Arnold the Centrist?

Was Arnold's election as governor of California a fluke, or is it symbolic of a larger trend?

On the one hand, the whole Schwarzenegger phenomenon could come crashing down as the new governor clashes with the hardened partisans in the state legislature over California's budget woes. Continued economic problems and an impasse on the budget could burst the Arnold bubble fairly quickly.

However, there is more to this crazy recall than a disenchanted electorate and a charismatic actor-turned-politician.

While he hasn't specified how he would balance the budget, Schwarzenegger did campaign on some strong themes, which resonated with California voters:

1. A friendlier business climate, especially on issues with which smaller businesses could identify, like workers’ compensation premiums.
2. Social tolerance.
3. Fiscal restraint, with tax increases only a last resort.

One lesson for Democrats is that anti-tax sentiment may not soon dissipate. Voters really don’t seem ready for tax increases to solve budget problems.

Taxpayers aren't stupid. They can see (in California and nationally) that elected officials still aren’t taking the budget problems seriously.

Here’s a test: Scan the news releases on virtually every federal Representative or Senator's website (www.house.gov or www.senate.gov ). A large percentage of the press releases brag about pork barrel spending procured for their state or district. Many tout expensive new initiatives on popular issues, like health care or education or tax breaks. Then go back and tally how many Representatives and Senators explain where all the money would come from. Not very many.

Voters like all that spending, of course. But the larger sense that money still grows on trees, emanating strongly from the President and Congress, makes them resist tax increases, even at the local level. Why should I pay more when it's clear that the federal spigot is still wide open?

For Republicans, the Arnold surprise should teach two lessons: (1) moderate voters favor social inclusion and tolerance (at least for legal residents), and (2) voters are dissatisfied with dysfunctional, ideologically split government that can't resolve basic differences.

This is a two-fold problem for President Bush and the Republican leadership. First, by tacking so far to the right since his election in 2000, President has aligned himself with Congressional Republican party, with its ultra-conservative social policies and unyielding partisanship. This has strengthened his standing with the right-wing Republican base, but it is not in synch with millions of moderate voters -- Arnold voters -- who are socially liberal and want bipartisan solutions.

Democrats took the beating over dysfunctional government in California. But Republicans will take the heat nationally, because they control the presidency and both houses of Congress.

Moreover, President Bush campaigned on a platform of bipartisanship, and “changing the tone” in Washington. He pointed figures at the Clinton-Gore administration for not accomplishing enough, especially on tough issues like entitlement reform. Yet Bush's bipartisanship has mostly been limited to advocacy for more government spending (which is hardly a tough choice).

Arnold’s election is a victory for moderate Republicans, and a warning to partisans and ideologues of both parties.

Posted by Jeff Lemieux at October 12, 2003 11:48 AM