Napolitano’s mojo: You can’t lose what you never had

The news story begins, "Has Janet Napolitano lost her mojo?" And I am thinking about how the older core readers, loyal but constantly abused by the newspaper, are wondering, "What the hell is a mojo?" In any event, it continues:

Unthinkable even a year ago, the question is circulating among some of
the governor’s watchers at the Capitol. They’re struck by an
administration seemingly put on its heels by a stumbling state economy,
rash of key staff departures and, most recently, the disqualification
from the November ballot of her two most favored initiatives.

What was unthinkable until Monday was that the Arizona Republic would ever print anything even mildly critical of the governor, aside from the dreary sameness of the protected Republican political op on the editorial page. Napolitano was close friends with former publisher Sue Clark-Johnson. This, along with the Republic’s war against having experienced journalists consistently cover state government (or any beat), ensured that the governor would be treated with something like uninformed reverence.

The reality is that Napolitano never stood astride state government like a colossus. The faded "glory days" mentioned in the story were neither glorious nor had much to do with her. Nor did she have "absolute dominance" over the Legislature. The reality is more complex, and more interesting.

Napolitano was elected the first time on a fluke. It was a close thing, too — the votes of Pima County outwitting the ballot baking in the church activity centers of the East Valley. Arizona had fallen into a sudden, scary recession, contrary to all the predictions of economists (I called it several months ahead, so the signs were not obscure). The downturn would wipe out nearly all that was left of the entrepreneurial tech sector. And Arizonans were just scared enough to vote against the ruling Republicans — particularly given the uninspiring candidacy of Matt Salmon.

Also — and this is critical to understanding Napolitano — she ran with a tacit olive branch to the Real Estate Industrial Complex. Her candidacy was backed by Jim Pederson, who built today’s Democratic Party in Arizona, an honorable man but also a developer. Thus, the most powerful industry in the state might not back her, but it would not oppose her (and coming off its stunning show of dominance in defeating growth boundaries that had been widely supported at first). This would prove decisive in her first victory, and it would be a shadow theme of her time as governor.

In other words, Napolitano was a realist, a pragmatist and a true conservative. A highly intelligent lawyer, she is by nature highly risk averse. Thus, she commissioned star panels to study Arizona’s backward taxation system and its failure in technology competitiveness. Then she quietly set aside their findings as the growth machine revived. Any credit for the turnaround in state finances must go to the real estate bubble on the way up (how’s it feel now?). In reality, Arizona became even more dependent on housing and population growth. The footprint of knowledge industries in Phoenix relative to population became much smaller than, say, even in the 1970s.

Napolitano fought for all-day kindergarten, an important advance, particularly for addressing the growing underclass in the state. She did it at a price, caving to the right-wing education chislers on school vounchers and other schemes. In general, she spent her time playing defense against a toxic Legislature that is constitutionally more powerful than any governor. This accomplishment is not to be underestimated: the damage to education, especially, would have been far worse under a Republican governor. She also had to deal with a congressional delegation — "led" by President-elect McCain — most of whose members would not fulfill their duty to bring federal dollars to the state, even as other states reaped valuable windfalls. She had to navigate the anti-immigrant hysteria, knowing full well that the illegals were the backbone of the bottom-feeding Arizona economy.

She didn’t take the lead on major initiatives such as T-Gen, expansion of the Phoenix Convention Center or light rail. But she didn’t oppose them, which helped, and she sometimes provided valuable, but politically safe, help behind the scenes. She made speeches about global warming and water; did little. Her second term has been marked by even less activity. A mega-transportation initiative (mostly 1960s-style road building) she supported — making a devil’s deal with the house builders — went down because of incompetence in gathering signatures.

She was not bold. Arizona did not want bold. The fabled behind-the-scenes battles and displays of the famed Napolitano temper were usually over blocking extremist measures, sometimes over petty loyalty issues. They were not about changing Arizona’s course toward becoming, at best, the Appalachia of the 21st century with much, much hotter weather.

So I suppose she did the best she could. Had she spoken out more about water and global warming — and land use! — it would have killed her politically. She never had on her side the centrist, much less liberal, equivalent of the loud "veto elite" centered in the East Valley. It is a minority, but fervent, threatening and decisive in many issues. It will easily cling to the candidacy of a Jan Brewer, probably resulting in a victory for the right. Or perhaps Joe Arpaio, a Huey Long-style demagogue who profits from a crusade against exploited brown people rather than the Kingfish’s Share Our Wealth plan.

It always astonished me that Phoenicians in particular would name the three "most powerful" people as Napolitano, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and ASU President Michael Crow. For one thing, none were really powerful compared to the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona and the other politburo members of the Real Estate Industrial Complex. And all were on the public payroll. In the other states where I’ve lived, private sector titans would top the "most powerful" list, and often figures who were creating well-paid jobs, cutting-edge industries and playing big-bucks roles in the arts and charity. In Seattle, for example, you’d have to go well down the list before you encountered the governor or mayor.

Now Arizona is in a deep recession largely of its own making. It did not diversify its economy in the good years. It failed to invest its money in educating every child to be a winner in the global economy or in building a 21st century transportation network or moving quickly with the "meds and eds" program. The bigs are hoping, like your neighbor with that old lawn mower, that the growth machine will sputter to life once more. The water crisis remains a State Secret. The consequences of global warming are ignored. The centrist coalition, which once promised at least some advances, seems more powerless than ever. What little reform spirit existed seems spent.

Janet Napolitano fought a holding action against some of the state’s worst tendencies. It bought some time. Unfortunately there’s no indication the time will be well spent. Meanwhile, the Kookocracy lives.