The post-election family letter

Coming to terms with the 1980 election

Shortly after his defeat for re-election in the 1980 general election, Albert Rodda took some time to write a letter that he distributed to his family members and his closest friends. More than two decades in the state senate had taken their toll on Albert and the silver lining in the 1980 election was the unsought opportunity to step back from the thick of things. As Phil Isenberg commented at the Senator's memorial ceremony in April 2010, Albert even suspected that his health was the better for his defeat. The additional time he had to spend with his wife Clarice was a sweetener in the face of disappointment.

The Senator kept the family letter in his files and occasionally sent it out in response to queries from political supporters. My copy comes from a packet of his writings that he shared with the members of the Friday lunch group. It includes the following preamble, a personal letter to Marge Burgess of Davis:

December 1981

Dear Marge:

Enclosed is an analysis of the election. Note the involvement of the Mormons and the radical right.

Incidentally, the indictment of Al Robbins occurred on Friday, the week-end of the election. The Gun Owners' campaign money was contributed after October 20, the last day for filing campaign contributions before the election. Senator Bill Richardson had told the County District Attorney that the Republicans had a “gimmick” against Rodda. The D.A. was elected because of the financial support of one of the Kelley brothers—a conservative who is an owner of Channel #3—traditional enemies of mine. Incidentally, many of our campaign signs were torn down, one had.a centerfold from Play Boy posted on it. Gross misrepresentations were made with respect to my voting record and my legislative activities. Telephone polls were used to confuse the voters about Robbins and to imply that I had the support of the Hayden Fonda group.

I am mailing this because I know of your interest in politics and your involvement in the local Democratic Party with Clary and me over the years. It was lovely to chat with you at the Wood's party. It is always a delight to meet our friends at the Wood's home. Clary sends her best wishes.

Sincerely,
Albert S. Rodda
Executive Secretary
Enclosure

“Clary,” of course, is a reference to Albert's wife Clarice. At the time of his letter to Ms. Burgess, the Senator was serving as executive secretary of the Commission on State Finance. The lunch group packet did not include the newspaper clippings, but it did include the four-page “family letter.”

—TB

FAMILY LETTER—ELECTION 1980

As you know, I have been defeated for re-election. Philosophically, I have accepted the defeat and I am looking forward to other activities. Clarice is also quite philosophical about the outcome. We will work to achieve a good life in retirement.

The reason that I am writing is to indicate to you the factors responsible for the defeat. As an incumbent, I have been a traditional liberal who reflected in his thinking the philosophy of Adlai Stevenson and progressive Republicans, such as Tom Kuchel. Today, the trend is away from that political perspective and the word liberal has become, in effect, unacceptable to many people. I knew that and I could have enhanced my chance for re-election if I had somewhat modified my image by denying my liberal convictions. But I would have presented myself improperly to the public. I decided not to do that. I preferred to accept the risks which were involved in continued adherence to my basic philosophy, responsible, not radical, liberalism.

I knew that I was in trouble when John Doolittle won the nomination in the Primary because it was well known that he was sponsored by Senator H.L. “Bill” Richardson, a very reactionary State Senator who collects substantial amounts of money from gun owners for the purpose of financing political campaigns against liberal Democrats. Richardson also has ties with the Moral Majority and has their support in his political activities. He is very negative with respect to government. In fact, Richardson, a former John Bircher, voted “no” on practically all substantive issues recently under consideration—the “bail-out” of local government, the State Budget, legislation to achieve tax relief-reform and environmental protection and to provide special education for handicapped children. It is clear that my opponent reflects in his thinking the basic political. philosophy of Senator Richardson, although the public is not aware of that fact because Mr. Doolittle did not indicate to the voters during the campaign what his philosophy was, nor did he discuss the significant issues that are known to confront the state.

John Doolittle is a Mormon and had the backing of the Mormons in the Sacramento community; in fact, they did much of his campaign work for him.

The fact that Mr. Doolittle received money from the gun owners' organizations enabled him to hire professional people to plan and direct his campaign. The campaign strategy the experts designed was to establish the fact, through a campaign brochure, that he was a decent, respectable, young conservative whose back ground was religious and moral. Once that was done, the strategy was to attack me during the last days of the campaign, when there was little time for me to respond. Radio and television time was used, to that end, as were campaign mailers. The mailers, incidentally, were very scientifically designed and sent out to a computer-selected list of voters. The material misrepresented my position on two basic issues—crime and education. The voters were told that I was soft on crime and responsible, therefore, for the increase in crime which occurred in the last 20 years in Sacramento County. They also were told that I advocated permissiveness in the schools and that I was responsible, therefore, for the decline in the educational achievement of students in California. In both instances, the statements made were unfair and inaccurate. With reference to the soft on crime issues, my opponent cited a number of votes and actions by me to sustain his argument; unfortunately, he omitted important information and clearly misstated some of the facts. We responded to the charges through a newspaper ad, which is enclosed, and it was printed in the Sacramento Bee and the Sacramento Union on Sunday, November 2nd; unfortunately, as I feared, not too many people read the ad; had they done so, they would have realized that my record was being grossly misrepresented. I also tried in the ad to answer another charge, which was that I had authorized teachers to strike. The collective bargaining law, which I authored, was well understood to deny the right of concerted action, or the strike, to employees of the public schools and in that respect was the same as the previous law, the Winton-Russell Act.

The campaign not only misrepresented my record and created a false image of my role in the Legislature, but, as I stated above, it failed to state the position of my opponent on significant issues. Mr. Doolittle would have had to admit, had he done so, that since he supported Proposition #9, which would have deprived the state of $3 billion of revenue this year, that he favored drastic reductions in the quality of state service and in the ability of the state to finance local government, including schools. This issue and others, which are very significant and which I have been trying to address, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he totally ignored. What I am saying is that no meaningful attention was given in the campaign to the basic issues confronting California. The opposition campaign was drafted very cleverly to place me in a very negative context and to capitalize on the conservative political trend, the people's fears and feelings of insecurity, their almost hostile feeling toward government and their dissatisfaction with the public schools.

Nevertheless, I think that I could have won the election had it not been for two circumstances that affected the election. One was the release by the media of data which indicated that, even before the President conceded his defeat, Carter could not win re-election. As you and I know, many people, after that information was made public, failed to vote and many of them were Democrats. But the second critical factor was the action of the District Attorney of Sacramento County in announcing just a few days before the election that State Senator Alan Robbins had been indicted by the Grand Jury for sexual relations with women who were under the age of 18. A great deal of publicity was given the indictment by the media and it appears that many constituents confused me with Senator Al Robbins. We have reason to think that this confusion happened throughout the district. Reverend Korfhage, a retired Methodist Minister, for example, communicated with several neighbors to indicate his support of me and two immediately commented that “Senator Rodda has been indicted.” Several other friends indicated the same experience—that voters were unable to distinguish between Robbins and Rodda. Incidentally, we have been told that my opponent's poll of voters in the district supported this fact—that there was confusion. That confusion among the voters alone could have significantly influenced the election.

I am enclosing the mailer that we sent to the voters to indicate my philosophy and position on issues. It was positive. As stated above, I am sending also a copy of the newspaper ad which we used in response to the charges that were made with respect to my failure to support meaningful laws to curb criminal activity. I am sending this material to you because I want you to know the facts about my record.

I have tried to be an objective and conscientious Senator. I have not taken honoraria when I made speeches and there were many speeches for which I could have received compensation. I have not maintained a district office and I had the opportunity to do so in two areas of Sacramento. That would have added to the cost of my office. I. did not use a district newsletter and I saved the state, therefore, about $30,000 annually for about 12 years. Unfortunately, as a consequence, I did not establish a strong name identification. Furthermore, I was so much involved in the burdensome responsibilities of my position as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that I was not able to become as actively involved in minor local community affairs as I otherwise could have been. I had to make the choice—being responsible, being diligent and performing my burdensome tasks, or being political and making my re-election a first priority. I chose the former. Furthermore, I would not change my style of campaigning and shift from a constructive effort to inform the voters of my philosophy and my actions with respect to the state and this community to one in which I would engage in the campaign style and tactics used by my opponent. I am disappointed that the voters did not perceive the difference between us and that they refused to acknowledge the constructive contribution that I made over the years to the state, to education, and to this community. One has to accept such a response to one's work, however, when one is a “public servant.”

It is not easy to serve as an elected official. One is constantly under pressure and one is deprived almost of the opportunity of being a free person. Now that I am retiring because of my defeat, Clarice and I hope that we will be able to relax and enjoy the years left to us and to have a closer association with our friends and our relatives. So my defeat hopefully will prove to be a blessing. We are grateful that there are many favorable
aspects to this decision on the part of the voters. I do not want members of the family to feel ashamed or to feel bitter about my retirement from public life because of the fact that it was not voluntary. I appreciate very much the support all of you have given me over the years. It has been a great asset to Clarice and to me and we are very proud of you and the contribution that you have made to this community as members of our family.

I am enclosing copies of newspaper articles that may be of interest. One is an editorial and the other is a Los Angeles Times article. Incidentally, newspapers from allover the state wrote favorable comments about my incumbency. We should be grateful that I served so long and received such friendly and positive commendations.

A definition of liberalism (1973)

The Rodda Project: A definition of liberalism

Senator Rodda's files contain many different kinds of documents. One of the more curious works is a letter that he labeled a “semi-finished draft.” He was probably less than completely satisfied with it and intended to keep tinkering with it. The copy I have is dated February 7, 1973. The text itself indicates that Sen. Rodda wrote the letter in response to a query from a friend, whom he addresses as “John.” (Perhaps someone can enlighten me on John's identity.) The Senator presumably retained extra copies in his files for purposes of sharing with other people who had the same question as John: Just what is liberalism?

The Senator hoped, but doubted—despite his own success as a liberal legislator, that liberalism could present itself as a robust philosophy for governance. As we read Albert Rodda's words today, in the context of conservatism's crumbling grip on our federal government, we might consider whether liberalism is ready to wake up and take a stand.

—TB

February 7, 1973
Semi-Finished Draft

Dear John:

You asked me for a definition of liberalism.

A number of years ago I wrote that liberalism “was a social philosophy which emerged from the intellectual, economic and social revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. As a system of thought reflecting a concept for social organization, it was closely related to the rise of modern industrialization and was in opposition to the ideas and institutions of the ancient regime, many of which continued into the 19th century.”

“Liberalism was essentially an expression of economic and political individualism; in a sense, it was a rebellion against a class society, arbitrary government, religious intolerance, thought control by church and state, economic monopoly, and the doctrine of mercantilism. During the first half of the 19th century, therefore, it was essentially a rebellion against the dominating institutions of European society; by the middle of the 19th century, however, liberalism had become the dominant intellectual and social force in Europe.”

One can generalize by saying that supporters of liberalism possessed the following characteristics: (1) enthusiasm for scientific investigation and confidence in the rational powers of man and the scientific method; (2) the conviction that a better social order could be created by an intelligent application of the socio-scientific thought to the basic problems of social organization; (3) an enthusiasm for individual freedom in political, religious and economic matters, which was expressed in the demand for free political institutions, protection of personal rights, constitutional government, extension of the principles and the practice of democracy; (4) a laissez faire economic policy; (5) hostility to organized labor; (6) religious freedom, separation of church and state; (7) free public education; (8) the advocation of international peace and the development of international laws as a basis for the conduct of international relations, which usually involved opposition to militarism, military conscription and the domination of civil government by the military class; (9) emphasis on the idea that the state was a servant of the people and that it was the function of the state to encourage the development of individuality of its citizens; and finally, (10) the advocation of and support for the national state, structured upon a citizenship of individuals who possessed a common cultural and ethnic background as the basis for political organization in Western Europe.

It was a quality of thought which was significantly affected, molded or shaped by the intellectual, social and political forces which were generated by the French Revolution.

In a general way essential elements of liberal thought were the ideas which shaped the thinking of many of the educated individuals living during the last part of the 19th century.

There were different degrees of liberalism, of course, and the ideas associated with the philosophy changed with the passage of time. Furthermore, many individuals were liberal in one sense, but extremely conservative in another. This is, however, a fairly accurate description of the general principles of 19th century liberalism. It was a mode of thought which was in conflict with dominant ones of the time; between it and the values and ideals of the ancien regime there was constant war.

Toward the end of the century the basic assumption of liberalism, which was that man was rational and reasonable, began to be questioned by thoughtful writers who pointed to the influence of emotion, instincts and conditioned behavior as factors influencing the lives of people and directing it toward non-rational behavior. At the opening of the 20th century, those who advocated liberalism and the political and economic institutions which reflected the basic assumptions of liberalism modified their views, and became known as “chastened liberals.” The assumptions that man was rational, intelligent, knowledgeable and reasonable were no longer quite as confidently accepted. Liberals, nevertheless, continued to express the political view that the best interests of men were served through the institutions and practices of constitutional government—the guarantee of the rights of the individual, preservation of due process of law and insistence upon the rights of dissent and freedom of speech and the press. Liberals were, however, less confident that the liberal philosophy could succeed.

Gradually another modification in the concept of liberalism came about as a consequence of the failure of laissez faire economics to produce social justice. The failure of competition in the market place to provide distributive justice and, subsequently, the failure of the system to avert major economic depressions, cyclical in character and productive of massive unemployment, caused other questions to rise in the minds of liberals. While continuing to urge the basic political principles of liberalism, many liberals began to advocate state intervention in the economic system in order to achieve a greater degree of distributive justice through the use of power of the state to restrict business monopoly. This modification in thought began to distinguish the conservative from the liberal. The conservative, men like Robert Taft, for example, argued that it was important to maintain constitutional government, that government observe due process of law and that there be freedom for dissent and freedom of the press, but the conservative was less willing to accept the idea that the state should intervene in the economic system.

The Depression had an even more massive impact on liberalism, in my view. It demonstrated that economic policies which were designed exclusively to achieve distributive justice were inadequate to cope with the socio-economic problems of the American politico-economic system. John Maynard Keynes contributed significantly to post-Depression economic thinking when he pointed out that the capitalistic system could very easily operate at a level of equilibrium below full employment. Adam Smith, the founder of laissez faire economics, had consistently argued that the forces of the market place would produce an equilibrium at the level of full employment. Keynes in developing his analysis of the forces which determine the level of the National Product, concluded that unless government were effective through the control of the interest rate, the money supply the use of the taxing power and the regulation of public expenditures, the economy might operate at levels of equilibrium which would produce massive unemployment. This condition he feared could lead to the destruction of the capitalistic system. He outlined those policies which he deemed necessary to establish and maintain an equilibrium level at or near full employment.

Liberals became interested in his thought and in the implementation of a public policy which would assure economic growth, increased productivity, high levels of employment, and the avoidance of the disruptive influences of major economic depressions. They became less concerned with distributive justice, reasoning that if the economy could achieve economic growth, increases in productivity and the avoidance of depressions and unemployment, the economic well being of all individuals would be enhanced. This has not proven a realistic assumption or conclusion; the distribution of income and wealth is becoming more unequal. Liberals are again chastened. Not only do they recognize that the assumptions that they made with respect to the political institutions, which were that man was rational, are of dubious validity, but they are beginning to recognize that the assumption with regard to the functional relationship between sheer economic growth and economic inequality may also be of dubious validity. In fact, sheer growth may lead to a widening of the gap between the poor and the rich.

Liberals are also more and more aware of the impact of increases in productivity which are a consequence of technological innovation upon the natural environment. The adverse effects of pollution, exhaustion of resources and the energy crisis, the diseconomies of economic progress is causing greater and greater concern. Related to this concern, of course, is the threat of over-population.

Liberals find themselves in a very uncomfortable ideological position. Today, they are less confident that they know the way—that technological innovation which enhances productivity also promotes social justice and enhances the quality of life. Frankly, I share the liberal concern.

The conservative, continues, however, to believe that he knows the way. Conservative politicians remain dogmatic and psychologically secure, since they are convinced that if we move toward laissez faire economic policies, or non-intervention by the state, technology will provide adequately for the nation's economic welfare. They seem to have no doubts since it appears that the outcome of such an arrangement would conform to their socio-economic goals.

The problem of the liberals is that they are uncertain about how to proceed—how to use the powers of the state in order to give that direction to the socio-economic system which will promote not only economic growth but also the protection of the environment and the achievement of distributive justice.

Frankly, I am convinced that the conservative view, if persisted in, can only promote the destruction of the environment and greater economic inequity and social injustice. The outcome of persistent implementation of the conservative view will assuredly be a society in which there will no longer remain a dedication to the economic and political principles of this country. When this occurs, a rejection of the basic principles and institutions of American society will follow.

I have always been inclined to sympathize and identify with the liberal and yet, as I became more and more aware of the dilemma of contemporary man, I wonder whether the liberal, given his basic assumptions about man, has the capability of responding to the challenge.

I do not know what the creative thinkers in this country, especially those of a liberal persuasion, will conclude, if they examine critically the validity of the basic assumptions of contemporary liberalism and the viability of representative government to achieve the historic liberal goals of individual freedom, economic well being, and social justice.