California Conservatism’s Worst Nightmare Revealed

Unless the California Republican Party can shed its mean-spirited, anti-immigrant, ideologically rigid, white-male image, it could wither on the electoral vine.

Is this harsh prediction that of a Democratic stalwart? Or is it the anxious premonition of a moderate Republican? Actually, it is the gist of two internal reports authored by the staff of some who stand to lose much--the conservative-dominated Assembly Republican caucus. The reports pull no punches and raise a potentially high-risk strategy to reverse GOP fortunes.

The staff’s study of statewide registration trends from 1930 to 1997 begins to tell the unhappy story. The Republican share declined from 73%, in November 1930, to 36.4%, in May 1997. Meanwhile, Democratic registration varied from 20.3% in 1930 to 47% this year (down from a high of 59% in November 1940).

Despite a spike in Democratic registration in the 1940s and ‘50s, resulting primarily from new Californians’ loyalty to New Deal programs and an economic upturn, “Republicans held onto political power,” says the report, “ . . . first by adhering to the Hiram Johnson-crafted image of the GOP--non-ideological, clean, efficient and progressive government; and, second, [because of] the cross-filing system, which allowed Republicans to preempt strong Democratic challenges.”

In the ‘60s, the GOP analysis continues, Vietnam, cultural and political upheavals combined to “fracture the social cohesion of California.” They also ravaged the Democratic Party. In the 1970s, Democrats regained some momentum, only to have their post-Watergate resurgence stalled by Proposition 13, “tax-cut fever” and Ronald Reagan’s landslide win in 1980. Through the ‘80s, new GOP registrations outpaced new Democratic registrants by 2 to 1.

But during the 1990s, the report notes, Republicans “have suffered the worst registration performance in six decades--only 11% of new registrations.” (“Decline-to-state” and “other” make up 63% of the new registrants, a finding that should shake both major parties.) The staff analysis concludes that the low GOP numbers “are indicative of the GOP’s inability to come to grips with the state’s changing demographics, economics and political trends.”

This epiphany comes much too late to salvage Republican losses in last year’s elections. Worse, a second caucus document, which profiles “the political attitudes and behavior of California Latinos,” shows how difficult it may be for the GOP to turn things around in 1998. “As Latino turnout and percentage of the electorate increased,” the report says, “the Republicans’ share of the Latino vote decreased.”

In addition, “Turnout of self-identified Latino Republicans declined 32% in 1996.”

The report blames the GOP’s poor showing among Latinos, in part, on “significant spillover effects” from attempts by Bob Dole’s presidential campaign to link Proposition 209 “with illegal immigration in order to turn it into a wedge issue. Latinos,” the report acknowledges, “started to view the Republican Party as harboring anti-Latino feelings. This contributed to the low levels of support given by Latinos to GOP candidates.”

Although not addressed in the staff analysis, the perception of Gov. Pete Wilson as the poster politician for immigrant-bashing also helped push Latinos toward the Democrats. Indeed, some Republicans and analysts hope that once lame-duck Wilson is out of office--and gone from California’s political stage--the alienation of Latinos from the GOP can be more effectively addressed. That still leaves the question of how.

Among potential Republican candidates for U.S. Senate and state offices in the 1998 election, there are, so far, only one woman, one Asian and one Latino. The best bet to showcase the party’s “diversity” may be the U.S. Senate race, if Susan Golding, San Diego’s mayor, or state Treasurer Matt Fong can stave off conservative millionaire Darrell Issa in the primary.

Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, the anointed GOP gubernatorial nominee, is said to want a Latino on the ticket, but San Mateo County Supervisor Ruben Barrales is a long-shot in the race for the Republican nomination for state Treasurer; he’s up against establishment support for Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith’s (R-Poway) probable run. There’s still time for candidate demographics to change, yet the GOP statewide primary races, from Lungren’s putative cake walk to the spirited contest to replace him as the party’s attorney general nominee, are awash with white males. The general election slate will likely be, too. That image undermines any talk of Republican reach-out attempts.

Reviewing Latino attitudes on selected issues, the caucus report suggests another possible game plan. The strategy pivots on the issue of bilingual education and the “English for Children” initiative, sponsored by Ron Unz and educator Gloria Matta Tuchman. Unz’s initiative, which could qualify for the June 1998 ballot, would virtually eliminate bilingual instruction for public-school students “not proficient in English,” the vast majority of whom are Latino.

Embracing Unz’s call to eliminate bilingual education could open up opportunity for state Republicans to reposition themselves. But it carries great risk. The GOP caucus staff recognizes the Unz plan “will be highly contentious,” noting that “Republican Latinos are split on the issue.” However, the report cites polling data indicating more than 80% of Latino parents prefer their children to be educated in English rather than Spanish.

In truth, there is scant data on the issue of bilingual education and existing evidence contradicts the polling data cited by the caucus staff. The Southwest Voter Research Institute’s 1996 California Latino Issues Poll found that 86.3% of the state’s registered Latino voters supported bilingual instruction. An exit poll taken by the group (now the William C. Velasquez Institute) last November indicated that 57.6% of state Latino voters would oppose “a law eliminating bilingual education.” and only 17.2% would support it.

Nonetheless, the Republican caucus report contends that “[I]f the GOP frames the issue right, it could help rehabilitate its image in the Latino community. The right message stresses how English-language competency aids students in gaining a better education and more access to the state’s economy. . . . What the GOP must avoid,” it continues, “is any nativist sentiments from (sic) infecting its message on the subject. If Latinos start to believe this initiative is the son of Prop. 187, there will be an anti-GOP backlash by Latinos.”

Therein lies the rub. Unz insists his initiative is not anti-immigrant. But neither he nor the GOP can control the political debate. There is simply no guarantee that a position Republicans would prefer to be framed in terms of “fairness” would not become racially tinged--as the rows over immigration and affirmative action did--and boomerang to bruise GOP candidates. If the courts uphold California’s tightened contribution limits, unfettered, independent-expenditure campaigns threaten to control political messages well beyond the parties’ reach.

The specter of a high-risk initiative strategy to woo Latinos to the GOP sets the caucus analysis apart from prevailing dissections of Republican political missteps. That such is being raised in the inner sanctum of GOP conservatism--the Assembly caucus--is a clear recognition of a new California political calculus that demands the Republican Party pay closer attention to the concerns of an electorate increasingly reflective of the state’s diversity--or risk political irrelevance.