12.4: Summary

In contrast to the turbulent ’60s, the ’70s and ’80s have been mischaracterized as the period when nothing happened. In reality, California’s political, economic, and cultural landscape was richly dynamic and increasingly complex. New movements, often posing a greater challenge to traditional moral and ethical standards than those of the ’60s, profoundly altered personal and political relationships. The state’s ethnic minorities, soon to be in the majority, made significant progress in consolidating the gains of previous decades, but confronted persistent barriers to full equality. At the same time, California’s economy was in flux, increasingly integrated into a system of international trade, and centered on services and information technology rather than heavy industry. While residents grappled with the accompanying economic challenges, they also faced unprecedented limits to growth. In response, many joined the struggle to protect the state’s most valuable assets: its natural beauty and resource base. Political leaders, attempting to negotiate rapid change and new limits, escaped easy categorization. Brown, although a fiscal conservative, was a social liberal. Deukmejian, defeating his Democratic opponent by the narrowest of margins in his first bid for governor, often compromised with his liberal critics on fiscal issues. Finally, Californians continued to elect Democratic majorities to the legislature, including growing numbers of women, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos. Perhaps voters, like their leaders, were uncertain how to negotiate the unfamiliar terrain of the postindustrial economic order. In the meantime they tried to strike a balance between liberalism and conservatism.