L'affaire dean: listening Arnold?

POLITICS can be a creel and capricious business. For weeks, Howard Dean had been the front-running Democratic candidate for president and even his weak showing in the Iowa caucuses would have certainly kept him in the race. But then he goes wacko during a speech to supporters and suddenly the guy's toast. There's no way he will he get past those few uncalculated shrieks in Iowa--"YEAH! WE'RE GOIN' TO CALIFORNIA!"--as he becomes the latest political science prop in illustrating how candidacies die--following Edmund Muskie's blubbering in New Hampshire, George H.W. Bush glancing at his watch during a presidential debate and Ted Kennedy's rambling in an interview with CBS' Roger Mudd.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger shows little sign of succumbing to self-infliction, but he's no doubt recognized how the climate has changed since last summer, when booting out Gray Davis became the state's unofficial pastime. Well, Davis is gone and the new governor is again on the campaign trail, pushing a $15 billion deficit reduction bond that voters will consider on March 2.

By most accounts, the initiative is critical if California is to avoid financial ruin. This time, however, he's got a much tougher sell and two recent polls show the bond measure with less than 40 percent support. To be fair, the campaign is just getting started and voter opinion seems pretty fluid. But the early results illustrate how fickle the electorate can be--and how distrustful voters are of anything said by a politician, even Schwarzenegger.

Campaigning for any bond measure is hard work. Bonds are boring. They involve numbers, which are a turnoff to voters, and there's often little payback for the average Joe or Jane. Will the schools be closed? Will cops not respond to emergencies? Will checks not be cashed? It's probably human nature but we're much more responsive to catastrophes that can be seen or touched (earthquakes, riots, etc.) than hypothetical scenarios.

And let's face it, the continued disconnect between the state's fiscal mess and the relatively healthy general economy further fuels the notion--however misguided--that we can pretty much have it all without the need of tax increases or even a bond measure. It's no coincidence that those who share this view are most likely to vote and happen to be among the state's more affluent citizens--nor is it any wonder that those least likely to vote are among the poorest and have the most to lose if state-funded services are slashed.

That's why the normally upbeat Schwarzenegger seems a bit out of place hustling a bond measure effort that has a "Vote for this or else ..." urgency to it, especially since the initiative involves leveraging the state's red ink--the same gambit that put the previous governor out of business.

Let's be clear: Schwarzenegger is no Howard Dean. For one thing, he's already in office and can orchestrate his message not as a mere politician but as the state's chief executive. And while he's still learning the ropes, the governor has shown crafty skills when it comes to fence mending and coalition building--skills that will probably help see these measures through, if by slim margins.

Even so, politics is a dangerous world and a misstep here or there can squander months of built-up goodwill. Howard Dean's meltdown may be an extreme case but it's hardly the first time a calculated political action had unintended consequences.

Passing the March 2 bond measure is very important. But keeping your constituency happy determines whether you keep your job. The question is whether those two goals can coexist.

Mark Lacter is editor of the Business Journal.