Will Antonio Villaraigosa run for governor of California?
TO JUDGE from magazine covers, things look bad for Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles, who is still deciding whether to run for governor of California next year. On Newsweek’s cover in 2005, after he became mayor in a landslide victory, the title was “A Latin Power Surge”. The cover of Los Angeles magazine this month said simply “Failure”.
Only a few months ago Mr Villaraigosa was a strong contender for 2010, even against such a formidable figure as fellow Democrat Jerry Brown, who is a former governor, the son of a former governor, and currently the state’s attorney-general. Mr Villaraigosa’s base among Latinos and his rags-to-power personal history gave him a good chance.
But then all of California—through no fault of Mr Villaraigosa’s—entered a financial and political crisis, pulling the finances of Los Angeles down with it. Mr Villaraigosa secured re-election by an embarrassingly slender margin against obscure challengers last March. Having wrecked his marriage by having an affair with one attractive television newscaster two years ago, he is now seen enjoying the company of another, a former Miss USA.
However, among Californian Democrats, that last matter need not be a disaster. Another Democratic candidate for governor, Gavin Newsom, the well-groomed mayor of San Francisco, had an affair with the wife of his then campaign manager with no apparent electoral consequences.
Nor is Mr Villaraigosa quite the disaster the local press alleges; the cards have been stacked against him. A mayor of Los Angeles has far less power than, say, his counterpart in smaller San Francisco, which is both a city and a county. But unlike the current governor, Mr Villaraigosa has at least shown he is able to get (small) tax increases approved by voters; he won a battle to increase the Los Angeles sales tax to pay for transport improvements last year. The mayor’s main ambition has been to improve the city’s schools, fighting in the legislature and courts to pry control over education away from the autonomous school board that runs them, and winning a small victory.
In a way these experiences might actually help him, were he to win. A governor of California, like a Los Angeles mayor, has highly circumscribed powers, and has to rely on cunning and compromise. The governor does not appoint his most senior officials (office-holders are elected individually) and, besides that, he needs two-thirds majorities in both houses of the legislature to pass a budget or raise a tax. Voters decide many big issues directly through the ballot box. Hence California’s current impasse, which may well see the state run out of cash next month.
Other candidates have their weaknesses too. Mr Brown, if he wins, has long experience and a mighty intellect to rely on, but many voters will feel he is simply too old for the job: he will be 72 by the time of the election. Gavin Newsom, a hero to the left for his stance on gay marriage, is an ideological pariah to the right. Republican candidates such as Meg Whitman, a former boss of eBay, and Steve Poizner, another Silicon Valley tycoon who is now insurance commissioner, lack sufficient experience of politics. And Mr Brown and Mr Newsom, who both hail from the north of California, could well split each other’s vote in the Democratic primary.
Mr Villaraigosa is not as Latino as he seems. He grew up as Tony Villar, speaking English with his single mother, and learned Spanish only as an adult. Intellectually he is no match for Mr Brown, nor ideologically for Mr Newsom. But he is a Machiavellian politician, ready to make or cross allies. When he was speaker of California’s assembly, he recalls, “I mixed up the physical seating order” to make Democrats and Republicans work together, and they did. It is too soon to count him out.