one sip at a time

Pretty interesting piece by Mark Leibovich surveying the field of candidates for the 2010 gubernatorial election.  Unfortunately, the article overly uses Schwarzenegger as a lens, portraying the governorship as necessarily larger-than-life.  Leibovich’s resulting narrative implies an (artificial) choice between two archetypes: a visionary, mythic hero to save California in a time of crisis (Gavin Newsome), or a sobering elder statesman unperturbed by the circumstances (Jerry Brown).  Other potential candidates are weaved around those central figures but rarely addressed fully in their own rights.

I don’t think either candidate (or archetype) is the right fit for the Golden State.  To me, Brown’s unflappable calm in the face of the state’s $28 billion deficit doesn’t reveal perspective, it reveals obliviousness.  This is a crisis; the budget process is horribly broken, and pretending that California has weathered such storms before without incident is beyond naive.  At the other extreme, Newsome’s vocal support of a constitutional convention to rewrite the state’s highest laws is vision without substance.  Even if a constitutional overhaul is necessary, support for such a measure is hardly the basis for a gubernatorial platform when the 2010 governor will inevitably have to deal with California’s constitution as it is currently written.

Now is a time for pragmatism, for efficacy, for recognition of the state’s precarious position and a substantive response to it.  I continue to believe Tom Campbell is the man for the job.  Campbell has critical experience in every manner a voter could—should—hope for in a future governor: national (U.S. Congressman), state legislative (State Sentator), state executive (Council of Economic Advisors), and state finance (Director of Finance for the State).  He has a substantive, business-like focus on the money issues, but he’s not a political dilettante like potential businesswoman candidate Meg Whitman.  Finally, Campbell has values and a skillset Californians should want in a governor even in a more mundane (non-crisis) election.  He’s socially liberal (the only Republican of the likely candidates who opposed Prop 8, pro-choice, and probably the left of most of the Democrats generally); he represented Silicon Valley when in the House; he has worked as educator, at both Stanford and Cal; he’s smart as a whip.

The New York Times’ article’s headline might have been intended to be rhetorical. But if asked the question, “Who can possibly govern California?” my answer would be, “if anyone, Campbell.”