Jerry Brown went to Sacramento some years ago as the State's governor. His rhetoric and actions at that time were as they are today--provocative, but inconsistent and ineffectual. He talked a good show that got media attention, but he did very little. It was his talk that got press attention, as it is today in Oakland.

But there is a real action that Brown may be viewed as pioneering or at least stylizing. He may have started or given broad attention to a political devolution of ambition for politicians. That would be a new paradigm. When Brown campaigned for mayor of Oakland, many questioned why he would want to become mayor after having been governor of the largest state in the union and U.S. Presidential candidate. His rationale, and of course he had one, was that the cities are where the action is. That rationale, no doubt, was an epiphany arrived at after losing his bid for the presidency and his long absence from the limelight of media and power.

After observing Brown's political directions downward, we note that other politicians may be taking similar steps. Mrs. Clinton, our First Lady, is devolving to U.S. Senator, if she wins the NY contest; former Governor Roy Romer of Colorado is the new Superintendent of Schools for Los Angeles Unified School District; Willie Brown, former Speaker of the California Assembly, has become the mayor of San Francisco (twice the size of Oakland), which is probably a lateral transfer from Speaker of the Assembly as it was under his administration. Our Insurance Commissioner, Quackenbush, soon to be out of office by removal, resignation, or voter rage, is the anomaly in this paradigm. He had been pursuing a traditional upward mobility ladder to the governorship of California--he's been out of step for a long time.

One wonders what road a former President Clinton will take and what rationale he will use to justify it--will he run for mayor of a city because that's where the action is, will he become the head of a school board, or will he simply become the husband of a powerful U.S. Senator?

Jerry Brown may be the vanguard for a new political power grab--staying in power at all cost, as long as it is power, albeit less. It is noted that Jerry Brown needed a strong mayor position before he could feel a sense of adequacy in this position. He couldn't take the mayoral position with the same humbleness of that position others have had to work with. In this new devolution of political ambition, politicians still have their political pride.

Even the strong mayor position has not satisfied him; he has attempted to exercise power beyond his office, provoking the Chairman of the Oakland Unified School Board to claim the mayor as having abused his power. Clearly the mayor requires power as a part of his devolution, and the Oakland School Board seems to be his target. Is that now where the action is for him? They have resisted his pressure. Does that mean that Oaklanders can look forward to a former mayor Brown vying for a seat on the school board? (If so, he is going to have to move from his downtown loft and find residence elsewhere in Oakland because his supported candidate, whom he later appointed to the Board, Gilda Gonzalez, ran in this West Oakland district heavily financed but lost).

Oakland is showing that Brown has a history which repeats itself. He went into the Governorship with great fanfare and during a second term, many Californians realized that he hadn't done anything worthwhile for the state, although he had garnered much media attention around himself. That history is recycling itself in Oakland. But, if the cities are where the action is, there is a factor he should consider: cities have shorter timelines for getting things done and for voters to realize when nothing is being done.

As he did as governor, Brown came into Oakland with great fanfare, but it has only generated good press for him: he has been on the cover of various magazines and newspapers; he has been on national TV and radio while Oakland has been trashed, or at best ignored, by that same media which glorified him as the geek White mayor straddling the Black poverty-stricken Oakland community. That is not a good picture for Oakland. The fact is, he has generated bad press for Oakland!

As we said, cities have a shorter timeline for realizing the ineffectual nature of their leaders, and Brown's effectiveness is beginning to be seen already, even by those close to him. Just a few weeks ago one of his prominent appointees to the Oakland School Board, a body he hopes to dominate as he is doing to the thriving (before Brown came into town) Oakland Port Commission, labeled his military school proposal racist and revolted against him.

Since his facade is being removed forcefully, it will to interesting to see if he retools his efforts or plows ahead to assert his political power. As it presently stands, a second term for this mayor is not something that is a certainty--after all, he is Jerry not Willie Brown. Assuming he will survive a reelection bid, will he have tamed the School Board by then or will his new political paradigm take him to vying for a seat on the School Board?

There are a few realities which may impact on his political movement after a second term: he will have capitalized off his personal property downtown, as he spearheads a gentrification of downtown and Oakland; there is the coming battle of the Raiders (talk about a recycled history), and one never can tell where he will fall on this issue; Don Perata will have termed-out and there could be musical chairs between them, they are strong allies; and there is always the Board of Supervisors or the Oakland School Board races.

Trying to anticipate the next incarnation of Brown requires that we keep a number of factors in mind. He requires attention as an innovator. He requires power of position wherever he metamorphosizes to. And politicians have pride--of course, it's not defined the same way us normals define it.

One note, Jerry Brown moved to Oakland from somewhere. Maybe he will move to somewhere from Oakland, as Roy Romer is doing in Los Angeles. He could run for Mayor or school Board there (elsewhere). Whatever he does, he is a politician, and let us not forget they crave/demand power and attention of the media, therefore, he will be around somewhere. San Jose? Its a big, increasingly important city. Another state? Perhaps one that is rural where he could open a commune or a school--less power, but he has aged and may accept a decreased power-level as he ages still.

Whatever he does, one thing he has already done, or been a part of doing, is reshaping the ambition paradigm of politicians so that they think devolution, not evolution upward. But, wasn't that one of his themes as governor--"We must learn to accept less" ?[]