Democracy's melodious thunder rolls the length of this state, which is rich in rival distractions. The gubernatorial candidates, Republican Pete Wilson and Democrat Dianne Feinstein, are tugging at the state's sleeve, competing for attention with two ballot propositions to which their candidacies are linked. "Big Green" is a radical salad of environmental measures. Proposition 140 would limit the number of terms state legislators and statewide officers could serve. Wilson supports Proposition 140, which will pass; he opposes Big Green, which probably will fail narrowly. Feinstein takes the opposite positions, thereby undermining her two themes: that she represents change for the state, and a changed Democratic Party.
Opposition to term limits is intellectually defensible but potentially ruinous for Feinstein. It is the position of the Sacramento establishment, which is in particularly bad odor just now after protracted budget bickering as bad as Washington's. This puts her candidacy of "change" in opposition to today's favorite formulation of change _ the compulsory rotation of elective offices.
Feinstein's first task was to prove that she was not another warmhearted but woolly-headed liberal. This she did by aggressively flunking the liberal litmus test: She supports capital punishment.
Echoing California's most successful politician, she asks: "Is there anyone here who feels safer than you did 10 years ago?" Ten years ago, Reagan's formulation was: Do you feel "better off"? It is a measure of American regression that "safer" has supplanted the milder, more hopeful "better off" as the public's elemental aspiration.
Yet at a moment when skepticism about governmental competence is acute, she supports Big Green, a legislative leap in the dark. It would be a bonanza for lawyers who would fatten on litigation about its ramifications. And it might be the longest suicide note in history, killing California's prosperity.
Big Green is 39 single-spaced typewritten pages clotted with 16,000 words, many of them technical terms. No one knows the cost of its proscription of any pesticides ever found to cause, in whatever doses, cancer or reproductive harm. No one knows the cost of reducing by 40 percent in 20 years emissions of "any gases which may contribute, directly or indirectly, to global warming." The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power puts the cost of that _ one provision of Big Green; the cost to one department of one city _ at $6-billion.
Big Green and Feinstein are being hurt by the public's deepening sense of uncertainty and vulnerability. Wilson is being hurt by the Bush administration's 10-thumbedness that is deepening anxiety and destroying Republican claims to competence and distinctiveness.
Wilson is a cautious conservative with interesting wrinkles. He is a passionate advocate of early intervention in the lives of poor children. (He calls prenatal care the most cost-effective spending government does.) To reduce by just one pupil the average class size in California costs $1-billion, so he offends the public-education establishment by favoring alternative credentialing: involve high-school honor students in teaching, for example.
But he, like Feinstein, finds his most thoughtful ideas drowned out by the thunderous campaigns over ballot propositions. Recourse to such ballot propositions represents rejection of the core principle of representative government: The people do not decide issues, they decide who shall decide.
Whoever goes as governor to Sacramento must get back to basics, restoring the primacy of representative government.
Washington Post Writers Group