Caruso won the USC mayoral debate
Rick Caruso played on home turf at USC’s Bovard Auditorium for the Los Angeles mayoral debate March 22. While the Chair of the USC Board of Trustees’ ideological platform and debate might have seemed less rigorous than those of other candidates, particularly frontrunner Karen Bass, Caruso still walked away from the night as its biggest winner.
Elex Michaelson, an anchor for FOX 11 News and one of the debate’s two moderators alongside Erika D. Smith, a columnist for the L.A. Times, began the event by introducing some of the candidates’ many ties to USC, including Michaelson’s own alumni status. Later in the night, some USC students directly asked the candidates questions. This affinity towards the University posed a stark contrast to last month’s debate, where fellow candidate Mike Feuer dubbed Caruso responsible for the evident lack of safety for women at USC. On Tuesday, comparatively, Caruso’s long stint at USC was hardly mentioned.
The reality that attacking our beloved “University of Scandals and Corruption” was somewhat off limits last Tuesday was one that likely benefited Caruso. Even as the guy that brought in both Lincoln Riley and former Wharton School Dean Geoffrey Garrett, Caruso still faces criticism at USC, as his record isn’t exactly squeaky clean.
A long time former Republican who officially registered as a Democrat in January, Caruso is, to many, an obvious “Democrat in Name Only.” Back in February, he missed the race’s first debate due to a “scheduling conflict.” And, ultimately, he is an old, white billionaire famous for building luxury real estate in a city defined by diversity, progressive policies and an ever-growing homelessness problem.
Caruso was addressed repeatedly, sustaining attacks all night. Feuer challenged him on his refusal to show his tax returns. Kevin De Leon and Joe Buscaino similarly painted Caruso as a corrupt and greedy rule-breaker who is out of touch with Angelenos. Even Bass, who spent most of the night exasperatedly trying to return to the actual issues at hand, eventually sparred with Caruso, taking issue with him “denigrating” those who have “devoted their lives to public service.”
So, while it’s debatable whether Caruso seemed at all sympathetic in what he said was “obviously a three against one,” it’s undeniable that he got the most exposure. Right now, that means more.
To borrow wordplay from Lakers fans, the debate quickly became a “Carushow.” No matter how much they tried to antagonize him, Caruso came out smelling relatively like a rose. And, even when he didn’t completely stick the landing, there was no “gotcha” moment near damning enough to outweigh the value of the publicity itself.
From the perspective of voters, the critique of Caruso’s wealth simply isn’t as effective or compelling as his counter criticism of L.A. politicians and their abundant incompetence. Between endless opportunities to speak and equally endless funding for his advertisements, Caruso has now made up for lost time. Better yet, he’s done it all with a winning smile on his face.
Caruso’s opponents, in comparison, seemed much less charismatic throughout the night. Bass, staying above the petty back and forths, certainly seemed composed and experienced, but she did not get the attention or screen time worthy of a true frontrunner. Nor is her apparent optimism doing her any favors: saying she personally felt completely safe in L.A. was a massive miss.
Ultimately, Caruso’s status as an outsider is the X-factor of his campaign. His opponents could have exploited it as a weakness if they properly challenged him on specifics. Instead, they attacked his character, a strategy which felt flat as they strayed away from their expertise: policymaking itself. The sniveling bombast of his opponents, besides the taciturn Bass, ended up giving Caruso all the ammunition he needed to successfully paint them as roundly inept bureaucrats.
As a result of the personal nature of this debate, voters weren’t given much insight as to any major differences between the candidates’ policies themselves. In fact, the platforms seemed relatively similar in many ways: to make some sort of formal declaration about the homelessness crisis and then build some amount of temporary housing, and to “treat mental health issues” although no one really explained how. All candidates wanted to increase LAPD’s budget, save for De Leon who wants to keep it the same. It seemed the sole point of truly major contention was over the recall effort for District Attorney George Gascon, but even there the candidates all agreed about the nature of his wrongdoing. Their dispute was rather over the effectiveness of recalls themselves.
While it is still early, the buzz from Tuesday’s debate was huge for Caruso. He might not have yet won over the voters nor has he dominated by the virtue of groundbreaking policy. But, ultimately, he generated all the momentum needed to consider himself the night’s biggest winner. If Caruso makes the right bet to support Gascon’s recall, I predict L.A. will end up with the closest thing to a Republican mayor since Richard Riordan.