Assembly Speaker Cut Off a Rung on His Political Ladder

You can scratch the name of Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa off your list of potential mayoral candidates in Los Angeles.

For while he was a sufficiently skilled politician to win what everyone considers the second-most-powerful job in California politics, the 46-year-old Democrat was clearly not skilled enough at the nuances of international diplomacy to avoid controversy during his visit last week to Mexico. And the misstep may have ruined whatever chance he had of returning to his hometown from Sacramento to run for mayor in 2001.

Villaraigosa’s weeklong trip to Mexico was basically benign. He led a delegation of business leaders and academics south of the border to discuss increased trade and investment. A highlight of the trip was a meeting with Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo.

But Villaraigosa emerged from that session to tell a press conference that he had thanked Zedillo for having “great impact in defeating Proposition 187.” He reportedly told Zedillo that a goodwill trip the Mexican chief executive made to California last May was “decisive” in convincing Gov. Gray Davis to invalidate the controversial 1994 initiative that sought to bar illegal immigrants from receiving state-funded services, including education and medical care.

Actually, the process of Proposition 187’s well-deserved demise was a lot more difficult and complicated than that. Proposition 187 never went into effect because several lawsuits challenged its constitutionality. Those challenges were eventually upheld by a federal judge. Davis had the option to appeal that lower court decision. Instead he opted for mediation with 187’s opponents, which effectively validated their court victory.

But, as is often the case with political controversies, the complex reality is less important than that the simple symbolism of what Villaraigosa seemed to be doing: lauding the head of a foreign state for helping overturn the will of American voters.

Not smart.

Not accurate, either, as noted above. But, still, not smart.

Which is why the swift, negative reaction to Villaraigosa’s comments did not come only from predictable circles, like the small but vociferous cadre of anti-immigrant crazies who undermine reasonable discussion of immigration policy with “shoot-’em-at-the-border” rhetoric.

No, even many Latinos who shared Villaraigosa’s dislike of Proposition 187 felt he went overboard in his remarks crediting Zedillo.

“He must know a lot of people are troubled about what the courts did to 187,” one told me. “Why rub it in like that?”

After all, not every Californian who voted for Proposition 187 is an anti-Mexican vigilante. Many, including some Latinos, are genuinely concerned that the state is absorbing too many foreign residents without help from the federal government. It was Washington’s long neglect of immigration-related problems, after all, that led to Proposition 187.

I am among those who believe Proposition 187’s supporters have less to worry about than they think. And, in any case, Congress finally reacted to the initiative by putting many of its more reasonable provisions into an immigration-reform law enacted in 1996. We don’t need Proposition 187 or the divisiveness it caused. So the federal court made the right call and Davis was right to mediate the decision.

But why would any politician go out of his way to celebrate an outcome, however correct, overruling a popular vote? Worse, why compound the mistake by praising the leader of a foreign government whose historic neglect of its poorest citizens is at least partly to blame for illegal immigration?

Not smart.

Which is why Villaraigosa’s remarks not only revived the waning controversy over Proposition 187, but gave credence--and added momentum--to a quiet campaign by a handful of influential Latino political activists to derail his undeclared campaign for mayor.

He’s not ready yet, they’ve been saying. Not mature enough. He should stay in Sacramento or, at best, come home to run for City Council.

Given all the negativity generated by Villaraigosa’s performance in Mexico, I wouldn’t put money on even the least-ambitious scenario now.

In fact, if something positive is to come from the speaker’s pratfall in Mexico, let it serve as an object lesson for any future political candidates who will travel south of the border to try to win the support of Latino voters here.

Just before Villaraigosa’s visit to Mexico, I spoke with a American career diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City.

“You can’t run for mayor of New York City without visiting Israel,” this native of the East Coast joked. “Now you can’t run for mayor of Los Angeles without visiting Mexico City.”

There is more insight in those words than he perhaps intended. Urban politics in this country has long been intertwined with ethnic politics. Can you imagine a mayor of Boston being elected, for instance, without paying due respect to the sod of old Eire? And is that such a terrible thing?

So we should get used to the fact that Mexico will play a background role in Los Angeles’ politics for a while to come. But let me respectfully suggest that any politicians who try to play the Mexico card first have a clear idea of what they should say--and especially of what they shouldn’t say.