By Jonathan Wilcox
June 13, 2001

Winston Churchill once said, “There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result.”

Given the results of last week’s Mayoral election, Los Angeles Republicans and moderate Angelinos know exactly what Sir Winston meant.

At first glance, there is nothing exhilarating about James Hahn’s victory over Antonio Villaraigosa.  A committed (albeit low wattage) Democrat, the current City Attorney has always demonstrated a pallid allegiance to the kind of outmoded politics that helped send Los Angeles into its early 90s doldrums.

Still, Hahn was almost destined to win, given the fiery brand of reactionary liberalism promised by Villaraigosa.  In this, Republicans should gain new guidance about how to win in Los Angeles.

A former State Assembly Speaker, Villaraigosa was positioned as a fusion candidate.  He portrayed himself as the can-do choice of both Democrat Gov. Gray Davis and Republican Mayor Richard Riordan.  He promised to strengthen the city unions for which he once professionally organized while preserving L.A.’s business-friendly climate.

Villaraigosa also worked to align the complex Rubik’s Cube of Democrat special interests, which included a pledge to appoint gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals to his administration as well as create an Internet-based shelter network for the homeless.  

For this he was rewarded handsomely, gaining the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, AFL-CIO, United Teachers of Los Angeles and the Sierra Club – a veritable who’s who of the Left’s constellation of stars.

For a loyal Democrat like Hahn, this must have felt like sand in his teeth.  But it should have tasted sweet, for it allowed him to claim a middle-of-the-road image he may not have earned but, in comparison to Villaraigosa, richly deserved.

Much has been made of a Hahn television commercial featuring images of a crack cocaine pipe superimposed on a letter from Villaraigosa to Bill Clinton recommending clemency for a drug dealer.  Adding to its force was Villaraigosa’s denial he sent the letter in the first place.

Still, that doesn’t explain Hahn’s victory – survey data showed he pulled ahead 10 days before the election, before his commercial blitzed the airwaves.

Villaraigosa lost because he spent 2001 solidifying a base of Hispanic voters and reliable liberals instead of attracting the crossover voters of America’s most diverse city.  This most notably occurred on the campus of UCLA, ironically, Villaraigosa’s alma mater.

Only weeks before the April primary election, a multi-candidate debate was scheduled at the Westwood campus.  But before the event could begin, hundreds of students who had spent the day demanding a reinstatement of racial quotas in university admissions occupied the auditorium, forcing the debate’s cancellation.

In an image televised repeatedly (and not disapprovingly) by local media, Villaraigosa waded into the sea of UC’s best and brightest hoodlums and joined the protest.  There’s nothing like a candidate endorsing the destruction of an exercise in democracy to convince voters he would probably govern the same way.

Pundits failed to take notice of Villaraigosa’s emerging image problem during the primary, when core political constituencies matter most.  But when contrasted with the inoffensive Hahn, voters saw that Antonio was the weakest link.  Good-bye.

That’s why Hahn claimed the territory where most voters always reside – away from hot-eyed demagogues and towards a reliable representation of the way they live their own lives.  This should be fertile Republican turf.

After the election, much attention focused on Hahn gaining 80 percent of the African American vote, but this amounted to only 11 percent of the electorate.  The rest of Hahn’s support came largely from the city’s expansive and centrist San Fernando Valley and among Los Angeles Republicans.
 
Voters who supported the primary’s only Republican and a moderate Valley City Councilman (who finished third and fourth in the non-partisan race) went 83 percent and 63 percent, respectively, for Hahn.  In addition, Hahn easily carried the Valley, which contributed 42 percent of all ballots, by 12 points.

Throughout the general election campaign, Republicans groused that the Mayor’s race lacked one of their own.  But with grim reality staring them in the face, they made a decisive choice.  Since Hahn was elected by a 54-46 margin, one might conclude that a Republican would have defeated Villaraigosa as well, proving that L.A. – where George W. Bush received 22 percent of the vote – isn’t the lost cause many in the GOP believed it to be.

It may be dispiriting that it took Hahn’s candidacy to prove “quality of life” issues still matter in Los Angeles, but it should give new confidence to Republicans.  They will win again if they can present a credible alternative to Democrats who first stray, then skip, and finally sprint from mainstream voters’ values and beliefs. 

L.A.’s moderates and Republicans should celebrate Hahn’s election while casting a watchful eye on City Hall.  After all, they put him there.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Back to Today's News

Calnews.com News/Politics/and More