Duekmejian, Cuomo: A Date in ‘88? : Similar Origins, Different Views

Two years ago, in Albany, N.Y., and Sacramento, a rather remarkable American political story began to unfold when Govs. Mario M. Cuomo and George Deukmejian were inaugurated as the chief executives of New York and California.

There in the Albany Mall convention center was Cuomo, born in New York City in 1932 of Italian immigrant parents, becoming the top official of the eastern megastate, the financial capital of the world, commenting:

“My parents came some 60 years ago from another part of this world, driven by deprivation, without funds, without education, without skills . . . . They asked only for the opportunity to work and for some protection in those moments when they would not be able to protect themselves.”

Three time zones to the west, on the steps of the Capitol in Sacramento, was Deukmejian, born just outside Albany, N.Y., in 1928, the son of Armenian immigrant parents, becoming governor of California, the nation-state of the Pacific Rim, reflecting on his parents:

“Arriving without funds and without the culture or language, they came in search of something more precious than all these--they came for freedom. Like millions before and after, they sought hope and opportunity. It was the promise of a better and more secure life.”

Two sons of immigrants, now governors of the two most influential states: the personification of the American dream.

Each studied law at St. John’s University and each was admitted to the New York bar. Each was elected governor after rising through the chairs of government--Cuomo as secretary of state and lieutenant governor, Deukmejian as a legislator and California attorney general.

Neither was considered the television-style candidate of the 1980s, yet they now represent states where the big-market media most dominates political campaigns. These were less-than charismatic men who spent years doing the daily work of government in the shadows of media favorites like New York Mayor Edward I. Koch and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan.

And now, in their third State of the State addresses, each talks about dreams of excellence, opportunity and greatness for his state. And each is being assessed in terms of future political opportunity--perhaps the White House.

For all the similarities in style and background, Cuomo and Deukmejian followed different paths to their governorships. Cuomo remained in aging, problem-plagued New York and worked his way up through the party machine of the majority Democrats. Deukmejian came to the booming California of the 1950s and began his electoral career in the loosly-organized, minority Republican Party.

And once in office as governors, the Cuomo and Deukmejian differences have become dramatically apparent.

The keynotes came early, in their inaugural addresses. Cuomo emphasized the need for government to assist directly in the creation of jobs and to be compassionate and helpful to those “who have been left out by fate: the homeless, the infirm, the destitute.”

If Cuomo’s approach was Roosevelt New Deal, Deukmejian’s was traditional Republican with shades of Reaganomics. In one speech, Deukmejian said, “Here in California, we have learned the lesson that government doesn’t produce prosperity. Workers, businesses, farmers and investors do. Government can either help, or it can stand in the way.”

Each faced massive state deficits on taking office in the midst of recession. Deukmejian cut spending, but refused any tax increases. Cuomo raised taxes.

Deukmejian battled his Democrat-controlled Legislature into repeated budget deadlocks, finally getting his say by vetoing hundreds of millions of dollars from budgets and separate appropriations bills. Cuomo worked with the New York Legislature (a Democratic Assembly and Republican Senate) to pass budgets on time, something that his predecessor, Hugh Carey, failed to do.

But there was a major difference in style, as well. Cuomo’s oratory quickly attracted national attention, especially following his soaring keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco in July. In assessing Cuomo at mid-term, Albany observers say Cuomo’s achievements have not always matched his rhetoric, but that he has been extremely effective in communicating his philosophy of government to the people.

Asked for his own assessment, Cuomo did not rattle off a list of accomplishments but talked of themes. “The notion of family,” he said. “The notion of cooperation--which is what I mean by family--that notion has worked well for two years. This state is working well together.”

Gerald Benjamin, a political science professor at New York State University College at New Paltz, offered this view: “Mario Cuomo’s chief achievement has been the alternation, through his approach to communication, of the terms of political discourse.”

Now, Cuomo is at something of a crossroads. In the third year, it is time to turn his themes into a broader program for state action, his critics say, to translate the general into the specific.

He seemed to signal that in the opening lines of his 1985 State of the State address: “Today, ladies and gentlemen, we put aside the pageantry and the poetry of political campaigns and turn to the hard work and the prose of governing . . . .” He has proposed an ambitious program of tax cuts, debt reduction, new welfare and education spending and housing aid. Maybe the first two years were heavy on style, some Cuomo aides say, but watch the substance now.

Curiously, something of the opposite is occurring in Sacramento.

During his first two years in office, Deukmejian focused on the nuts and bolts of governing. He sought and received little national attention. His speeches were quick to move from Point A to Point B in recitation of problems and solutions. They were not marked by passages of soaring inspiration or the overstatement that comes so easily to some politicians.

In his 1985 State of the State, Deukmejian said, “Today, California is steady and strong . . . . “ Few would argue.

Some Deukmejian aides worry now that he is viewed as all substance and little style of the sort that catches people’s attention--people searching for an attractive presidential candidate perhaps. Deukmejian himself said he believes Californians want sound, common sense leadership rather than glamour or pizazz.

There are glimmers of change, however. His 1985-86 budget granted a little something to almost everyone and drew praise from some of his old Democratic legislative foes. This new generosity was made possible by the state’s improved fiscal condition, but Deukmejian could have maintained his previous stringency and proposed that the excess be returned to the taxpayers. The bitter wars with the Legislature may not be ended, but at least there is a truce. The budget is balanced. And even Deukmejian’s oratory is picking up a bit as he talks of climbing a “peak of excellence” for California.

The two sons of Old World immigrants have done well. They are making adjustments as they approach reelection campaigns in 1986. And by 1988? It is not inconceivable that their paths may cross again, in snowy New Hampshire.