In what is essentially my first really political post on this here blog, I thought I'd weigh in on the recall election which tonight saw Gray Davis leave office for the incoming Governor-Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Like many, when the recall drive started I too was skeptical and amused by the proceedings. Hundreds of people getting enough signatures and money to secure them a place as a potential candidate. 135 passing the grade to be on the actual ballot, and the seemingly insane option Schwarzenegger as Governor. Or Gary Coleman, for that matter.
Oh sure, the (admittedly bad) jokes were endless and easy to come by: The Terminator, The Running Man. A friend commented: "if he becomes Governor, I can just imagine the voice-over ads they'll run in BART: 'buy a return ticket because... you will be back!'"
When friends and acquaintances would ask me about the election and where I stood, most often I pleaded benign ignorance on any of the core platforms of the candidates and the issues affecting California. I had only moved here just a over a year ago and still strongly identify with the East Coast. While I have absolutely no plans to move, I still don't think of myself as Californian.
When the subject of Arnold would come up, I'd inevitably launch into my half-joking bit about seriously considering voting for Arnold if only for the comedic value, regardless of his views or experience. "Politics", as it's practiced in this country, has little effect on the average person and is completely devoid of actual worth on the public, I'd argue. Bush was elected to the White House without the majority of the popular vote, but with a lot of it, and with enough electoral votes, however one might feel about that, which cemented how ridiculous it was to think of American politics as anything but farcical. Such was how I'd explain my theory about who I might vote for in the election.
Most of which is, of course, bullshit. I knew this. It was a devil's advocate argument designed to see how people reacted to such an stance, but I was being serious when I said I was "half-joking".
The actual fact of the matter is, I did follow the candidates pretty seriously once all the lots were cast and the stage was set with Bustamante, Camejo, Davis, Huffington, McClintock, and Schwarzenegger. To be honest, I had a bona fide interest in Schwarzenegger. Early in when I started paying closer attention, I was hearing things from him that I liked and agreed with, and on a closer inspection of his key stances on "the issues", found little that I really disagreed with.
For one, it was clear that on the campaign trail, Schwarzenegger was not an party Republican, but more of an ideological Republican, more centrist, and closer to an independent than the staunch Republicanism of old and Good Old Boy business-backed GOP as seen in Bush, G.H.W. Bush, and the like. The distance the White House maintained on the question of Schwarzenegger as a Republican candidate in California and the late-to-arrive official GOP support of his campaign, boded well. This was someone who I hoped would not be easily used by those forces. He certainly didn't need their financial support to enter the race. His populist-themed message was more like McCain than Bush, and I had liked McCain in the run-up to the 2000 election.
Schwarzenegger has presence on stage and in front of crowds, speaks well for not being a native speaker, plays the outsider card to his benefit, and stayed on message. Criticized by many for not having experience in "the game" and thus likely being ineffective in actual government, he did have very basic, refreshing ideas about transparency at the State level that no one else even addressed or acknowledged. While experience in the process of politics is a good thing, I don't think it's the primary skill one absolutely needs to specialize in to be effective. Instead, someone who is more connected to the people of the state he or she serves, who learns the ropes and finds his or her way, but keeps his or herself centered and on balance stands to do a much better job as he or she will actually reflect the will of the people, for better or for worse, through government, rather than reflecting the inward game of government through the people.
It remains to be seen how Schwarzenegger will do in his new role. He is untested. He has made many promises and needs to deliver on them. He has many critics who will continue to attack him more forcefully then ever before, and he has an entire state of people, many of whom voted for him, who so desperately want to see him fulfill his promise. He has done it before in bodybuilding and in acting, being largely a self-made man. An immigrant who made his own destiny here, not coming from wealth but earning it his own way.
I was surprised by how many political commentators I found myself agreeing with tonight as the endgame unfolded. During MSNBC's election coverage, Chris Matthews spoke with Joe Scarborough about Schwarzenegger and what his election means for the Republican party. Scarborough, a man whose views I am more roundly against than for, said that this signaled a growing movement to a more centrist Republican party, with more support from independents and moderates than hardline conservatives. Although it wasn't his Republican party, it was where he saw the future of the party going for the next few years. I agree. As evidenced by McCain before the 2000 election and before September 11th, and with the election of Schwarzenegger, albeit in a recall, with 18% to 20% of the Democratic vote (including many Hispanic voters seen as crucial votes and Bustamante's primary support group), Schwarzenegger didn't win because he was GOP -- he won because he was Republican in the more historical sense of the word.
- Republican
- "One who favors a republic as the best form of government."
- Republic
- "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them."
- "A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field."
Many of the commentators were expounding on what this might mean for the 2004 presidential election. Could California now be game for a GOP sweep in a Bush re-election campaign? I don't think so, and I hope not. While nominally members of the same party, Bush and Schwarzenegger are very different politicians, although one could argue they are both very new and inexperienced to the trade. While it is too early to see if Schwarzenegger is able to stand his ground between both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans in California, they have vastly different styles. Bush surrounds himself with personal advisors and tends to shy away from common interaction with wide audiences, including ones that might be against him. Schwarzenegger got hit with an egg and kept right on walking. Bush's approval rating is way down, post Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, with no clear outcomes in either, and mounting questions about the rationale of invading Iraq, beyond older questions of secret Administration meetings with energy companies before the fall of Enron and other Bush supporters. Schwarzenegger has promised an open door and open book policy. Bush seems to appeal to speak the common man, but barely has the ability to communicate to anyone. Schwarzenegger held rallies where people that were ready to discount him as a joke came to his side. Bush divides people. Schwarzenegger, so far, has been able to unite them.
