Gov. Needs to Use His Charm, Not His Boxing Gloves

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed some intriguing reforms that merit a serious look by the Legislature, but they’re being overshadowed by the politics of pugnacity.

There’s pugnacity on both sides -- by Schwarzenegger and by Democrats. But it’s the governor who has the loudest mike. And it’s his bellicosity that is having the most negative impact on the Capitol atmosphere.

He’s the one who has laid the proposals on the table, after all. And his brickbats are not conducive to compromise.

Maybe he doesn’t believe, deep down, that Democratic legislative leaders are able or willing to compromise. Maybe he already has decided to bypass lawmakers and call a special election for November. So he’s in campaign mode, trying to make the case to voters for his proposals by dumping on Democrats and their “special interests,” such as schoolteachers.

Or maybe he’s just a natural producer of punchy, brawny sound bites: “Girlie men.” “Losers.” “Three stooges.”

“It appears Arnold is having trouble transitioning from his Hollywood role to his governor’s role,” says Democratic Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who intends to run for governor next year, regardless of whether Schwarzenegger seeks reelection. “He’s playing the ‘Conan’ role again....

“It’s one thing to have clever things to say and another to sound like a clown all the time.”

Here’s another theory: It’s not that Schwarzenegger is having trouble transitioning. It’s that he’s fighting it, clinging to his image as a movie superstar and political outsider. Hollywood “action heroes” are admired. Politicians are disparaged.

When politicians are pugnacious, they can be polarizing -- a role that doesn’t fit with the governor’s frequent, high-minded call for bipartisan cooperation.

Schwarzenegger, in a meeting last week with Sacramento Bee writers, called Lockyer and two other Democrats -- Treasurer Phil Angelides and Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell -- “the three stooges.”

The original Three Stooges -- Moe, Larry and Curly -- were slapstick movie comics. The trio of Bill, Phil and Jack had a one-time gig at a grammar school where they accused Schwarzenegger of shortchanging education and breaking a promise.

The governor actually proposed a $2.9-billion increase in school funding. But that’s $2.3 billion short of what schools are owed under a deal Schwarzenegger cut with education leaders soon after taking office.

“Name-calling and breaking promises is not a good example for our children,” O’Connell says. “We expect people to live up to their agreements. Schools were counting on the revenue.”

He adds: “We need more creative ways to fund education.” The former legislator is pushing for a ballot measure that would lower the vote required for a local parcel tax, if the funds were used for schools. The vote requirement would be reduced from a two-thirds majority to 55%, the same as for local school bonds.

Schwarzenegger’s reforms were outlined in his State of the State speech Jan. 5: automatic across-the-board spending cuts to balance a budget when the Legislature is gridlocked, substituting 401(k)-type retirement plans for traditional public employee pensions, paying teachers based on merit rather than tenure and stripping the Legislature of its power to redraw legislative and congressional districts.

Unfortunately, during that speech, Schwarzenegger also pumped up his pugnacity.

He lectured legislators to “ignore the lobbyists” -- even though he has hired business lobbyists as his senior advisors. He complained that “this place is in the grip of the special interests” -- although he has hit up special interests for more money than any state pol in history.

After praising “many” teachers as “wonderful and dedicated,” he insulted all of them by declaring: “I propose that teacher employment be tied to performance, not just showing up.”

“That shocked me the most,” says John Hein, former chief strategist for the California Teachers Assn. and a one-time Schwarzenegger fan. “It was like a 180-degree turn. CTA phones were ringing off the hook.”

If Schwarzenegger’s game is to keep other political players off balance, he’s succeeding. Nobody has quite figured out who this guy is exactly.

Is Schwarzenegger the cooperative centrist that he often claims? Or is he, at heart, a fiscal ultraconservative who enjoys spewing anti-government red meat for right-wing ideologues? Most likely, he is not an ultraconservative, but he does love entertaining with red meat.

Capitol eyebrows raised when he told the Bee: “Taking money out of the private sector [by raising taxes] is a no-no because we don’t want to feed the monster. We want to feed the private sector, and we want to starve the public sector.”

Responds Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles): “The governor said he was going to find waste, fraud, mismanagement. OK, where is that? He now has gone from paring out waste to starving the monster. It reeks of an ideological twist. I have no idea whether he believes it....

“But he can’t get away with just saying stuff like this.”

And get much done inside the Capitol.

The governor’s right. The system needs to be fixed. Budgets must be balanced and enacted on time. Public pensions have gotten out of hand. The best teachers should get merit pay. It’s indefensible that the Legislature redistricts itself. There’s a lot to negotiate.

Schwarzenegger can achieve much in the Legislature and avoid a costly shootout among special interests in a partisan special election. But he needs to temper the pugnacity and return to his people skills.

*

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