Pty in poor California.
It’s not just gas prices that are eye-popping, absurd housing costs, rising utility and grocery prices, Trump-led attacks on federal immigration and his assault on California’s long-cherished values of tolerance and diversity.
No, despite all that the voters have experienced – fear! – a gubernatorial campaign that’s cool and drawn-out, weighed down by a slew of C- and D-list candidates with all the electricity and elan of a hot shower.
Where are the A-listers? Where are the lights? Cameras? I action?
That, however, is the impression one gets from reading some kind of campaign dispatch, written from the point of view that all of California, the Land of Reagan and Schwarzenegger, the home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, the incubator of the Next Big Thing, is a stage. Woe to those who fail to please, heal or amuse.
The fact that those sad assessments have little to do with the real needs and wants of the majority of Californians — not to mention the state’s history of electing mostly petty and unscrupulous governors — should give their authors pause.
It didn’t happen.
Against all the concentrated yawns and thinly veiled condescension, the race — now in its final stages — is the most compelling California gubernatorial campaign in decades. And not just because one of the leading contenders burned himself and his political life in the fire of stupidity and stupidity.
In November, voters could choose the first female governor in the country’s history, or perhaps the first Latino governor in more than 150 years. (They may also include California’s first billionaire governor, a less dramatic and historic achievement, but historic nonetheless.)
Depending on the outcome, the election could also cement a significant shift in the balance of political power in California, from the long-governed San Francisco Bay Area (think Govs. Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Sens. Alan Cranston, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer) to Southern California (think Sens. Adam Schiff, Alex Padilla, Gov.
Of course, there is no pyrotechnic personality in the wide field of gubernatorial hopefuls. But this is no team for slouches.
“Look at these people’s resumes. It’s nothing to be ashamed of,” said Jim Newton, a UCLA historian who has written book-length biographies of Californians as diverse as Earl Warren and Jerry Garcia. The contestants, he noted, include a former state attorney general and a member of the Biden Cabinet, a former member of Congress, the aforementioned hedge-fund billionaire and men with experience running the state’s two most populous cities. “That’s a pretty good range of backgrounds for a gubernatorial candidate.”
With no glitz, glamour, what’s a star-seeking, celebrity-hungry voter to do? If you believe the theory, Californians take their political views more from Variety and In Touch magazines than, say, their voter guide or the flood of TV ads and campaign mailers that flood the state every two years.
In fact, the Hollywood stars promoted to the presidency, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, were different – separated by almost four decades – and far from the norm. Both political terrorists were elected under unusual circumstances. Reagan amid the turmoil and tectonic rift of the 1960s Civil Rights and Free Speech. Schwarzenegger in an unprecedented, quick recall of the most unpopular governor.
The most common are the likes of George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis. Each was a politician who spent decades working his way up through the ranks of government before being elected governor. Together, they were featured on the cover of People magazine zero times.
All three are, to use Newton’s definition, “common, politically tested, not extravagant.” What also happens is to describe a few of those currently aspiring to be governor.
Rock, but it’s true.
As boring as it may seem, many Californians are looking for someone who will focus on the concerns of the workday, not pleasure. For all the talk of the “attention economy” – hearts and minds won through jokey memes, viral videos and other social media consumption – voters are more focused on the real economy, which means putting food on their table, keeping a roof over their heads and keeping their car full of gas and their home at a tolerable temperature.
“It’s not realistic,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime California Republican strategist and one of the world’s most astute political observers. “That’s right which is real truth.”
“That may not be interesting in research and on the East Coast,” continued Madrid, “but it’s still important. The truth is still important. The playfulness that has dominated our discourse for 10 years in the Trump era is disappearing.”
Imagine if former Vice President Kamala Harris had jumped into the governor’s race, as is being speculated. The race, for all intents and purposes, would be over by then, saving months of speculation as to which Democrat or Republican would make the November runoff headed for eventual defeat. That it would be boring.
In Harris’ absence, the growing field of candidates has been healthy and vibrant, producing California’s most competitive gubernatorial race in a quarter of a century. Fears of a Democratic shutdown in June’s two primary points and a swinging Republican nomination — which has always been overwhelming — have largely disappeared. Even if they didn’t, would it really be better for the politicians in Sacramento and Washington to anoint the Democratic favorite and take the voters out of the equation?
(While we’re talking fairy tales, another hypothetical is that the state party or Democratic officials like Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Jerry or Willie Brown could have cleared the field with just a phone call or two.)
This open war of a ruler may not be boffo entertainment or dazzling to those watching from the outside, but it’s captivating nonetheless. It is set to be remembered as one of the most dynamic and dramatic political contests modern California has ever seen.
