Newt Gingrich would have cringed. There was Ohio's Republican Gov. George Voinovich in downtown Cleveland, congratulating local Democratic politicians (and himself) for supporting higher taxes and $46 million in state funds for a massive urban renewal project. "When the state invests in Cleveland, the entire state benefits," declared Voinovich at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new Gund Arena, an art deco granite-and-steel behemoth built to lure the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team back downtown.
Such pragmatic bipartisanship seems out of place in an election year in which many Republicans are running not only against incumbent Democrats but also against government itself. In New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Arizona and Iowa, Republican gubernatorial candidates are promising big tax cuts like the one that helped Christine Todd Whitman capture the New Jersey statehouse last year. Meanwhile, Voinovich is campaigning against a ballot initiative to cut the state sales tax -- a position seemingly calculated to lose him the election.
Except for this: According to recent polls, Voinovich leads his Democratic challenger, state Sen. Robert L. Burch, by 42 points. And he's not alone. In Illinois, moderate Republican Gov. Jim Edgar -- who has neither raised nor cut taxes -- is crushing Democratic Comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch, 60 to 27, according to a recent poll. In Minnesota, moderate Republican Gov. Arne Carlson -- who did raise taxes, but only to help eliminate a budget deficit -- survived a punishing primary challenge from religious conservative Allen Quist and now leads Democratic state Sen. John Marty by some 30 points.
These governors share some key attributes with two similarly popular but more conservative Midwest governors, Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin and John Engler of Michigan, who both are running with at least 60 percent of the vote in recent polls. Their administrations are largely free of scandal; they are presiding over growing economies, and, says GOP political consultant Ed Goeas, they are widely seen as competent managers "who are holding deficits down, in contrast to what's coming out of Washington."
What do voters want? Conventional wisdom and Republican strategy both hold that voters are so fed up with Bill Clinton, Washington and politics that they prefer gridlock to government. But the success of these moderate Republican governors suggests otherwise: Voters are hungry for pragmatic, nonpartisan politicians who can use government effectively but who aren't big-spending liberals. "Voters aren't saying they necessarily want government cut," warns Republican strategist Bill McInturff, whose firm is working on seven gubernatorial campaigns. "They're saying they want a government that fixes problems."
Voinovich has been perfecting his middle-of-the-road style for almost 30 years. He first won public office in 1966, running for the Ohio House of Representatives as a Republican in a 6-to-1 Democratic district on Cleveland's ethnic East Side. A devout Catholic of Serbian and Slovenian extraction, Voinovich still knows how to win the affection of Cuyahoga County white ethnics, who have been drifting Republican in recent years. At a fish fry at a German-American cultural center in suburban Cleveland, the governor reminisces about his immigrant grandparents' "good work ethic and strong family values" and praises the audience for erecting their cultural center "without one dime of government money."
Audience member Bob Philippi, a zone sales manager with Ford Motor Co. and a big Rush Limbaugh fan, raves about Voinovich and forgives his moderate policies. "In a Democrat state like Ohio you have to play the middle more," says Philippi. "But frankly, I see his roots and philosophy as being the same as mine, that government paying for everything won't solve the problem."
As mayor of Cleveland from 1979 to 1989, Voinovich helped revive the city with a combination of federal grants, sound management and artful compromises between local corporate leaders and black city council members. Elected governor in 1990, he has guided the state through a recession-induced budget crunch by trimming programs such as higher education, in the process forcing public colleges such as the 56,000-student Ohio State University to manage themselves more efficiently. He delighted business interests by reforming Ohio's workers' compensation system and pleased liberals by quintupling spending on Head Start.
Half measures. Critics say Voinovich is an inveterate compromiser who refuses to risk his political capital on ambitious policies. Michigan's Engler, for instance, totally revamped school funding and eliminated general-assistance welfare for childless adults. Voinovich has only tinkered with school- funding formulas and went halfway on general welfare, putting all able-bodied recipients on a six-months-on, six-months-off benefits schedule.
Yet Voinovich's polling numbers have been consistently higher than Engler's, and his kinder, gentler conservatism is appealing to independent voters like Bob Mittleman, a 44-year-old mortgage banker from upscale, suburban Shaker Heights. "He's an expert conciliator, a good, competent, pro-business guy," says Mittleman: "He's middle of the road, and I am too."
Voinovich goes out of his way to distance himself from Washington. He has been a leader in the fight against unfunded federal mandates -- a battle Bill Clinton once waged as governor of Arkansas. Yet his name is often floated as a possible vice presidential candidate in 1996.
"The partisanship is out of hand in Washington," Voinovich complains, sounding very much like someone who thinks he could do a better job. "The president uses it as an excuse sometimes, but there's not enough sitting down with your opponents and getting the job done. That's what people want." If Voinovich and his fellow Midwestern moderates are correct, then candidates who think they are giving voters what they want by attacking government may be in for a rude shock if they get elected.
