-
- Antonio's perfect storm
- By
Gregory
Rodriguez
- Los Angeles Times
- July 9, 2007
TOO BAD FOR THE philandering mayor. If he'd sold
himself as an old-time pol, a hard-charging, foul-mouthed power broker
with large appetites, maybe he wouldn't be getting so much flak for his
latest marital infidelity.
But instead, our mayor has packaged himself as a high-minded, principled
progressive with the right character and moral vision to lead our city.
As much as he insists that his private life is separate from his
politics, his very choice of surname suggests that he once believed
otherwise. In 1987, when Antonio Villar legally melded his last name
with that of his new wife, Corina Raigosa, he was presumably trying to
tell the world of his strong commitment to feminism. And remember the
feminist slogan of the era? The personal is the political.
- But is it really?
Traditional conservative politicians and activists often fall the
hardest after marital indiscretions are revealed. Not because their
sins are any worse than those of liberals, but because we judge them
according to their own standards. That suggests the public cares less
about the marital infidelity of politicians than it does about
hypocrisy. In other words, it's all about expectations.
Think of Bill Clinton. He was able to maintain strong public support
throughout his impeachment trial not because Americans condoned his
indiscretions or considered them irrelevant, but because he had
successfully lowered their expectations of his personal behavior. He
was aided by an odd combination of a strong economy and previous
reports of his moral failures. Together they forged a portrait of a
flawed yet effective political leader.
In Villaraigosa's first run for mayor in 2001, he sought to turn his
youthful indiscretions — including an arrest for misdemeanor assault
when he was 24 — into a political advantage. (Remember the story of
how he erased the "Born To Raise Hell" tattoo from his teenage years
off his right arm?) He went around calling himself a high school
dropout and selling himself as the "bad barrio kid made good." But
that turned out to be the wrong strategy when running against
then-City Atty. Jim Hahn, who wasn't afraid to run a nasty attack ad
suggesting that Villaraigosa consorted with crack dealers. The result
was devastating.
The next time around, Villaraigosa buried the bad-boy shtick and sold
himself as having put all that so far behind him that "made good" was
all there was. He seized on allegations circling around then-Mayor
Hahn and ran against the incumbent's alleged ethical lapses. He became
the Boy Scout candidate who promised to "restore trust and confidence
in City Hall."
In both mayoral campaigns, Hahn aides whispered to me and others about
having a "nuke bomb" about Villaraigosa's alleged extramarital lapses.
But in 2005, Villaraigosa's new squeaky clean political persona served
as both offense and defense. He took the high road, and his campaign
mailers featured sunny pictures of the candidate with wife and kids.
And Hahn had reasons not to draw attention to his own marriage, which
had disintegrated.
Thus, with both sides pulling punches in a "mutually assured
destruction" strategy, Villaraigosa was elected — not as a flawed but
effective politician but as a paragon of virtue.
I first sat down with Villaraigosa in 1994, about a week after he was
elected to the Assembly. Having followed his career, covered him and
talked to countless others about him in the years since, I am not the
least bit surprised by his current predicament. I also don't think
that his personal indiscretions disqualify him from being a good
mayor. I don't agree that the personal should always be political.
My problem with Villaraigosa is that as he pretended to be something
he was not, he began to believe his own news releases.
He wasn't alone. The media and his fervent supporters also drank the
Kool-Aid, and for the first two years of his mayoralty, Villaraigosa
built a cult of personality that, when you think about it, was way
over the top. He was the perfect politician, everything to everyone.
And boy, was he everywhere. He could do no wrong.
But there's no evidence that voters require their elected officials to
be perfect and holier than thou. Remember our collective
disappointment with Jimmy Carter, our sense that he was too good to be
an effective president? Particularly in the case of a big-city mayor
facing big-city problems, we'd probably appreciate some rough edges
and a little street savvy to get things done.
The mayor is getting lots of advice right now from all over. Here's
mine: Stop trying so damned hard to be liked. The ridiculous
across-the-board perfection you and your deputies seek to portray
ultimately works against you. You don't have to be Superman. The
public is more likely to respect you if they know that you know that
you are as flawed as they are.
- _____________________________________________
-
grodriguez@latimescolumnists.com
- Los Angeles Times article at (registration required):
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez9jul09,0,6944743.column?coll=la-tot-opinion&track
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com)
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes.) |