Arnold in the statehouse? Liberal Republicans?

Arbold strikes me as a Media Event ... with all the substance of a soundbite, so far. He is an intelligent, accomplished business person, but I see no reason to suspect him of any expertise in Governmental Administration. The California problems will be little affected by simply installing a new captain on the bridge of a foundering ship. To be honest, however, he very well could win ... I see no authentic challenger anywhere at this point. As near as I can figure it, California's electorate established the conditions which precipitated the state's fiscal woes and are scapegoating Davis for the inevitable consequences of their own longstanding, shortsighted, illconceived, selfserving, special interest legislation-by-ballot. Whoever emerges as Governor faces a Herculean, if not Sysiphian, task. What California needs is a real superhero, not an actor known for portraying them ... and as I understand it, real superheroes are neither current-manufacture nor available-inventory items.

Maybe a business person WOULD do a better job of governing than a professional politician. "Give him hell Harry" did a pretty good job!

"Sysiphian". That's as good a description of the difficulties in governing California as I've seen yet. The state has become ungovernable, and much of the problem has resulted from the addle-pated notion that the popular will should rule. Government becomes nearly impossible when the budget can not be managed. In California only a small faction of the budget is discretionary, so neither legislature nor the Governor has effective control over spending. Millions are wasted on socially "pretty", but ineffective programs. At the same time issues that should be high priority are left unfunded, and out of control. The public demands ever more service and a perfection that is rarely seen in human affairs, while the ability of government is continually erroded.

The current recall election is just another step downward as the Initiative process grinds away at the foundations of effective government. Whoooo, am I glad to have gotten out of California. There's a bad moon a'rising.

I once lived in a small, declining, isolatedly rural California town in "The Mountains" of the East Bay. "The Community" pretty much revolved around the few remaining local shops and the bar/grill, whose owner, facing an unopposed re-election to the essentially pointless job of mayor (no Public Safety, no Chamber of Commerce, no media, no Public Works, no schools, no library, no garden club, a recently closed post office and a three or four member Town Council of dismissive indifference to much beyond the menu for the next meeting) decided it just wasn't worth the effort of going through with again and declined to run. Jokingly it was suggested that the fella's dog, a black lab named "Bo", would be a suitable write-in candidate. To make a long story short, Bo's funeral, a bit before the end of his second term as mayor, was an occasion of great solemnity. The little community, BTW, has since been subsumed into the Silicon Valley megalopolis.

Off the main topic, but Sophia really did open the door on this. I've heard the term 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' before, but is this really possible? I mean, somewhere along the line that fiscally conservative type is going to be asked to pay for those socially liberal policies.

Just a passing thought, but I have heard people make this statement before.

Akshully, rog, I would think that observation quite topical ... I too am perplexed by the contrary implications of Social Liberalism/Fiscal Conservatism. Somehow, however, I rather doubt the Left Coast Electorate will be given much to considering the dichotomy. Consequences, or cause-and-effect appear to be of little relevance to the calculations of the folks out there ... which, as I see it, is pretty much how they've gotten themselves into this pickle in the first place.

'Socially liberal' speaks to motive and sensibility toward individual rights, at least where I'm concerned. It doesn't address funding of programs.

It supports more private sector programs (like the one Arnold sponsers.) Private citizens and corporations donate the money--concerned citizens devote their time.

I strongly prefer finding private sources of funding, or programs that enable people to do more for themselves, and not nurture a reliance on the government.

Oh. Actually, I'm not against all social programs, by any means. Nor do I insist that each and every one of them pass some sort of cost/benefit analysis. What I do object to are programs that have no discernable benefit, and having failed, are tried again with greater funding.

Back to topic - I like Arnold too. And hey, where can California go from here? Hey, it all ties together. Don't keep trying more of what has already failed.

Socially liberal - fiscally conservative means, IMO, you defend individual freedom, endorse tollerance, repeal censorship, welcome migration while you are pro-business and against welfare state type expenditures and taxation.
A conservative-conservative is pro-business, against welfare state, but also against "excesses" in freedom of speech, rights of minorities (be them black, gay or women) and favors such stuff as compulsory military draft and army-type control of migration.

As for Arnold, I like several of his movies. But having former governor Pete Wilson as his adviser makes me be against him.

This California voting is for me a signal of decadence in America's democracy. A gut feeling. Too much stardom, too much seduction, too much internal bickering, too little institutions, too few ideas and programs. And a mess for the electorate.

Socially liberal - fiscally conservative means, IMO, you defend individual freedom, endorse tollerance, repeal censorship, welcome migration while you are pro-business and against welfare state type expenditures and taxation.
----------
fbaezer's explanation is much better than mine. I agree with it completely.

As for Arnold, although I like his politics (personal choices), I'm not sure I'd endorse his candidacy for the Governorship. I'd be a lot more comfortable if he were running for the Senate.

I do think he'll win, and that may or may not be a bad thing. (He can't do much worse than Davis.)

I'm conflicted on Arnold for Gov. Part of me says if farmers and cattlemen and small business owners can serve in the Senate, who am I to say an actor can't. But, correct me if I'm wrong--serving as a representative in the Senate is a far cry from the administrative duties of running a state. Is it really as easy as surrounding yourself with like-minded advisors, and being the figurehead?

The other part of me says his candidacy lends to the circus atmoshpere. I hated seeing shrieking autograph hounds swooning at his announcement. (Of course, this happened plenty when JFK and RFK were running...)

I almost think his nomination is a done deal. I just hope he performs admirably.

That pretty much works for me too, Sophia

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, I thought that was Dean? <grins>

Actually, the phrase sounds pretty much like what in Europe called "liberal" parties. Liberal, here in "Old Europe", mind you, means rightwing. (Only in the UK, as well as some CEE countries - Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia (kinda) spring to mind - are the liberal parties counted as part of the left.)

Germany, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, France (sorta, submerged in the "majorite preesidentielle"), all feature sizable political parties that call themselves liberal but place themselves on the right half of the political spectre. (The Baltic countries, Poland and, to lesser extent, the Czech and Slovak Republics could be added to the list, though there their positioning would be more in the centre, between leftist/post-communist and nationalist-conservative or nationalist-populist blocs.)

They propagate for the free market economy, privatisation, cuts in social spending, balanced budgets, and might well throw in some law & order. In most of these countries, they will be associated with the rich, with business people, entrepreneurs and family-business shopkeepers. But they have no Christian political identity, which already sets them apart from what usually is their "bigger brother" on the right, and will be more prone than their right-wing competitors (and some left-wing competitors too) to liberalise laws concerning gay rights, abortion, even euthanasia, drugs - all the stuff religious conservatives will rail against. They're libertarians-light, say. Mostly more liberal on immigration/naturalisation as well, though the nationalist fever has claimed some victims among them (the Austrian Freedom Party most notably having been lost to the extreme right).

So the concept sounds familiar enough :-).

Most of you seem to "like" Arnold. Can I probe y'all a little on that? I mean, there must be more to a choice than that, right? The Dutch newspapers seem a bit at a loss to identify what the actual planks of his program (or future policies, for that matter) would be, at all. What's more to Arnold than being the kinda guy you'd like? What ideas, proposals etc of his you agree with? What would you expect him to do in/with California? And which qualifications does he bring that makes you think he could do it?

Arnold's press flacks have indicated he will be making detailed statements of position in the comming days. Everyone pretty much has to wait 'till then to find out what Arnold's agenda is, I guess. I'm not so sure I "Like" Arnold politically; he has no track record, nor even any applicable experience, so far as I can see. I don't deny out-of-hand he may prove an adequate, even accomplished politician, I just see no basis on which to expect such. Business accumen does not equate to mastering the complexities and nuances of major political office, particularly the Governorship of a state which by itself would be a considerable nation. I have serious doubt that Arnold is the right person for the job, but then, that can be said of the 250 or so official applicants, I suppose. Maybe Bustamonte, but I'm confident his association with Davis puts him out-of-the-money at the finishline. With his popularity, even though without political credentials, Arnold is, at least for the present, the only real contender for the position. The Governator is likely to be his next role ... pity, I've always liked his movies ... plenty of flesh, blood, and explosions ... my idea of real cinematic entertainment.

An aside ... from kidhood, I've been a R. E. Howard fan, particularly Conan the Barbarian. In the early '70s, when Arnold burst onto the international bodybuilding scene, I looked at him there on the posing stage, and said to myself "Damn! That's Conan!" It would seem other folks had the same impression.

For me, all I know are his personal choices to spend a great deal of time and money sponsering afterschool care for underprivileged and homeless children. I know he paid $9 mil in taxes (when a lot of people zero out through loopholes) and donated $4 mil to charities. I know he is for individual rights, and doesn't discriminate against gays, blacks or women. (Although I disagree with his belief that AA should continue unchanged--this will find it's natural end in due time.) I know he supports a continued strong military, and strong industry. So, these things make him personally likable to me.

Your most important question about what he is expected to do in Cali is the still completely unanswered, as Timber said. If I were in Cali, I would be very concerned, and may vote for Simon. Arnold hasn't said anything, and considering his lack of experience, he would have to explain his ideas in order to get my vote. Nobody knows the direction he plans to take the state. I don't think I'd be nearly as light-hearted about this mess if I lived in California.

Yes, nimh has touched on my feelings about Arnold S. At this point in the campaign he has excellent name recognition sans the expense needed to create it. Also, Californians have little information as to his positions on the issues. In addition the media only have, what, 7 weeks to pick him and his ideas apart. Add Warren Buffet just joined his campaign and Mr. S. has a good chance of moving to Sacramento.

As others have mentioned, I also have problems with the resolution of State fiscal problems by referendum. In this election something doesn't seem quite right. We currently view a candidate that legitimately won his election by winning the majority, as I see it, now required to do so again --way before the allotted term is up. Now, if the voters require (on the first question of the ballot) that he be recalled, the candidate elected (on the second question) only needs 20 percent of the vote to take up residence in the state capital, seems flaky.

As regards the social responsibility of the government of a National State, well surely the state bares some responsibility to protect its citizens. The questions that I am sure would be the start of some passionate responses is: What constitutes protection and to what degree should the state involve itself?

Respectfully,

JM

Looks as though the court has taken the wind out of Arnold's sails.
I don't really claim a dog in this fight, but I think the court obviously acted politically. They claim the machines 'disenfranchise' some voters.

These were the same machines that were used to vote Davis in last year.

What we see in California is what may be viewed as a weakness of pure democracy. Until judicial activism came into play California's woes had three sources: Governor Grey Davis, its legislature, and its people who are ultimately responsible for both. We have seen this state's citizens repeatedly require increased state outlays for social programs (strangely enough the Republican Arnold Schwartzenegger was instrumental in successfully promoting just such a program) while disallowing the means for collecting the revenues needed to pay for them. Dems may be known as "Tax and Spend" politicians but at least that moniker implies they understand how simple state financing works.

These same citizens are now blaming the Governor they elected twice with the results they themselves have largely contributed to. Granted, Davis shares some blame and the combined deregulation and skullduggery rampant in the energy sector were contributing factors, but surely, this Californian "Head in the Sand" attitude of its citizens rivals that which is presently seen in the Middle Eastern mind that contributes toward the inability of problem resolution.

As Sophia has pointed out, this court (9th Circuit) can be seen as acting politically. Some even claim it aspires to foreign policy by espousing election perfection by frowning upon "hanging chads" because "we are attempting to persuade the people of other nations" as to the value of elections. But at least it has not stopped the democratic process.

Many Republicans now cry "Foul!" but they conveniently forget that the 9th Circuit Three's decision is based on precedent. This precedent is embodied in a U.S. Supreme Court Case --- Bush v. Gore. This judgment, handed down in December 2000, shut down Florida's recall vote altogether. Here we saw Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and others get chalk all over their collective judicial robes from playing so close to the jurisprudence/activism foul line. These Justices simply found Florida's recount in violation of equal protection guarantees and ended the count rather than give the residents of Florida more time to remedy the situation.

Michael W. McConnell, a Bush conservative who now is a circuit court judge, felt the recount call was for the state to make and further voiced concern towards the U.S. Supreme Court in its "approving a manual recount under proper standards, but forbidding the state to conduct a recount because of time constraints"
Prophetically, McConnell saw that Bush would take office "under conditions of continued uncertainty"

Seems those in the Bush camp have a selective adversity to extending time in cases where chronology may be perceived disadvantageous, irrespective whether elections or inspections might be involved.

I know I'm beating the proverbial dead horse but it just seemed relative.


JM

Well stated, as always, Asherman. Glad to see the loonies haven't run you off. This (the bold above) illustrates why I am always pointing out that the US is not a democracy, nor is a democracy a desirable form of government. I also think we see in California exactly what Tyler describes in the quote I offered to start this thread:

On Democracy <- LINK

Of course, in that discussion you will find those who favor California's excesses--and who would foist them upon us all had they half a chance--attacking Tyler's words, without (it seems to me) even stopping to consider their meaning.