A successful businesman, married into a poitical family, runs as a center-right candidate against an immensely unpopular governor, a special-interest-bound lieutenant governor, and a true-blue conservative Republican ideologue … and wins.
Sounds like politics as usual, and in most cases it would warrant a few articles in the natiional press, perhaps, and that’s about it, even if it were in a big state, like New York or Florida or Texas or, yes, California.
But make that successful businessman a major Hollywood star as well, and suddenly it’s The World Turned Upside Down. Whether it’s conspiracy theorists, bewildered sf writers, or alarmist foreign journalists, everyone seems to think that the California public has taken leave of their collective senses for electing Ah-nold as governor.
But why? I mean, yeah, plenty of people disagree with his politics, to the extent they were elucidated, but that’s to be expected in any election. Tom McClintock was a lot more far to the right, and didn’t face anywhere near the eye-bulging hostlity and “are all of his supporters nuts?” that Arnold did.
Is it all just part of the “Dubya is an evil genius and/or an evil idiot, the GOP is the Great Satan, and therefore anyone running as a Republican is the Antichrist and anyone who votes for a Republican is absolutely insane” meme? Is every Republican that gets elected going to face the same collective gasp of horror and incredulity? I’d find that hard to believe (and would be aghast myself to discover that political discourse in this country has devolved so).
Is it just that he’s an actor? Well, you read the various comments about him, and, yeah, there seems to be a lot of “He’s a muscle-bound goon” or “he’s a shoot-em-up action guy.” That he’s an actor, and a former body-builder (another form of acting), and that he’s acted in a variety of action films, seems to be the easy ad hominem to level at him — by the same folks who hang on every word from Barbra Streisand or Martin Sheen or Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn or Ed Asner or Danny Glover, or who have no problem with Clint Eastwood serving as mayor of Carmel, or who want to see Robert Redford get into politics.
If Arnold were just an actor, it might cast some doubt on his qualifications as far as knowledge of the issues and so forth — though see above on the entertainment types who are somehow considered qualified to speak thereon (not to mention the sf writers also mentioned above).
On the other hand, don’t we all somehow hold to the myth that, really, anyone can be President? Or that we all collectively run this country? That you and me and the folks standing in line at the supermarket are qualified enough on the issues to be able to vote on ballot propositions and candidates, and to write nastygrams to our Congresscritters when they do something we dislike? That term limits are a good way to get rid of the folks who have been trained to the job, because citizen-statesmen is where it’s really at? Is there anyone among us who doesn’t really think, deep down, that if they were somehow tapped to be Governor of California through some bizarre lottery system, they couldn’t do at least as good a job as the other folks who have been elected to the role?
I mean, I’m not saying Arnold is any paragon of virtue, or that he’s some sort of super-genius who has the answers to all of California’s manifest problems. But is he really that much more stupid, vain, power-hungry, or unsuited to the role of governor than, say, Cruz Bustamonte, or Tom McClintock, or Gray Davis, or Pete Wilson, or George Deukmajian, or Jerry Brown, or Ronald Reagan, or Pat Brown? Were the folks who voted for him really all that strangely deluded or utterly insane for doing so?
I just don’t see it.
I kind of look at it as the newest “reality TV” show…”Cali Politics!”
It ought to be a fun few months/years.
-Will Ahnuld stop the lawsuit against Ken Lay and the power companies?
-After promising to get rid of the paltry (less then here) car tax, increase education spending, and balance the budget with only 20% of the $80B budget actually touchable…what state will the State be in next year?
-Will the White House monetarily help out the state after telling them to FO last year?
-Will Congress go along with this? Will all of the other states that are having budget problems be willing to help out poor Cali? Or will they pile on a bunch of pork for there own states when a Cali bail out bill makes it’s way through congress?
-When will the next Recall petition be started?
-Will any Cali Governor from here on out every do anything remotely unpopular (even though it’s the right thing to do…like raising taxes/fees)?
-Will the stupid prop 13 finally get killed?
Government by recall…good times…good times.
That state is starting to sound like the California in Heinlein’s “Friday”
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
If the voters weren’t totally fed up with Davis they wouldn’t have recalled him. This whole issue begs the question of how bad an elected official has to get before he can be recalled. “He hasn’t committed any crimes, which is what recalls were intended for.” Okay. So as long as no crime is committed it doesn’t matter if the state economy gets totally trashed. At what point can a state stand up and say “this person is incompetant and we change our minds about voting him in”? Do they have to allow for three more years of damage before they act?
I don’t claim to even be aware of the situation in California. Frankly, I don’t care. My state has its own problems. But I do get a little tired of everyone saying that Californians don’t know what is good for them. If they don’t, who does? And if they don’t, so what? It’s still THEIR right to choose.
My personal prediction is that Arnold will do better than anyone expected in some areas, worse than expected in others, and that the whole “Everyone’s going to recall everyone” scare will turn out to be a great big no show.
I wonder how many of the opponents of the recall on “the masses are too easily swayed to be rational voters” grounds also favor tossing out the Electoral College system at the national level because “the voice of the masses should reign supreme.”
My recollection of when I moved from there to here was that my car registration costs dropped by half. I doubt car taxes were reduced in the interim, and I don’t think Colorado’s have gone up that much, so I’m not sure how that tripling the car tax there was either “paltry” or “less than here.”
It’s certainly true that California has serious budget problems. Arnold and the GOP may be faced with the dilemma of the dog that finally catches the car. OTOH, it will be interesting to see how he deals with various special interest groups that are protecting at least that 20%.
I think it would be very politically difficult for the White House to push for preferential aid to California, in the face of other states with monetary crunches.
I suspect the next recall drive is already on its way. Though … hmmmm … does California have a “no sooner than” clause in its recall process? 3-6 mos? (I know Arapahoe Co. faced that in the Tracy Baker recall down here.). Question is, will enough of the voters be willing to go along with it, either in petition or in an actual recall election?
The recall threat, though, is part and parcel of California’s (over?)democratized politics (cf. Prop 13, et al.). It does run the risk of recall cycles (though I think there’s a serious fatigue factor there) as well as the threat of making folks in office overly-cautious (though that balances against incumbancy syndrome and paying more attention to lobbyists than polls).
It will be interesting to see if Prop 13 comes on the block, either for repeal or for revision. I think it’s had horrible effects, as well as serious distortions on the tax base, but it was also a response to property taxes being an easy thing to raise for politicians who wanted to do something, worthwhile or not.
I thought of the Friday analogy earlier in the week, yes.
That all said, my main post question stands — why is the elected choice of the majority of California voters considered so freakish?
First off, there’s a *huge* difference between being able to speak intelligently about political issues, and being able to run a state, especially one with huge problems like California. Do I think Janeane Garofalo has as much right as anyone to speak her mind on political or any other issues? Yes I do. Do I disagree with “they’re actors so they should just shut up” meme? Yes I do, extremely. That doesn’t mean I want her to become governor of Wisconsin.
What’s fascinating to me is how conservatives in this country have systematically destroyed the notion of qualifications in politics, to the point where the concept is meaningless. Don’t have any political experience? That’s what advisers are for! Can’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight? That’s what speechwriters are for! Have some embarrassing stuff in your background? That’s ancient history! It’s all partisan muckraking!
Obviously people have a disgust for “politics as usual.” The brilliance of the conservative tide in this country is they’ve managed to take that sentiment and use it against voters, cloaking the right’s own “politics as usual” in feel-good PR that people eat up with a spoon.
And no, I don’t want just anyone to be President. That’s the sentiment that got us where we are today.
What’s fascinating to me is how conservatives in this country have systematically destroyed the notion of qualifications in politics, to the point where the concept is meaningless. Don’t have any political experience? That’s what advisers are for! Can’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight? That’s what speechwriters are for! Have some embarrassing stuff in your background? That’s ancient history! It’s all partisan muckraking!
I’m by no means convinced that’s a “conservative” idea, even to the extent it’s true (or, for that matter, a bad thing).
Dave.
I was basing the Tax Statement on what a guy complaining on the news said the Taxes on his ’00 Honda were raised to (which is 2/3 of what I pay for on my ’94 Explorer…which I bought used 3 years ago).
I think they are depicted as “freakish” because they voted for him despite the attempts of the way-out-left LA Times, and other media, depicting him as a Hitler Idolizing womanizer.
As I see it, Arnold has one big advantage going into his Governorship (once the counties actually confirm it). His wealth will keep him from being swayed by special interest groups and/or lobbyists.
Well, at least it will keep him from being overly swayed by personal payoffs and promises of future cushy board memberships and the like.
On the other hand, he’s an ambitious guy. Power and control are part of what he seeks (like any politician), and that renders him vulnerable to those who can promise it (like any politician). After all, we have plenty of multi-millionaires in Congress who seem “swayed by special interest groups and/or lobbyists.”
Maybe the most we can hope for is that he hasn’t had decades of previous elected positions entangling him with debts and favors already owed.
A second recall is highly unlikely for the following reasons.
1. Even though the people voted for recall the exit poll question of whether it was worth the money had a plurality saying no.
2. The number of petitions needed is 12% of the previous election. This election had a lot more people participating than when Gray Davis was elected. Net result, more signatures would be needed.
3. The dirty campaigning at the end really pissed people off. It seems that Arnold learned more from Bill Clinton than the Democrats did. Make vague, non-specific, apologies, but be REALLY REALLY sorry. Makes the mud slingers look real bad.
4. Gray Davis was one of the most despised figures in the history of American politics. If the Democrats had not forbidden Feinstein from running, Arnold probably would not have won.
5. This has been tried over 30 times, and this is the first time that the recall stuck.
I think both the Republicans and the Democrats are over-generalizing what happened here. Is this a sea change? No. Arnold will not get recalled (because Gray Davis won’t be on the ballot), but he probably won’t be re-elected either (because Gray Davis won’t be on the ballot).
Re: taxes. Hm. I don’t know. I can’t find online info at any particular state site. Digging through the news …
This article indicates that what was going on was that the law had car taxes lowering — but with a provision that they could be bumped back up if state officials were having budget difficulty. The taxes had dropped 2/3, and when the Davis administration pulled the trigger on that provision, raising them back up to their previous levels, it effectively tripled them. The article claims that works out to an average increase of $130, for an aggregate $4.2 billion statewide. (The $130 is based on a $19k vehicle of average age.)
What interesting according to this story, is that the initial 2/3 decrease didn’t help the GOP, who put it through in 98 — but administratively raising it back up definitely hurt the Dems.
Both Colorado and California base their taxes on the original value of the vehicle. California taxes used to be (and have gone back to) 2% of the car’s value, reset with each resale, and go down 10% each year. Colorado’s never reset, go down over the first 4 years of the vehicle, stay steady for years 5-9, then remain at a fixed minimum thereafter.
The good news for you, Stan, is that your Explorer’s tax rate should go down in a year. The bad news is that once it does, it stops being proportional to the value of the vehicle, and the IRS no longer considers it a deductable property tax, but a fee.
Qualifications for public office? Who gets to set that? After all, we can have the most intelligent person in the country in an office and a large number of people will still think he/she is an idiot because they disagree with them.
For that matter, what gave our founding fathers the khutzpah to think they could set up a new country? What experience did they have in conduction revolutions and drafting new consititutions? Half of them were farmers, for crying out loud, and most of them were still in their first term as legislators!
There is no way that qualification for public office could or should ever be made law. If we can’t legislate who is allowed to call me at dinner time we certainly can’t legislate who can run for office. Such a law could be used to deprive us of representation and create a ruling class. Thank you, no. I’d rather run the risk of electing an Arnold than be forced to vote for a career politician.
Thom: I didn’t say qualification for office should be made law – not even close. What I said was, what are we left with to judge someone as qualified? What criteria do we use? If we have none, we might as well throw darts at the ballot and choose candidates that way. And every traditional measure of qualification has been decimated, largely by GWB, widely considered the least-qualified President in American history.
If we’re left with choosing candidates because we amorphously “like them” more than the other guy, that’s dangerous. We don’t even know them! We need objective ways to choose.
Politicians are easy to hate. No one says, “I don’t like doctors. So I think I’m going to give Joe the Mailman a crack at my hernia operation.” You call someone a “career politician” when you disagree with them; if you like them, they have “dedicated their life to public service.” Words mean things.
I’m not sure how GWB is the one who personally “decimated every traditional measure of qualification” for President. I’d think, if he were truly the “least-qualified President in American history” that it was the American voters who did the decimating (in both the primary and presidential elections, endless debate about Florida notwithstanding).
The question remains, then, what should be the qualifications that a candidate for President (or, I guess, Governor) should have? How should those qualifications be weighted? How much are personal qualities, or experience, or education, or whatever, worth — not to mention the eleventy-dozen subsets within each one? How much are policy positions (and history) worth? And how much should all that weigh against one’s consideration of the flaws of someone’s opponent?
I’m inclined to agree that voting for someone just because you “like them” isn’t the best way to do it — but I also wouldn’t rule out the value of that gestalt impression. Since we can’t know them, nor, for that matter, how being elected might affect them (for good and ill), how their mix of advisors might affect them (ditto), or how events may come out (ditto), there’s always going to be a lot of room for imponderables and non-objective measures.
As far as experience and all goes, it does cut both ways, both fairly and un-. That’s one reason why I’m generally opposed to term limits laws. On the other hand, there are times when it seems like the establishment needs shaking up — whether it’s Carter in ’76, the GOP Congress of ’94, or, on a smaller scale, Arnold in ’03. US politics reguarly goes through a phase of throwing the bums out, sometimes with ill consequences, but enough so that the career politicians (i.e., the bad ones) can’t automatically assume they’ll always win. I’m not sure that, even with the duds that occur, that’s overall a bad thing.
But there are qualifications mandated by the California constitution.
1. Be a U.S. citizen
2. Be registered with a political party three months prior to filing for a partisan candidate.
3. Be registered with no political party three months prior to filing for an independent candidate.
4. Be registered and able to vote for the office of governor.
5. Not have served two prior terms as governor.
Arnold cannot be president because the president must be born in the U.S.
Adam: Just because you may not agree with someone’s criteria for determining qualification doesn’t mean they have no valid criteria. Just because people elect a leader you don’t agree with doesn’t mean they didn’t make their decision by following a logical, rational process. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make here. It’s easy to decry the Californians as idiots who are incapable of making the right decision. But remember, they also chose Gray Davis twice, too. Were they foolish then, too?
Objective ways of choosing are all fine and good, but then again, whose objective method do we use? If there is a perfect criteria that will yield a correct, rational decision every time, what’s the point of having elections? We simply crunch the candidates’ info on a computer and it’ll tell us who is the best candidate.
I for one don’t hate politicians. Someone has to do it, and most are doing what they believe to be right. When I say “Career Politician” I mean someone who has been a politician for a while, having “come up through the ranks” of lower offices preparatory to the one they’re vying for now, which I assumed, perhaps erroneously, was one of your criteria for qualification. Being a career politician, in my view, is neither good nor bad. If you like them, you want their political career to continue. If you don’t, you’d like to end their career.
No, you did not say that qualification should be made law, but that is the only way you’re ever going to have everyone use the same set of qualifications to base their decisions on.
And, incidentally, there ARE people out there who hate doctors and probably WOULD prefer to give Joe the Mailman a crack at their hernia. Or at least listen to Joe if he prescribes some herbal remedy that “cleared my stomach pain right up!” That’s their choice, and whether or not I agree with it, I’d have to respect it.
Words mean things. Everyone is different. Words mean different things to different people. Isn’t this a great world?
Thom: You said “Being a career politician, in my view, is neither good nor bad.” But earlier you said, “I’d rather run the risk of electing an Arnold than be forced to vote for a career politician.” I took the first to mean you had a distaste for career politicians.
There is no perfect criteria for deciding qualification. And I never said everyone should use the same, either. But if experience doesn’t matter, positions don’t matter, grasp of one’s native language doesn’t matter, and background doesn’t matter, what does?
I for one would like to meet an Arnold supporter who had a stronger case for their vote than “He can’t be any worse than the other guy.” Yes, that kind of attitude does scare me.
Dave: You’re right. The conservatives made the case that GWB’s lack of experience, intellectual curiousity, verbal skills, success in business, military service etc. didn’t matter, and yes, the public bought it, because he seemed like “a nice guy” instead of the “pompous egghead” Gore. That scares me too, when you’re talking about the Leader of the Free World.
I guess I am curious how GWB got the moniker “least qualified president in American history”. I would think being governor of one of the largest and most influential states in the union would count as much as, say, winning a few battles in the Civil War (U.S. Grant) or even a governor of one of the smaller and least influential states in the union (Bill Clinton).
I personally don’t think GWB is the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think the liberal left exaggerates his deficiencies quite a bit. That’s part of politics.
As far as politicians go, I don’t really trust any of them very far.
Rich.
Sen. Hatch is working on a proposed admendment to change the requirments to become president…by getting rid of the “born in the U.S.” part.
Adam,
The key word in that quote was “forced.”
I can only assume you’re speaking in generalities now. Or are you discussing a particular politician? It appears you are either against Arnold or against Bush, or both, but your list of qualifications doesn’t completely apply to either one of them.
Bush: Has experience, has had positions. Command of native language is, I’ll concede, questionable. Background–well, that’s rather vague, in my opinion, anyhow, as there will always be two sides to that issue.
Arnold: No experience, no prior political positions. Probably does have a good command of his NATIVE language. Background is shaky, for sure, but again, what does this really mean? Is it possible for a person to learn and develop as an individual or not?
Just to play devil’s advocate a little longer (I DO believe that some experience should be necessary, and that background SHOULD count–which is why I would have had a hard time backing Arnold), I can think of several arguments for supporting Arnold better than “He can’t be worse than Davis.” How about: “He’s got a new perspective that could bring some fresh solutions to the table.” Or “He’s got friends in high places that could possibly give him some excellent advice.” Or “He’s got the entire experience of the Kennedy clan only a phone call away.” Or how about “He seems to be able to muster strong support from his constituency.” Or perhaps “He’s smart enough to know he doesn’t know it all.” Or (and this one is tongue in cheek) “He’s not a Democrat.”
You seem to contradict yourself. You don’t want to come right out and say Californians are stupid and don’t consider valid qualifications for electing their officials, and yet you do everything BUT say it. True, just saying “You’d like to meet” an Arnold supporter who has a valid reason for doing so isn’t outright calling them stupid, but by so saying you’re implying very heavily that you would never find such a person. Or is there a another generally accepted meaning to the cliche “I’d like to meet…” that I’m not aware of?
I’ve heard it proposed before. And it’s not just an Orrin Hatch scheme, or even a GOP one. Barney Frank has a similar measure in the House (and has been pushing it for some years).