Capital on Hold.

L.A. and Rest of California Can Expect Few Favors From Next President

IN an icy and oddly empty Washington, there is an eerie feeling of anticipation. A city addicted to power, the capital senses that, whoever sleazes his way into the White House will be a weak figure on the national stage. Indeed all of official Washington - Democrats, Republicans, lobbyists, professional bureaucrats - seem to worry not only about the lack of a smooth transition, but of a gradual erosion of Washington's central power. The unseemly behavior of the two sides in the dispute has not helped matters, either.

"The federal government shows it deserves to be dismissed," suggested a notably depressed Michael Barone, the esteemed co-author of "The Almanac of American Politics." "You see a system undergoing a process that is very unattractive."

Clearly, we are looking at an era of diminished expectations on the federal level. There's kind of a gallows humor at places like the Washington Post, where reporters make jokes about "pregnant chads" with semen stains, mixing up the current scandal with the previous one.

Even the power restaurants, like the Caucus Room, are oddly empty. "All the important people are in florida," hypothesizes the headwaiter.

In a sense, there's a weird feeling that all bets depend on what happens in florida, particularly in the Miami recount, if it occurs. Handing responsibility to Miami is akin to leaving the fate of the nation to Honduras or some other country. Then again, they might run their elections better than we do.

But there's a good side to all this. Washington's power drain also maybe the rest of the nation's power gain. Under any circumstances, with a weak and divided Congress, a discredited President is not likely to lead much, even by the standards of Bill Clinton, whose greatest success was letting Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan gently steer a soaring economy.

Shifting power

At the same time, the nature of pressing issues themselves has weakened the federal role. What matters increasingly now, in South Dakota or Southern California, notes Barone, with the exception of Social Security, are issues that are for the most part locally controlled and directed, such as education, growth management, quality of life and telecommunications infrastructure.

"In things like education, almost all the progress has been driven from the local level," Barone notes. "What Washington has done has been, at best, obstructive and retrograde. The federal government really just gets in the way most of the time."

With Congress divided and a weak, discredited President, the federal role can be expected to further diminish.

What does that mean for places like Los Angeles? First and foremost, it suggests that begging in Washington is likely to come out empty. Don't expect federal bailouts for the various disasters engineered by local government agencies, whether in the form of the L.A. County. Health Department or the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

This means that well-connected officials will find their connections, well, less important. Problems will have to be solved by local people with local resources. We will no longer able to broker our electoral votes into goodies.

Indeed, one result of Gore's overwhelming margin in California - and particularly in L.A. County - will he to further marginalize the region. Republicans will see no reason to help us out in the next emergency, particularly with the mass purgings of local GOP congressmen. This will be especially true when Mayor Richard Riordan, who backed Bush, leaves office.

Despite our big size, Los Angeles will he able to expect not much more from Bush than Rhode Island, Hawaii or any other Democratic stronghold. This is particularly true as long as the Republicans keep nominal control of both houses.

But even a Gore victory does not mean L.A. is going to gain much access. Gore is far less an "L.A. guy" than Bill Clinton. The Arkansan genuinely liked L.A. and the city liked him. We both shared our warts with the world and expected still to be liked. We are both hot-blooded, frequently shameless, passionate and flawed, but nevertheless appealing.

No friend of entertainment

On the other hand, Gore is not a Hollywood "natural." He and his wife Tipper are moralistic, dour and likely to he more scolders than supporters of the entertainment complex. It may get so bad that some media types might even consider backing a Republican, particularly someone spicy like John McCain, next time around.

For business, Gore may provide even bigger problems. Clinton always had a weak spot for entrepreneurs, particularly those who gave him money. He had "New Democrat" ambivalence about mucking around too much with the marketplace. Gore, on the other hand, depended far more on organized labor and minority political warlords while his fundamentalist environmental zealotry could further an anti-business regulatory agenda.

And then there's bold calculation, which Gore is addicted to. He knows we've become so politically predictable that he would be far better off politically shoring up his base in Florida, or for that matter, Tennessee. We have become too easy a mark for Democrats and are going to have to get used to being taken for granted.

So no matter what happens in the Sunshine State, not much can be expected for L.A. in the new administration. Instead, it's time for our local officials, business leaders and media mavens to put down their begging bowls and put their weak shoulders to the wheel.

Joel Kotkin is a senior fellow at the Davenport Institute for Public Policy at Pepperdine University and research fellow at the Reason Public Policy Institute.