Success of Jerry Brown

Success of Jerry Brown, and California, Offers Lesson to National Democrats

By ADAM

When Bernie Sanders held a rally at an outdoor stadium in Sacramento the other night, more than 15,000 people turned out in a display of cheering, chanting, singing and cartwheels.

Gov. Jerry Brown, the state’s most prominent Democrat, was not there, but he might as well have been. Mr. Sanders’s speech was replete with the kind of to-the-barricades flourishes that have long been part of Mr. Brown’s campaign language.

“The political establishment is getting nervous,” Mr. Sanders said. “The corporate establishment is getting nervous. And they should be nervous. Because real change is coming.”

As the Democratic presidential primary nears in California, it is easy to find in Mr. Sanders the kind of populist appeal that has long animated Mr. Brown, who ran for president in 1992 on a “We the People” pledge to accept no contribution over $100. But it is just as easy to find in Hillary Clinton, Mr. Sanders’s opponent, the kind of political moderation and fiscal restraint that has come to define Mr. Brown’s tenure as governor.

Mr. Brown is in many ways a blend of these two very different candidates, having created a style that has made him an enduringly popular and successful California governor. And it is not only Mr. Brown: The California Democratic Party stands as a model of electoral success and cohesion, in contrast to national Democrats struggling through a divisive primary and debate about an uncertain future.

California is one of the few states in the country, and easily the largest, where Democrats are completely in control, holding every statewide office as well as overwhelming majorities in the Assembly and the Senate, not to mention both United States Senate seats. Mr. Brown and his party are using that power to try to enact legislation — on guns, tobacco, the environment, the minimum wage and immigrant rights — that suggest the kind of agenda that has eluded national Democrats.

“The Democratic presidential primary is like watching reruns from the ’90s in terms of where we were as a party in California,” said Chris Lehane, a former White House aide to Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who moved here as a Democratic consultant in 2000. “We are fairly unified in what we stand for and what we are fighting for.”

Democrats now make up nearly 44 percent of the state’s 24.6 million registered voters; by contrast, Republicans make up just 27 percent, barely ahead of independent voters, who make up 24 percent, according to California’s secretary of state.

Jim Brulte, the chairman of the California Republican Party, said that he expected the disparity to increase even more in the months ahead because of the competitive Democratic primary, while hopes for a contested Republican primary fizzled after Donald J. Trump all but locked up the nomination.

“California is a state that, all things being equal, wants to vote Democrat,” Mr. Brulte said. “We are still adding Republican registration statewide, but the statewide Republican registration is being dwarfed by the Democratic registration increase.”

The divergent fortunes of state and national Democrats go beyond voter registration. California Democrats have a bench of younger candidates waiting to step up as its older leaders — Mr. Brown, 78; and Senators Barbara L. Boxer, 75; and Dianne Feinstein, 82 — approach retirement. By contrast, the choice of Mrs. Clinton, 68, and Mr. Sanders, 74, is a reminder of the absence of fresh players prepared to take the national field.

Given the Democratic dominance here, it is easy to forget that Ronald Reagan served two terms as governor, and that Richard M. Nixon was born in Orange County, an area that was once an emblem of conservatism but is becoming increasingly Democratic. Republicans won every presidential election here from 1952 to 1988, with the exception of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Bill Clinton put the state into the Democratic presidential column in 1992, and it has been there ever since.

The Democrats’ more recent success in the state is in part the result of good fortune. California has been going through a period of prosperity, and in recent years Mr. Brown has been spared the need to impose politically contentious spending cuts.

It is also demographic. In 1994, the state’s Republican governor, Pete Wilson, championed a voter initiative to deny social services to illegal immigrants. The initiative passed but was thrown out in court. It left a political legacy that has hurt the Republican Party to this day: Over the past 12 years, Hispanics have grown into the largest ethnic group in the state, making up 39 percent of the population.

“The decline in Republican Party registration in California parallels almost identically the decline in the white population in California,” Mr. Brulte said. “In 1988, the white population was just a hair under 60 percent. Today, it’s under 40 percent. At the same time, Republican registration has gone from 38.5 percent to under 28 percent.”

Mr. Lehane said that shift accounted more than anything else for Democratic fortunes. “It’s the same demographic shift that is taking place across the country,” he said. “What that all adds up to is a California Democratic Party that represents where the rest of the country is ultimately going to end up.”

Finally, Mr. Brown is a crucial reason the state party seems to be doing well.

“Jerry Brown is a unique combination of the leadership qualities of Hillary and Bernie,” said Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor, who is running to succeed Mr. Brown when his term ends in early 2019. “Jerry is extraordinarily adept at populism. But he also has the hardheaded pragmatism that comes with experience, wisdom — and age.”

It certainly seems appealing to California voters: According the latest  Field Poll in April, 55 percent approved of his performance. But he has not endorsed anyone in the presidential primary on June 7, and it is difficult to say whether voters prefer the Sanders or the Clinton side of their governor. A poll last week by the Public Policy Institute of California found Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton essentially tied, a surprise to Mrs. Clinton who had expected California to be a relatively easy win. As a result, both candidates are making frequent appearances here, and are advertising on television, in advance of the primary.

Mr. Brown, who declined a request for an interview, has benefited from spending most of his life in elected office. The son of a governor, he served two terms as governor in the 1970s before being elected again in 2010. “You cannot denigrate experience,” Ms. Feinstein said. “He knows how to get things done.”

And Mr. Brown’s popularity has given him latitude in setting an agenda, on issues like putting money aside to deal with budget shortfalls and expanding rights for illegal immigrants. “He’s a fiscal conservative, and a social moderate with a tinge of Jesuit guilt,” said Karen Skelton, a political consultant, referring to Mr. Brown’s early years in a monastery.

Democrats are understandably worried about whether the party’s focus and unity will survive Mr. Brown’s eventual departure.

“When Jerry Brown is gone — and I say that as a candidate for governor, I’m not naïve about this — it’s going to be very hard to replicate,” Mr. Newsom said. “By no means am I suggesting blind optimism that we’ve figured it out. He’s figured it out. The governor has proved you don’t have to be profligate to be progressive. He has found that sweet spot.”