One way to look at it - but not mine

This week KFBK afternoon host Tom Sullivan had Phil Angelides on his radio show. Sullivan is a very skilled interviewer. Before I explain what Angelides said it would be worthwhile to remind you that he lost by almost 1.3 million votes. (or 17%)

Angelides claimed that he believed that at least four major public policies were adopted in the state because of the influence of his campaign. He claimed that the increase in the minimum wage, the adoption of a major new initiative on greenhouse gasses, and the freeze on college tuition rates were directly adopted because of his influence. Further he claimed that the state's current discussion about universal health care was also a result of his campaign.

There are a couple of things wrong with his claims. First, any reasonable person might first raise whether each of those policy changes made any political sense. The one I know the best is the freeze on tuition. What is the evidence on this change? First, California has a well developed tradition of holding fees constant in good times and moving them up quickly in bad. In the long term that makes it impossible for families to plan and makes college affordability a crapshoot. At the same time reducing fee revenue for UC, CSU and the Community Colleges may actually put pressure on quality in each of the public sector institutions. Clearly, at least for the issue I know the best a lot of other politicians moved forward on the issue without any reference or care about the Treasurer's campaign.

A reasonable observer might question whether the public policy result of each of these changes made California a better or worse place. For example, when the reduction in Community College fees was proposed in the Assembly, every expert in the room pointed out to the chair of the committee that reducing fees would actually hurt low income students and would aid high income ones (California fees are already so low for community colleges that a reduction actually reduces eligibility for Pell grants for those students).

But the second point is more important. Over the course of the fall, I cannot tell you how many active democrats expressed to me in private (some even made public comments) about how disappointed they were with their nominee. In my own circle many simply refused to vote for him in the general election. If you want to know why he lost, a major point was defections by his own party members. A good many people who are active democrats repeatedly told me how venally political Angelides can be. Many mentioned his savage and unprincipled attack on his opponent when he first ran for Treasurer. He attacked a Catholic former leader of the Senate for his religious beliefs on abortion. Many democrats claimed that Angelides would do or say anything to advance himself. One other example would suggest the type of politician Angelides was. Early in his career as State Treasurer, Angelides wanted to get some publicity for his new position and so he demanded that every investment banker doing business with the state certify that they had not participated in any effort to steal assets from the Jews during the holocaust. Among the firms that he asked for such a declaration was a small botique firm that started after 1987, and whose managing director lost family in one of the Nazi camps. My friend was offended that this politician was using this for a publicity stunt.

I was also struck with Mr. Angelides' attempt to paint his career in the best light possible. I have known him since he was an Assembly intern. His description of what he did for a living early in his career was a lot different than I remember - but politicians always try to guild the lilly. Angelides said near the end of the interview that he had not ruled out running for political office again. From my perception, although it is a good rule of thumb to never say never, I believe the voters pretty well decided whether he will have another shot at statewide elective office.