Nonvoters have only themselves to blame

I’ve had a lot of trouble getting the sour taste of last week’s

election out of my mouth. Or the question of what -- if anything --

the voters were trying to say out of my head.

I’ve been on the losing end of a lot of elections over the last 60

years, so it isn’t the winning or losing. It’s the corruption of the

system itself -- by money, by deception, by cowardice, by a total

lack of ethics and finally -- and perhaps understandably -- by

apathy. This isn’t the first election in which these elements have

been present, and it won’t be the last.

But it hit me as right up there with the worst.

Let’s start with apathy. According to the Secretary of State’s

office, half of California’s eligible voters didn’t vote last week,

making it the lowest turnout in any statewide race in history -- and

8% lower than the second worst four years ago. I can’t help wondering

how many citizens driving around with flags on their cars didn’t

bother to vote.

Fussing at nonvoters is useless. So, probably, is trying to reason

with them, but at least it’s worth a try. Staying away from the polls

simply gives well-organized one-issue voters a vacuum into which they

can move. Allan Mansoor was put on the Costa Mesa City Council by the

same people who elected Chris Steel. If the majority of Costa Mesans

don’t agree with his views on shutting down the Job Center and ending

public funding of private charities on the grounds that they attract

“undesirable elements,” the nonvoters among them have only themselves

to blame.

There are two primary reasons given for nonvoting: first, that

there is no real difference between the parties and, second,

revulsion at both candidates. The first simply isn’t true -- would

any of Bush’s domestic program, for example, have happened under

Gore, although the cowardice of the Democrats in refusing to stand

for much of anything in this recent election made it appear that way?

The second is more understandable, given the California

gubernatorial choice, which came off as a contest between a

money-grubbing cold fish and a bungling corporate cipher. But there

were also important legislative and congressional races and

propositions, especially those providing funds for educating our

children, that demanded the attention of the nonvoters.

Maybe the ethics involved in attack politics contributed to the

apathy. The problem here is that voters who respond to tactics that

revolt them by abstaining simply make it easier for the attackers to

win. The best example I know happened last week in Georgia. Because I

sent a few bucks in support of U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, I received a

lot of mailings that followed his campaign. Cleland is a paraplegic

who lost both legs fighting in Vietnam. Yet the Republicans poured

millions of dollars into attack pieces labeling him “unpatriotic”

because he voted against the bill giving Bush the power to wage war

without the assent of Congress. Cleland was defeated by a candidate

whose patriotism didn’t include war service.

Closer to home, we have the telephone attack against Costa Mesa

Mayor Linda Dixon by the Airport Working Group. These phone calls

charged her with not supporting the El Toro airport and urged that

she be retired. Since Dixon lost by a relatively small margin, it is

quite possible that this exacting of revenge helped cost her the

election.

There’s an interesting counterpoint to this attack on Dixon. If

the intent of the AWG leaders was to elect El Toro proponents, then

their attention would have been better focused on the two incumbent

Newport Beach City Council members running for reelection --

especially when a strong and deeply committed El Toro supporter was

running against them. The retreat of the Newport Beach City Council

from the fight against Measure W contributed considerably more to the

loss of the El Toro airport than anything Dixon did or didn’t do.

So what message was the 50% who voted sending? I suppose that,

locally, the threatened expansion of John Wayne hasn’t fully caught

their attention yet. (Why else would Rep. Chris Cox feel no heat for

his role in secretly undermining the El Toro airport while so many

devoted volunteers among his constituents worked for it?) The voters

also seemed uneasy about a City Council controlled by Greenlight.

And while those who didn’t vote may be uncomfortable with the

hard-nosed social views of Steel and Mansoor, they aren’t

uncomfortable enough to do anything about it. Like vote.

And nationally, that the Democrats came up empty of ideas or guts,

and the electorate preferred voting for Bush’s program -- the only

one being offered -- even if it involved destroying our economy,

exploiting our natural resources and quite possibly going to war.

I had two bookends to these dark thoughts that gave me

perspective. First, of course, was the World Series victory of the

Angels, leaving a warmth in the belly that won’t go away soon. Second

was the unbounded hospitality of a dear friend who took us in for

several days last week while our house was being fumigated. She

welcomed our dachshund, too, who arrived complete with bed, blanket,

food dishes and temporary trauma.

The superb macaroni and cheese our hostess prepared and the warmth

she offered us got my mind off both the fumigation and the sour

election taste. They have now departed, and I’m ready to watch

Newport Beach wrestle with challenges -- which we were assured would

not happen -- to the new John Wayne settlement agreement. And to see

how Costa Mesa deals with its “undesirable elements.”

Oh, yes, and to rejoice that the Great Park isn’t going to get

bailed out by the taxpayers of California.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.