats’ brand name has lost luster. Gay marriages? Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants? The old tax and spend? Timid leadership? Liberal leadership? Right-wing radio?

Whatever reason, voters have been leaving the Democratic Party. In October 1992, Democrats accounted for 49.1% of registered voters. By last October, total voter registration had risen by about 1.5 million, but there were roughly 290,500 fewer Democrats. The party’s share of registration had dipped to 43%.

In that period, Republicans gained about 152,200 registered voters -- and the “declined to state” category 1.4 million.

The main reason Democrats have retained their big majorities in the Legislature -- Assembly 48-32, Senate 25-15 -- is that districts were gerrymandered to protect incumbents and preserve the political status quo in each seat. Republicans were co-conspirators.

The senior Democratic leader, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles), has been a legislator for only two years and lacks statewide stature. Term limits gradually have weakened the entire Legislature and especially its leadership.

Schwarzenegger has been in office only 14 months, but he already has more Capitol experience than 21 Assembly members.

In the Senate, new leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) is espousing the right causes: a middle-class agenda of easier commutes, affordable housing and better schools. He’s a seasoned pro. But Perata’s voice has been weakened by an FBI investigation of his hometown business and political activities.

In the battle for public opinion, Nunez and Perata are no match for a celebrity governor who’s orchestrating a special election to push his “reforms.”

Bruce Cain, director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and a former Democratic redistricting consultant, characterizes his party as being “on the defensive on several fronts,” starting with the questionable ethics of Shelley and Perata. “That’s just bad stuff,” he says. “It wears at the image of the party as a defender of the people’s interests.

“Secondly, Democrats are on the defensive in reacting to the governor’s agenda, rather than pushing the governor into their agenda.”

It’s not for lack of trying. But Schwarzenegger is pushing back.

Cain continues: “There’s a new game being played in town. Initiatives are being used as part of the governance process. That means the Legislature has to play that game, not ignore it. They need to run it like a political campaign -- polling, focus groups, raising money. Threaten some things, like a higher minimum wage. They bring their bargaining chips to the table, and the governor brings his. Maybe both sides then can back off.”

And compromise. There’s ample room for dickering on any of the governor’s proposals: independent redistricting (his top priority), automatic budget balancing, substituting 401(k)-type plans for public employee pensions, paying teachers based on merit rather than tenure.

It’s in both sides’ best interest to deal.

Democrats can’t be seen as obstructionists. And in their shape, they’d be better off allying with this governor than fighting him in a ballot-prop election.

Schwarzenegger should question whether these “reforms”--especially immediate redistricting -- are worth the risk to his popularity. He has the most to lose; his strength could be sapped.

More important, it’s doubtful whether these proposals warrant a special election that could cost taxpayers $40 million when there’ll be two regular elections next year.

The state of the Capitol? Unstable with lots of spinning. Many politicians could get hurt.

*

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.