BYRON DE ARAKAL -- Between the Lines

In 1858, standing before the Illinois Republican Convention, Abraham

Lincoln lamented the intensifying rancor between the North and South over

a subject that would, ultimately, pit American against American in the

bloodiest war this nation has known. The divisions over slavery were

deep, steeped in acrimony, and fervent. Worse, they threatened to destroy

the Union. Lincoln knew that and warned the delegation of the impending

consequences.

“A house divided against itself,” he said, “cannot stand.”

Those words were too true then and hauntingly prophetic today. Ours is

a nation so divided it can’t elect a president.

Al Gore and George W. Bush have dispatched their partisans and lawyers

and surrogates to the precincts of Florida to fight for a handful of

votes, and thus the presidency, like a couple of schoolyard boys slugging

it out for the last M&M; in the bag. The brawl is petty and bitter, but is

unfortunately not surprising in a caustic political divide void of

civility.

It appears to be too much to hope for an icing of the rhetoric, for

Lincolnesque statesmanship. The schism is too wide and the stakes too

high for that.

Sir Al and Good Ol’ George are The Rock and Hulk Hogan of the

Presidential Wrestling Federation, and they’ll not stop until one holds

high the other’s head to the foaming cheers of their “disenfranchised”

constituents. But at what cost?

As journalist Carl Bernstein said, the victor’s presidency “won’t be

worth a pitcher of warm spit” when all of this poisoned warfare is over.

Nor will our nation’s ability -- if not desire -- to engage in civil

debate.

The Newport-Mesa community is at least partially afflicted with the

same polarized politics that dog the national stage. Yet there is one

significant difference. The electoral fate of the candidates and issues

within our twin cities is not what’s in question. Rather, uncertainty

persists as to whether the opposing sides can bury the hatchet -- and I

don’t mean in the forehead of their enemies -- and work together.

But there are bad vibes in our house divided, and I’m not encouraged.

Here’s why.

After an exceptionally bitter campaign, the Greenlight initiative

passed without breaking a sweat. Ironically, Greenlight cheerleader John

Heffernan was the only pro-Measure S candidate to win a Newport Beach

City Council seat. That means when the peddlers of Greenlight begin their

noodling sessions with the City Council to figure out how to implement

the slow-growth edict, they’ll be across the table from a majority of

folks who were -- and presumably still are -- ardent Greenlight

opponents.

Given that, can the two sides find civility? Not if the postelection

comments of the victors are any indication.

Vocal Greenlight booster Tom Hyans couldn’t resist twisting the

dagger. “The bad guys were winning for a long time,” Hyans told the Los

Angeles Times in a postelection interview. “Now it’s time for the good

guys to win.”

Never mind that Hyans’ “bad guys” are the very developers and city

councils that created this wonderful quality of life Hyans and his

cronies are fighting so hard to protect. The question is who wants to

work with an ungracious winner?

And Councilman-elect Heffernan, the lone Greenlight proponent on the

council, couldn’t have engendered much confidence among his new council

colleagues with his public statements. “I think this is an unusually

bitter defeat for the Measure T people,” he told the Pilot. “I don’t

think they’re done. They’ll still try to dilute Greenlight or knock it

out entirely.”

Those words not only serve to remind the balance of the council and

their constituents that they lost, but that Heffernan doesn’t trust them

to implement the letter and spirit of Greenlight.

The potential for rancor in Costa Mesa isn’t quite as acute. But it is

nonetheless there.

Leading the surprising shake-up of the Costa Mesa City Council is

Chris Steel, a lightning rod of controversy whose political views look

less than kindly upon the city’s immigrant population.

Nevertheless, Steel garnered the lion’s share of votes cast Nov. 7,

which means there’s a hefty constituency out there that subscribes to his

politics. Regardless of what may be thought of him, the City Council and

Steel need to find a way to work together to move several major projects

off the dime.

But the commentary and musings bubbling from leading voices in the

community aren’t reassuring.

Councilwoman Linda Dixon, when asked by Channel 3’s Valerie Mitchell

what she thought of Steel’s election, could only muster an apoplectic

giggle. “I’m speechless,” she said. Her meaning was clear. Dixon’s lack

of words weren’t to be construed as an exhibition of her enthusiasm for

Steel’s victory.

Still, others have stepped directly in Steel’s face, labeling him a

xenophobe. As fence-mending goes, that’s not a good start.

“The council is going to be under a lot of pressure to fold (Steel and

his constituency) into the mix,” said Mayor Gary Monahan. “We’re going to

have some lively debates, and I think that’s good. But we’re going to

have to show some leadership that we can work together.”

Amen.

* BYRON DE ARAKAL is a writer and communications consultant. Readers

can reach him with news tips and comments via e-mail at o7

[email protected] . His column appears Wednesdays.