Semi-Daily Journal

Media appeal. Other than that, nothing.

Box office draw.

State of the state speeches will now come with special effects.

He's killed a lot of aliens, and saved the world from evil machines at least twice.

Postrel is probably supporting Schwarzenegger's pro-business rhetoric (same reason Dan Weintraub seems to support him), although I know that McClintock supporters think he's likely to raise taxes in the end.

"cwush your enemies, see them dwiven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women"

Conan the Barbarian (aka Arnold Schwartzenegger)

He's not Davis, nor a Democrat, had nothing to do with creating the current crises, and has star power.

Brad, you implicitly assume that at least one of the 500,000 Californians best qualifies to be governor is running. I have seen no evidence of that during the campaign, at least not since Ueberroth dropped his candidacy.

Clearly Davis, Bustamante, and Ahnuld would be hard put to make an honest case that they are among those 500,000 most qualified Californians. McClintok and Camejo are unlikely to make the cut either simply because they care so little for mainstream opinion.

So perhaps you are suggesting that we should all vote for Leo Gallagher, Gary Coleman, or Larry Flynt?

I say "no on recall, yes on Bustamante." Not because Cruz is among the best 500,000 but because he is the only one on the list who is even in the top half of all Californians.

He's not Davis, nor a Democrat, had nothing to do with creating the current crises, and has star power.

Some libertarians will apparently support anyone who promises a smaller government, no matter how sleazy.

He's an extremely rich white male of very limited mental capacity, and that's the kind of leader America most values these days.

And anyone who disagrees is a terrorist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/opinion/05KENN.html

From Pitchforks to Proposition 13
By DAVID M. KENNEDY

On Jan. 25, 1787, 1,200 desperate farmers brandishing barrel staves and pitchforks attacked the federal arsenal in Springfield, Mass. They called themselves the Regulators. Led by a debt-plagued veteran of Bunker Hill and Saratoga named Daniel Shays, they sought firearms with which to enforce their threats to close the courts in western Massachusetts and compel the legislature to enact debt-relief measures, including an inflationary paper currency and an end to mortgage foreclosures.

A single cannon volley killed four of the embattled farmers. Then a Revolutionary War hero, Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, arrived with a militia that scattered the remaining rebels and relentlessly hunted them down through the heavy snow. Yet the Regulators' failed outburst had consequences that have shaped the character of American politics for more than two centuries, up to the current recall election in California.

The uprising was handily crushed. But it intimidated the Massachusetts legislature into enacting laws that menaced the interests of the monied class. Many leaders in the founding generation gagged on this apparently craven pandering to the popular will. Outright insurrection was one thing, but the state legislature's cavalier disregard for property rights was a far more insidious threat. "An elective despotism," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "was not the government we fought for."

Shays' Rebellion, in short, had demonstrated that America was not immune from the inherent affliction that theorists of democracy had warned against since the days of the ancient Greeks: that a government based on the will of the majority would inevitably yield to the demands of the "mob" and lead to a tyranny of the majority. Such a polity would be resentful toward excellence and callous toward minority rights. Worst of all, it would wield the power of the state against more prosperous members of society and confiscate their wealth....

Let Reason's lovestruck Jacob Sullum explain.

http://reason.com/sullum/080803.shtml

....

"Years ago I was handing out place cards at a banquet sponsored by the Reason Foundation when I was approached by a square-jawed man with bushy eyebrows and a prominent forehead. "Schwarz-e-neg-ger," he said helpfully."

"The flat, Austrian-accented delivery was familiar, but I was surprised that a big movie star would pick up his place card personally. Didn't he have people for that sort of thing?"

----------------------

Arnold used to go to Reason Foundation events and has even chatted with Austrian expat Milton Friedman from time to time.

Hell, the man is Howard Roark and John Galt all rolled into one. Of course she's going to support him. It's like he burst straight from the pages of those Ayn Rand books she used stay up past her bedtime reading under the covers with a flashlight.

Bruce Cleaver writes:

> He's not Davis, nor a Democrat, had nothing to do with
> creating the current crises, and has star power.

I guess that depends on how you define the "current crisis".
If you're talking about the budget, he gleefully supported Proposition 49. I think I would strongly argue that a major problem with California today is that budgets at all levels are hemmed in by well-meaning (or not-so-well-meaning) initiative stipulations on taxes and spending.

Another aspect of the "current crisis" is the crisis in confidence people are having with their elected government. Politicians have become increasingly cynical about taking realistic positions on pressing issues. Schwarzenegger, and every candidate running in the recall election who has said nothing credible about how they plan to solve the budget problem, is being incredibly cynical. In the not-very-long-term, this will only feed into the current crisis.

As far as not being a Democrat goes, I'm not sure I see how that will help anything, since the spectacular failure this spring was getting a 2/3 majority to pass the budget when only a majority of the legislature were Democrats. How likely do you think it is be that Arnold will be welcomed with open arms by Democrats in the legislature? To do anything serious (but not Radical Republican) next year, he might end up needing most or all of their votes.

This recall election is going to end up being a horrible event even if they can keep the lawsuits about the voting itself down to a minimum.

Ginny Postrel is simply a radical right hack with a smile that makes her hackery less obvious than several of her hack mates. Arnuld is a Republican front runner, get him elected. If Arnuld needs to be turned to the radical right, that will come later. Ginny is angling for Faux spots.

I'm trying to figure out how ARNOLD will reduce the deficit? He has refused to say anything of substance on spending except where he will increase it. So will he raises taxes and on whom? Certainly not on his "Country Club" backers (this is McClintock's term for his GOP colleagues). If ARNOLD becomes governor, middle class Californians should get ready for some hefty tax increases. Too bad, ARNOLD refused to be honest about this.

I have the impression the Schwarz isn't dumb. He has a college education, made a success of himself in two (related) lines of work, reads, hangs out with thinkers as well as celebs. He, unlike Bush, is curious. That is a far cry from being prepared to tease apart the problems facing California and make the best of them. His latest text says that California has everything it needs to prosper but leadership. Ya hafta know where yer goin' before ya can lead. Watch for that deer-in-the-headlights stare the first time a problem comes along he hadn't anticipated. Even the problems he has anticipated, like dealing with an $8 bln shortfall (or is it $38 bln?) without cutting madates or education, are looking pretty difficult. This governance stuff, it takes practice.

Worrying why Ms Postrel says anything regarding politics means you are thinking too hard. She has chosen her team, and will cheer for them no matter how badly they play.

>I say "no on recall, yes on Bustamante." Not because Cruz is among the best 500,000 but because he is the only one
>on the list who is even in the top half of all Californians.

Well said. And the fact that Bustamante -- the only prominent Democrat on a ballot with two prominent Republicans in our heavily Democratic state -- will likely lose today is a political catastrophe.

Sorry -

There will be no hefty tax increases in California! To raise taxes in california takes a two-thirds majority in the legislature. Simply "allowing" the tax on vehicle registrations to rise to levels of years ago will likely assure the recall of the Governor.

There will be no hefty tax increases for Californians, for that would be the end of Arnuld's career in politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/opinion/05KENN.html

David Kennedy -

...In California more democracy has produced not more attacks on the wealthy and big business but chronic chaos and even paralysis — a kind of political catatonia perversely sanctified by neoconservative and libertarian dogmas that assert, as another former governor of California put it, that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." ...

[A] social class of small property owners, and its attendant attitudes, are now ascendant in California, and perhaps in the nation at large. Their influence explains why the government... has now become the object of popular suspicion and hostility. Americans apparently prefer misgovernment that will leave them to their own devices to an effective government that might actually do something for them — or ask something of them.

Hey, for a libertarian, a fiscally conservative but socially liberal candidate is about as good as one can find among the duopoly parties.

But this particular libertarian just did something which he thought he'd *never* do, and voted against the Davis recall.

Nor did TPL vote for der Groppenfuhrer. I can't in good conscience select for high public office a man whose demonstrable conduct towards women is such that, were he an employee of my business, I would have had to dismiss him on the grounds of his creating a hostile workplace.

And there's a considerable cognitive dissonance involved when listening to a guy who claims he's an environmentalist and who has six Hummer SUVs in the garage.

Voted for McClintock downticket. Not because I am a particular fan of his social paleoconservatism, but because he struck me as at least willing to air principled views which he knows to be unpopular with large stretches of the electorate.

I am put in mind of Mencken voting for Robert la Follette, not because he agreed with some or in fact *any* of la Follette's positions, but simply because he thought the man was the most honest in the race.

It's embarassing that Postrel has to reach so far to find a way to praise Ahhnold.

Mr. King -

So far as I can tell, Prop 49 didn't cause the deficit all by itself. Arnold was a private (albeit influential) citizen at the time, and perhaps the realities of office will change his outlook. As far as not being a Democrat goes (and it goes a *long* way), that is simply human nature. The Dems had their bites at the apple, the deficit occurred under their aegis, and that is that - why keep doing the same thing if it doesn't work?.

marquer said:
Voted for McClintock downticket. Not because I am a particular fan of his social paleoconservatism, but because he struck me as at least willing to air principled views which he knows to be unpopular with large stretches of the electorate

That's a great point. I didn't vote for McClintock, but I was attracted to him for that same reason. He was the only one of the major candidates to speak his mind.

I can't wait to hear our fate...

Voted against the recall. The reason was not Governor Davis, but that I do not find that California is in poor shape relative to other states, actually I rather like our state, and Davis has done the best with the budget constraints we have. What would Arnuld do that would magically make the deficit vanish with no lossof services and no tax increases? I have no clue.

Then, there is the shameful behavior to and comments about women of Arnuld. I can not get past this when I think of my family. Comments made by Arnuld about women just this July were shameful. Playful, I think not playful.

One word.

Lidership.

To compare Schwarzy with Machiavelli, Ha Ha Ha!
(ok, I'll try to compare a Rolls Royce to a Beetle!,Hmmm)

Politics as well as economics (Krugman) should (normally) be an art, not an art-(ist)!

P.S.: Go Brad go, even though all this terribly hurts!

Bruce Cleaver writes:
>
> So far as I can tell, Prop 49 didn't cause the deficit all by
> itself. Arnold was a private (albeit influential) citizen at the
> time, and perhaps the realities of office will change his
> outlook.

My objection to Prop 49 in particular is that it is yet another attempt to "budget by proposition". In this case, it sort of had an escape clause whereby if receipts didn't increase by at least $X, then it wouldn't be fully funded, but it was a grand-standy publicity play that didn't make the budget situation any easier. Even in an indeal situation, half a billion here, half a billion there...you know the joke.

Meanwhile, why vote for somebody who *might* someday change his outlook and *might* actually come up with a plan about how to govern? I guess I should feel lucky that I haven't heard more people use the "yes, but he'll surround himself with good advisors" line; that trick never works.

I thought Postrel lived in NY (or is that just where she publishes)?

It is easy to back the terminator or any other action hero if you don't have to live with the consequences.

>She has chosen her team, and will cheer for them no matter how badly they play.
Sadly, that seems to apply to a great many comments on this thread (although non-economist gets style points for recycling the now famous quote).

Let me at least advance some hypotheses to address Brad's question:

H1: To the extent California's problems are addressable by State politics, the "Big Problem" is that the Republican party has been taken over by social conservative ideologues who would rather be right than elected, and thus there is no effective competition to the State Democratic Party, which thus is beginning to act as an unchecked monopoly, giving in to classic ills (unaccountability, self-dealing, featherbedding, corruption, etc). Arnold would wrench the Republican party towards the middle, making it competitive enough to at least keep the Democrats on their toes, and improve State governance.

H2: To the extent California's problems are addressable by State politics, the "Big Problem" is that State government has been captured by special interests (Indian Gaming, State employees and retirees, benificiaries of various regulations, etc). Arnold is probably in the top 1000 in California if the key virtue is the synergy of "Not being involved with or beholden to most State special interests" and "can be elected Governor."

H2.1 Similar to H2, but also posits a "cultural contamination" whereby spending a lot of time in State government, even in opposition, aculturates people into excessive acceptance of special interest dealing. [Note, I think there are voters who believe this, but I suspect many of these voters are going to more fringe candidates than CAT {Cruz, Arnold, Tom}]. In this hypothesis, Cruz or Tom might be better than Arnold in stated positions, but worse as an actual Governor.

H3: Arnold has some subset of the following characterstics, and by hypothesis the ones he has are virtues: disciplined, driven and willing to work hard and focused, intelligent, familiar with business-side impacts of state regulation, able to work with powerful people, effective public communicator, sincere and long-developed grounding in public policy issues [it may have been some Reason Foundation thing, but Arnold could only have showed up because he was actually interested somehow], able to delegate, able to negotiate with multiple other interests, able to rally popular support, able to campaign successfully for a State initiative, sincerely concerned about Californian society, etc.

Bakho: My understanding is that Virginia Postrel lives in Texas, but used to live in California and would like the option to some day move back, but sincerly feels that the State direction under Davis hurts California over the long term, and thus reduces the chance that California will be the sort of successful, vibrant and inviting place that she would like to be able to move back to.

To bakho:

U're totally right, but everybody (except those who had invested in the Tech-Hedge-Funds) made the same mistake entailing these current consequences!(worldwide)

Intelligence, ambition, hard-work, forthrightness, political courage, and a refreshing lack of sleaze tactics or condescending elitism.

That wasn't so hard.

The world will be a great place when we can pick from a better crop of human beings than we appear to have at the moment.

Certainly there is hypocrisy on both sides and we should strive to conduct ourselves and our inquisitions better.

Strange, the advantage to Clinton, a left-of-center Demo who saved the Demos from their left wing long enough to be really feared by the right-wingers, is just like Arnold, a moderate Republican who doesn't want to make a theocracy out of the US as some on the far right might want.

Roy

I'm quite finished discussing Arnie after the discussion we had on his (slightly altered) "How many times do you get away with this -- to take a right-wing hack, grab her upside down, and bury her face in a toilet bowl"-statement at http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002303.html
However, I do think Postrel have lots of good fresh ideas on the economy, the new new-economy, the service economy. But her latest post - it was good to have no plan on Iraq bcause Iraq was to difficult for plans - does IMO prove lise's claim above.

http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/000569.html

Mr. King -

"Meanwhile, why vote for somebody who *might* someday change his outlook and *might* actually come up with a plan about how to govern?"

Tom's post above elucidates the _positive_ reasons for voting for Arnold far better than I could. He is dynamic, successful in his own right, and projects confidence (er, Arnold that is. Maybe Tom too).

There is a truism in chess that says a bad plan is better than no plan at all, but to (mis)apply the analogy, California's Legislative/Executive branches have proven that truism wrong. It could well be that Arnold will a dud, but the alternative has **proven** to be a dud (I include Bustamante in the alternative).

A friend of mine had a client visit his office. She was rip roaring made, because her dentist had felt her breast while examining her teeth. My friend said, oh, I guess he qualifies for governor of the state of california. She said. No, when Arnold did that stuff he didn't know he would one day be running for office. But he admitted to it, my friend implored. So what. So, this woman wants to sue her doctor for unwanted touching but will allow Arnold a free pass to be governor. What if Arnold had killed a man years before, not knowing he would one day be governor? Does he get a free pass then? Cheated on his taxes? Sold arms to right wing hit squads in central america? Keep down costs on his films by hiring undocumented workers?

"the _positive_ reasons for voting for Arnold ... He ... projects confidence". If you think "projecting confidence" will fix it, I don't think you will.

"What, pray tell, are the public virtues that Arnold Schwarzenegger has that would put him in the top 500,000 Californians best qualified to be governor?"

Gee, being in that 500,000 would put him in the top 2%, which seems a pretty high hurdle for any of these people.

Of course, all he really has to be better than are Davis, Cruz, McClintock and Huffington. A much lower hurdle to clear. Looks like practically an impression in the ground from this distance (not that many politicians in this part of the world tower much higher). That's how modern democracy works, alas, the worst of all systems except for everything else that's been tried.

"Arnold ... even chatted with Austrian expat Milton Friedman from time to time. Hell, the man is Howard Roark and John Galt all rolled into one."

Austrian expat? Milton was born right here in New York City.

But Arnold did more than chat, he did the video introduction to the updated version of "Free to Choose".

And if just chatting with Milton would've made him Howard Roark and John Galt all rolled into one, eeech, maybe this means he really is a Nazi!

I'm convinced that for some people who call themselves conservatives (and libertarians) the bottom line is simply not to be Democrats. When you look at Bush's betrayals on fiscal conservativism and free trade, the bizarre and treacherous smearing of Wilson, and various doubtful aspects of the runup to second Iraq war and of the occupation of Iraq -- most of the **Republican** (and libertarian) reasons for supporting Bush are simply not there any more. Yet many " 'thoughtful' conservatives" and libertarians are still firmly in Bush's pocket.

I take it personally. They hate me. It's really stupid, because I'm neither a very good Democrat or a typical one, just to make me miserable they're voting for a series of non-Democratic incompetents and con-men. But what can I do?

Yeah, I'm aware that this thread is about Schwarzenegger and not Bush. Same problem.

Why I would vote for Arnold if I lived in CA:

1. He has Warren Buffet as his financial advisor (Warren is a Dem). Arnold likely doesn't know a lot about finance and will take the excellent advice of Mr. Buffet.

2. There's little that anyone can do about the mess CA's in without raising taxes in some form, better that the Republicans are responsible for a tax increase than allowing them to blame it on the "tax and spend" Democrats.

Ahhnold for Governator!

Kosh, the GOP can still blame it on the Democrats. They'll simply claim that it wouldn't have been necessary if it weren't for the 'tax and spend' Democrats.

As for advisors, sorry. I've heard that one before, back in 2000.

s.m.: Your comment was mean, but very funny.

Zizka: I feel the same way as you do.

Sorry, Kosh, ingenious; but Warren Buffet lasted a few hours as Schwarzenegger's advisor. He stepped out of line and the fanatics smacked him upside the head. This explains why Barry's point is true. Fanatics can always drive out the level-headed moderates unless their advisee has some neurons to rub together.

So is Buffet no longer Ahhnold's financial advisor? If so, I withdraw my endorsement.

But back to Postrel's original comment:

Is respect for laws, or at least for good laws, like laws against sexual harrassment, unwanted touching, etc., merely a "Private Virtue"? I think this falls into the realm of "Public Virtue". Schwarzi's offenses go beyond a matter of "character". I would also argue that a basic level of respect for women -- for people in general -- falls under the heading of "Public Virtue". So, while I agree with your point that Arnold has a lack of Public Virtues, I think he's actually running a deficit in that department.

Let the looting begin!

This is very interesting: the Republican idea seems to be "no, Schwarzenegger won't be a good governor, but his moderate appeal makes him one to end the monopoly power of the Democrats in California, thus, even if Arnold is a bad governor, making the Democrats better governors."

It kind of reminds me of the argument that Republicans should run big deficits to force democrats to cut spending, not so much on the substance of the argument itself, as on the idea that good (i.e. Republican ideals) is achieved not through direct action, but through a kind of Rube Goldberg political chain that makes government better through the reaction of the opposition to one's policies.

My quibble here is, why couldn't the Republicans have found a *better* moderate, electable candidate, who would both do well as governor directly AND force the Democrats to clean up? Schwarzenegger's the only one with the independent stature to get past social conservatives who dominate the state party?

(cont'd from previous post)

In that case, when Arnold gets in, and presumably is ineffectual in addressing the core problems facing California, how is he supposed to break the hold of social conservatives on his own party? If he can't, doesn't he leave the core ingredients of Democratic hegemony untouched, his own (few years) of governorship aside?

Funny, these people sound like Leninists. I think that it was in a book by Doris Lessing that the beastly, upper-class Marxist revolutionary says something like "You don't make a revolution by being nice to the servants." There's probably a bunch of stuff in Brecht too.

"Schwarzenegger's the only one with the independent stature to get past social conservatives who dominate the state party?"

In a word, yes.

Hum, 50 comments and only four represent serious attempts to answer Brad's original question. Mind, with all respect to Brad, I'm not sure he really wanted an answer; his post struck me as venting rather than a serious query in search of an answer.

But, for the record... I used to be legal counsel to a governor. My ex-boss was in many ways a wonderful and admirable human being, and his policy decisions were (IMO) for the most part good and occasionally brilliant. Unfortunately he was a poor administrator, an erratic public speaker, and congenitally unable to compromise on issues that he considered "his". So you surely won't be surprised to hear that, after accomplishing only a few of his policy objectives, he failed of re-election and has not since returned to public office.

Point being, a politician has to be at least minimally competent _as a politician_ in order to accomplish anything, good or bad. And there is a school of thought that holds that we shouldn't care about our politicians' private views and private lives -- any more than we care whether our plumber is cheating on his wife or not -- as long as the necessary job gets done.

Anyhow. For the record, I wouldn't have voted for Arnold -- but I can see where he'd have a number of "public virtues" that would make him at least a plausible candidate. Intelligent, driven, disciplined, self-made man, effective communicator: there are five right there. I could come up with another five if you like.

To be an intelligent, driven, disciplined self-made man who is an effective communicator does not, of course, mean you'll be a good politican or a good governor. But it's a good long step in the right direction. By way of comparison, a stupid, lazy, slovenly rich kid who can't communicate is not likely to be a good leader, no matter what a moral paragon s/he may be in private life. (No, I won't. You can if you want to.)

Anyhow point here is -- Arnold probably /is/ one of the 500,000 Californians most qualified to be Governor, if by "qualified" we mean purely technical competence as a politician and ignore particular policies (or the lack thereof).

And I'd further add that Brad's inability or refusal to grasp this is a bit off-putting. Let me say again: I wouldn't have voted for the man. But this posture of hands raised in uncomprehending horror... well, it could very easily be seen as contempt for the intelligence and perception of the average California voter. Which is very much the sort of thing that has gotten Democrats in general, and liberal Democrats in particular, into so much trouble over the last little while.

So, loving you as I do, Brad, I'd ask you to take a deep breath and think again about this.

Doug M.

"Intelligent, driven, disciplined, self-made man, effective communicator"

scratch at least three of those five

intelligent:
you did see some of his idiotic comments about economics, and his non knowledge demonstrated by non answers in the debate and interviews, right?

disciplined:
well in at least one respect, he can't control himself. it's a pretty empty description anyway. do you mean he's disciplined enough to pump up his muscles? expertise in body building and acting doesn't necessarily translate well into government administration -- so what is your argument here?

effective communicator:
yes, "we will take back caleeforneea from these special interests" is so compelling. john mccain at least had some ideas when he tried that trick.

self-made man:
by that standard, so is Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise for president!

That isn't to say I'm necessarily worried. We'll have to see what the hired help can do. Seems like a gamble to me.