In November 17, 2003 a rising star political star promising an administration of reform stood up and was sworn in as the governor of one of the largest states in the union. He promised to ‘change the rancor culture of politics’, ‘reach across the aisle to get things done’, and make his state ‘business friendly again.’ He appealed to independents, republicans, and a large number of democrats. Conservatives, however, were split.
It was a situation humorists will refer to as ‘sweet, sweet irony.’ In November of 2002 the fate of California rested in the hands of a small group of conservatives who, for years, were willing to tell anyone who would listen that they didn’t matter. Racked with an energy crisis, economic woes, and a bitterly partisan legislature, California decided to recall Grey Davis and hold an open election for the Governors seat in Sacramento.
Essentially conservatives had a choice between two candidates: State Senator Tom McClintock, a strict conservative in the essence of the word with principled – not political or ‘pragmatic’ – principled views on a host of issues from taxes to transportation; or, a rookie Politian named Arnold Schwarzenegger, a ‘pragmatist’ actor with few principled beliefs running on a platform of reform, common sense business practices, and the ability to reach across the aisle to instigate change. To be honest, nobody knew much about Mr. Schwarzenegger; we only knew what we were told we should know. What did he stand for? Reform? Great, but in what sense? Job creation? Wonderful, but there are lots of theories on how to create jobs; which would he entertain? Bipartisanship? Ah, now that was something we could use especially with so many Democrats in Sacramento; plus, wouldn’t it be great to finally have a Governor with an ‘R’ by his name again?
There was no question that Mr. Schwarzenegger could attract votes and votes were what we needed to finally have a voice. But were we sure that voice would listen? What did this charismatic man with a great speech writing staff stand for? To be honest, we didn’t know but the prospect of a Republican in the Governor’s mansion again was a risk that we were willing to take – and we did.
The rest of the story is history. Arnold Schwarzenegger ended up standing for Arnold Schwarzenegger; which, is to say, he stood for whatever he darn well wanted to stand for. He was all over the map - he tried to slash the budget; that didn’t work so he did the exact opposite and sold bonds on our economy that this generation will have to pay for when our kids start going to college. He held out on using his political capital to instigate swift change only to hastily throw together a number of intelligent reforms; all of which were rejected. From there Mr. Schwarzenegger spent some time saving the world from global warming by signing shortsighted regulations and making sure that everybody knew that he drove a Hybrid Hummer. After a brief stint in the universal health care ranks Governor Schwarzenegger has come full circle and faces more budget woes and in a state that has the 4th highest unemployment rate in the country.
Moving forward to 2008 we face an eerily similar candidate in Senator John McCain. Ask yourself this – besides national defense, earmarks (only 1% - 2% of the budget), and reaching across the aisle what does John McCain stand for? What will he do about the current financial crisis? Social Security? Medicare? Furthermore, will conservatives have a voice in a McCain Administration? The Arizona Senator has billed himself as a leader who will stubbornly stick to what he thinks is right which, in most cases, is at odds with what most principled conservatives stand for. Is that something worth standing for? In John McCain’s mind placing ‘Country First’ is essentially an appeal to apply his miscellany beliefs above a focused set of ideas. Like Governor Schwarzenegger, Senator McCain’s foundation flounders early and often. Conservatives will have a hard time holding his ‘feet to the fire’ if he has no reference in which to listen.
0 comments:
Post a Comment