 Several months ago I heard Republican candidate for Governor Tom Campbell give a presentation in Berkeley.
Campbell provided a very impressive lecture that included a detailed six-page handout outlining the state’s financial problems. When the presentation concluded I saw someone whose political opinion I greatly respect and is a prototypical moderate, which means he votes for Democrats and Republicans; and Campbell seemed like his type of candidate. I asked, “What did you think of Campbell’s performance?” My friend responded, “Very impressive, but he can’t win!” Somewhat surprised by my friend’s addendum I asked, “why don’t you think he can win, you just said he was impressive?” “That’s precisely the point,” my friend said. “We (Californians) don’t want impressive, at least on the Republican side; we want someone who appeals to our heart more than our head. Campbell’s rhetoric is definitely libertarian, but his style is that of a Democrat.” What my friend was suggesting, Campbell who is running for the gubernatorial nomination in the party that runs best when the issues carry an emotion component that resonates with voters, while Democrats run best when it’s an issues-driven election. Now that may oversimplify things a bit, but Republicans tend to do a job better connecting with voters on issues important to them. I can hear Democrats berating the exact nature of those issues, but I would imagine even the staunchest Democrats would agree their has not provided a counter narrative that strikes a similar cord with the electorate’s emotions. Some Democrats bemoan that someone would seemingly vote against their economic self-interest in order to vote Republican. This phenomenon was captured in Thomas Frank’s, “What the Matter with Kansas?”
This has long been a Democrat hurdle, but curiously it may also be the mountain that Campbell must conquer if he is to be the Republican gubernatorial candidate. It is not stretch to suggest there is an anti-intellectual aspect to our politics. We don’t want the smartest guy in the room to lead us, and in most cases Campbell qualifies as the smartest guy in the room. Hard to believe someone with Campbell’s resume would not be viable statewide in either party. He holds and Harvard law degree as well as doctorate from the University of Chicago in economics. He also clerked for Supreme Court Justice Byron White. Campbell has served as a member of the House of Representatives, Director of Finance for the State of California under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and former Dean of the Hass Business School at UC Berkeley.
Moreover, he is pro-choice and does not believe the opposition party is inherently evil. That latter position may doom Campbell’s candidacy more within his own party than his impressive qualifications will aide him. Now that San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, has dropped out of the gubernatorial race on the Democratic side it leaves undeclared candidate, Attorney General Jerry Brown, as the likely frontrunner. Unless something unexpected happens, only the Republicans will hold a contested primary race for governor. Campbell is clearly a numbers guy who understands that reaching across the political aisle is key to getting the people’s business done in Sacramento. But politics in the Golden State is not set up to accommodate such thinking. California is structured so that there is a disincentive to compromise, which is antithetical to passing meaningful legislation. The Republican minority in the Legislature will pay a much heavier price by agreeing to a budget deal that includes tax increases than being as obstructionist party protected by the 2/3 majority required to pass a budget. But California finds itself in a post-orthodoxy climate. The ideology of both major political parties is clearly not sufficient to turn around the state’s intractable issues. Our system works best when it embraces a mosaic political culture as opposed to a single canonized ideology. This is something Campbell appears to understand, though a self-professed libertarian, he has stated publicly the state must somehow increase revenues. Such statements, even if they do come from an economist that studied under Milton Friedman, will not sit well the Republican members of the Legislature, who have already taken a “no new tax” pledge. Campbell’s approach may be something that voters from both major political parties might find interesting, but his own party may not let him out of the primary for the rest of the electorate to find out.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
