Pity poor California.
It’s not just the eye-watering price of gasoline, the absurd cost of housing, the rising cost of utilities and groceries, the Trump-led assault on the state’s immigrant population and his assault on California’s long-cherished values of tolerance and diversity.
No, above all what the voters had to endure – horror! – A dull and dreary gubernatorial campaign, burdened with all the energy and enthusiasm of a lukewarm bath, along with a plethora of C- and D-list candidates.
Where are the A-listers? Where are the lights? cameras? action?
Anyway, this is the perspective one gets when reading a certain genre of campaign dispatch, written from the perspective that California, land of Reagan and Schwarzenegger, home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, incubator of the Next Big Thing, is a stage for the American Revolution. Woe to those who fail to entertain, enliven, or amuse.
The fact that those tepid assessments have little to do with the actual wants and needs of the vast majority of Californians — not to mention the state’s history of electing mostly dull and vapid governors — should give their authors pause.
It’s not like that.
Despite all the hushed yawning and little-hidden condescension, the contest — now in its final stages — is the most compelling California gubernatorial campaign in decades. And not just because one of the major contestants burned himself and his political career in a blaze of arrogance and stupidity.
In November, voters could elect the first female governor in state history, or possibly the first Latino governor in more than 150 years. (They might also install California’s first billionaire governor, which is a far less exciting and huge accomplishment, but historic nonetheless.)
Depending on the outcome, the election could also solidify a notable shift in California’s balance of political power, from the long-ruling San Francisco Bay Area (think Governor Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and U.S. Senators Alan Cranston, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer) to Southern California (think Sens. Adam Schiff, Alex Padilla and, possibly, Governors Xavier Becerra or Katie Porter).
True, there are no pyrotechnic personalities in the vast field of gubernatorial candidates. But this is not a group of sluts.
UCLA historian Jim Newton said, “Look at these guys’ resumes. There’s nothing shameful about them.” He said the contenders include a former state attorney general and Biden Cabinet member, a high-profile ex-congresswoman, the aforementioned hedge-fund billionaire and men with experience running the state’s two most populous cities. “It’s a really good range of backgrounds of the candidates for governor.”
Without any glitz, without any glamour, what’s a star-seeking, celebrity-hungry voter to do? If you believe the conservative assumption, Californians take their political cues more from Variety and In Touch magazine than from their voter guides or the flood of TV commercials and campaign mailers that hit the state every two years.
In fact, the only Hollywood stars to reach the governorship, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been the exceptions – about four decades apart – and far from the norm. Both political rebels were elected under extraordinary circumstances. Reagan amid the turmoil and tectonic disintegration of the civil rights and free speech movements of the 1960s. Schwarzenegger led an unprecedented, rapid turnaround of a deeply unpopular governor.
People like George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis stand out much more. Each was a career politician who worked hard for decades to climb the government ranks before being elected governor. Collectively, they were featured on the cover of People magazine exactly zero times.
To use Newton’s description, all three were, “mainstream, politically tested, not flashy.” Which also describes many people currently aspiring to be governor.
Dull, but true.
As boring as it may sound, most Californians want someone who will focus on their workday concerns, not fun. Despite all the talk of the “attention economy” — hearts and minds won by jokey memes, viral videos and other snackable morsels on social media — voters are more focused on the real economy, which means putting food on their table, maintaining a roof over their heads and keeping their car fueled and home at a tolerable temperature.
“This is not virtual reality,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime California Republican strategist and one of the state’s astute political observers. “Its reality reality.”
Madrid continued, “It may not be interesting for punditry and the East Coast, but it still matters. Reality still matters. The performative nature that dominated our discourse for 10 years in the Trump era is fading.”
Imagine for a moment if former Vice President Kamala Harris had jumped into the governor’s race, as was thought. For all intents and purposes, the contest would have ended then and there, barring months of aerial speculation about whether the Democrat or Republican would be on the path to ultimate defeat in November. He Would have been boring.
In Harris’s absence, the huge field of candidates has been a good and healthy thing, leading to the most competitive California gubernatorial contest in a quarter century. The Democratic defeat in June’s top-two primary elections and the possibility of a weak Republican being elected – which had always been imminent – have diminished dramatically. Even if they didn’t do so, would it really be better for politicians in Sacramento and Washington to anoint the Democratic favorite and leave voters out of the equation?
(While we’re debunking myths, the other hypothetical is that the state party or Democratic stalwarts like Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Jerry or Willie Brown could clear the field with just a phone call or two.)
This wide-open battle for governor may not be entertaining or dazzling to an outside observer, but it is interesting nonetheless. It is sure to be remembered as one of the most volatile and surprising political contests ever seen in modern California.
