Slice of Politics

I don't often follow political races - I'm more into the policy/ideology issues. But my attention's been drawn to an obscure State Assembly race in California's 41st District, because one of the contenders is my cousin. I've found that the race, which is for an open seat and features four main contenders, is a fasicnating microcosm of the modern Democratic Party.

Popular Assembleywoman Fran Pavley of the 41st District has "termed out," and is no longer able to run. Four candidates are running to replace her. They are:

1. Julia Brownley. Ms. Brownley represents the "establishment candidate." She's been endorced by Pavley and by more local incumbent Democrats than any of the other candidates, mostly because of her long years spent helping those people run for office (that's called "paying her dues"). She seems like a community-oriented, middle-of-the-road liberal who would keep quiet and follow the Democratic party line in the state legislature. I saw her speak at a local debate, and was very unimpressed with her public presence. Her main issue is education (hey, she's on a school board), but she didn't seem to have any real ideas for improving the schools beyond the traditional "Give them more money." But I'd have no problem voting for her - she's basically just one more vote tacked on to whatever the Democratic majority decides to support, and that's fine by me.

2. Kelly Hayes-Raitt. Here we have the "leftist/activist candidate." I feel justified in calling her this because she is, in fact, a career activist. She's made several personal "humanitarian trips" to Iraq, in which she witnessed the suffering of children and the oppression of women, and the misuse of reconstruction funds, and then (surprise) came home to campaign for an immediate total withdrawal of U.S. forces from that country. A principled position, but not a very well-thought-out one, it seems to me (withdrawing U.S. troops is going to help women's rights?). She states that her main goals as a state legislator would be to introduce a motion impeaching Bush (states can actually do that), and to try to recall California's portion of the national guard in order to hurt the Iraq war effort. She's the best public speaker of the bunch, but I have a feeling she'd waste her tenure as an assemblywoman with grandstanding and hopeless crusades. Hopeless crusades aren't always a bad thing, but Kelly Hayes-Raitt seems to choose her positions on issues a bit arbitrarily - the process of crusading seems to supercede the goals.

3. Barry Groveman. This is the "maverick rich guy" candidate. As the mayor of Calabasas (an unelected, rotating position), he implemented that city's famous public smoking ban. I know little about the man's positions on the issues - at the debate I watched, he dodged almost every question - but he seems to be the most centrist of the candidates. He doesn't want to impeach Bush or immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. But the man seems like a total egotist, out purely for self-aggrandizement. His campaign is mostly self-financed (which in his case means well-financed). During the debate, Groveman bizarrely said that he's "picked out a presidential candidate" from among the Democratic field - as if he fancies himself some sort of kingmaker. However, his surly personality is likely to keep him from winning the election.

4. Jonathan Levey. In addition to being the "Noah's cousin" candidate, Levey is the "pragmatic moderate liberal" candidate. His campaign is financially largely supported by lawyers and Jewish groups (he being a Jewish lawyer). He stands for pretty much what most Democrats stand for - better schools, less congestion, environmental protection, expanded health care, etc. Instead of picking idelogical fights, he focuses on implementation - how to accomplish policy goals in ways that A) actually work, and B) can be sold to voters. He's written a book (rather blandly but accurately titled "Ideas in Action") in which he spells out basically everything he'd do. Levey (or as I call him, "Jonathan") would basically never pick a fight on ideological grounds...he views politics as a job more than as a platform for crusading. He just wants to improve government services and do what the people want him to do. I'm sure he'd be more effective as a leader within the legislature than would any of the other candidates, making deals and putting together policies.

Well, there you have it - a microcosm of the Democratic party today. An activist "base" (Hayes-Raitt) putting pressure on an elite cadre of centrist/pragmatist leaders (Levey), who in turn tow along a sea of quiet, nodding middle-of-the-road liberals (Brownley), with a few rich egotists running around the edges making trouble (Groveman). I'd usually vote for the pragmatists - they get more done than the nodding followers, and aren't as likely to drive us off a cliff as are the base. So I actually would pick my cousin Jonathan in this race, even if I were objective.

I just pine for the day when the ideological fired-up Democratic activist base consists of something better than "see you at the protest" slogan-chanters.