Frustration. If there’s one word that explains why more than 50
prominent Orange County businesspeople (names like Bren, Argyros and Samueli) have banded together to spend a half-million trying to oust the leadership of what is widely acknowledged as one of the Republican Party’s most successful county organizations, that’s it. Frustration.
There’s nothing new, of course, to there being tension between the GOP’s big-money donors and its precinct-walking volunteers, or between its social moderates and right-to-lifers, or between its invest-in-infrastructure developers and anti-taxers, or Rockefeller Republicans and Goldwater Republicans, or the Irvine Co. and Tom Fuentes, or the Performing Arts Center crowd and the Edwards Theater folk.
But that some of these cultural and ideological differences have now erupted into a high-stakes and highly nasty confrontation, so publicly and so forcefully, owes in large part to two terms of Bill Clinton, the stumbles of a Republican Congress, the devastation of the California GOP in the ’98 elections and some erosion of the party’s still-dominant position in OC itself.
So the same corporate executives who tolerated OC party central committee chairman Fuentes’ stridency when there was a Bush in the White House and a Wilson in the governor’s mansion, now see their pro-choice spouses voting Democrat and their campaign contributions evaporating in a Dan Lungren-led debacle and they cry, “Enough!”
Should businesspeople care about this insurgency within OC’s GOP? Yes, but not because they owe any allegiance to the Republican Party, per se. Indeed, if more Democrats follow the kind of moderate course on economic issues that has been steered (so far) by Gov. Gray Davis, it will be good for business and will earn the Democrats more genuine support in the business community (as opposed to the forced tribute that is flowing to the California Democratic coffers at the moment).
But businesspeople should care about this OC tiff because it has been the Republican Party that has, for the most part, championed a limited-government, free-market agenda that has helped to fuel the current economic boom and California’s surging comeback since the mid-1990s.
With Democrats’ control of Sacramento virtually total, business has almost no hope of advancing its agenda in the state. Capital gains tax relief? Out of the question. Tort reform? You must be kidding. More mandates and regulations regarding air quality, medical insurance, workplace issues, etc.? A certainty. Higher taxes? A possibility if not a likelihood, disguised perhaps as pro-business “investment.”
As quickly as you could say, “We’re in charge,” the Dems already overturned the state’s recent 40-hour rule, which had merely brought California into line on overtime pay with the federal government and 47 other states. Employer and employee flexibility suffers as a result. Such sins are easily overlooked when the economy is roaring, but the day of reckoning will eventually arrive.
Barring an unexpected reversal of GOP fortunes, it appears that for the next several years the only thing standing between California businesses and more of this sort of mischief from liberal state lawmakers will be Davis’ wavering veto pen.
It’s not a pretty picture. And, looking at it, the New Majority members have concluded that the problem lies in a Republican Party that has marginalized itself by downplaying its inclusive economic agenda while over-emphasizing an exclusive, conservative social agenda.
And, all politics being local, these local businesspeople have decided to fix matters by starting at the grassroots. They’ve kicked in $10,000 each, and declared that they plan to use much or most of the kitty to try to wrest control of the party’s 60-member central committee from Fuentes, its chairman for the past 16 years.
The New Majority’s grievances against Fuentes run the gamut from management style to philosophy, but their bottom-line argument comes down to his effectiveness, or lack thereof: Party registrations are down, and Fuentes’ candidate-recruitment efforts are skewed toward hard-to-elect ideologues.
Fuentes rejects the latter point. He makes no apologies for his own conservative social convictions, but insists that he has held those feelings in check in running the party. Yes, he protects incumbents, so he has indeed tried to dissuade moderate challengers from running against conservative incumbents in primaries, just as he has discouraged conservatives from challenging a sitting moderate lawmaker, Marilyn Brewer. If the composition of OC’s congressional and state delegations are heavily conservative, that says more about the county’s voters than it does Fuentes.
On this first argument, the case goes to Fuentes. Bob Dornan is history, and as one scans OC’s roster of GOP elected officials, one could hardly ask for a more pro-business bunch. To tag as extremist a group that includes such level heads as Scott Baugh, Chris Cox and Bill Campbell is as dismissive as it is for Fuentes to attack the New Majority as white fat cats.
The case on registrations cuts deeper, though. For the first part of Fuentes’ tenure, Republicans grew registrants at a rate that made OC the envy of Republican bosses around the country. When Fuentes joined the ranks of the party leadership in the early ’80s, Republicans had an edge over Democrats of fewer than 50,000. Today, the margin is 220,000.
The county’s changing demographics probably had more to do with the numbers than Fuentes did, but if he is to be blamed for the stagnation in registrations over the last few years and for the erosion of GOP support in central county, then his contributions in the earlier years need to be acknowledged also. But politics, like business, doesn’t long place lifetime achievement over recent performance.
Even before the New Majority came along, there were mutterings from party insiders that the central committee was losing its edge. The fact that the Lincoln Club has taken a position of neutrality in this Fuentes-New Majority dispute points out the ambivalence that the GOP’s most loyal and long-time business supporters feel in the current state of affairs.
And perhaps the strongest argument against Fuentes’ continued leadership has been his own reaction to the New Majority challenge. The fact that so many prominent business leaders would write checks so readily to support a move that they see as strengthening the Republican Party suggests a potentially vast source of talent and dollars that Fuentes has not only failed to cultivate, but has alienated.
Indeed, rather than react to the New Majority challenge with the measured response of a shocked or disappointed party leader, Fuentes response was personal and petty. He and his backers publicly branded the New Majority members as country-club elitists attempting to stage a “jihad.” Folks who have given thousands or even millions to GOP presidents and governors expect such talk from Democrats, but from their own party?
As for the New Majority These are many of the county’s most powerful and accomplished business leaders. Their desire to steer the political currents in a way that will encourage continued prosperity is welcome. But in the particular way they have chosen to go about it, it looks like they are a very smart fellows who have taken an ill-advised first step.
For one, their prospects of winning a majority of the central committee’s 60 seats appears slim, no matter how many dollars they pour into the central committee races. Moreover, if the New Majority does pull off an upset in March, it could actually undermine the group’s stated goal of getting George W. Bush elected president. That’s because under party bylaws, Fuentes would still remain chairman through the election, and a dispirited and disoriented OC organization could be a deathblow to Bush in California.
And the ultimate irony: Many party insiders insist that Fuentes had already decided to step down after this election cycle. But now, feeling publicly insulted and humiliated, he could be provoked to fight on.
New Majority members insist that only an effort like the one they’ve launched will bring a change in the party’s operations. Maybe. But in the corporate world, a CEO with Fuentes’ track record of service, whatever his real or perceived shortcomings, would get a happy sendoff.
For the sake of a reconciliation that we think would serve the long-term interests of jobs and the economy, we urge the two sides to sit down and try to work out a compromise that averts a rancorous showdown. With dollars, emotions and perhaps some commitments already on the table, it’s unlikely a formal “deal” could be worked out prior to the election; but maybe an “understanding” could be. There are certainly capable politicians acceptable to both sides who could take over the reins of the local party. (To read about one, see page 3.)
But if a pact isn’t struck, then it’s likely that Fuentes will beat back a tough challenge, declare victory and either stay or retire as he deems. If the New Majority nets an increase in committee seats from the 11 now held by their New Direction allies, they may be able to declare a moral victory. The group may or may not get a Fuentes successor to their liking, and they may simply decide to pick up their chips and walk away.
It’s hard to say. But it’s a safe bet that amity and unity is more likely to prevail if George W. takes the White House.
