So Ah-nold was over in Berlin (which, some may be surprised to learn, is not the capital of his home country) and in a magazine interview he apparently dished out a little advice for the Republican party:
Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has taken an
unorthodox approach since winning office last year — standing by a
promise to toe a conservative line of fiscal matters while veering left
on social issues such as gay rights and the environment.In an interview with Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily,
Schwarzenegger said that "the Republican Party currently covers only
the spectrum from the right wing to the middle, and the Democratic
Party covers the spectrum from the left to the middle.""I
would like the Republican Party to cross this line, move a little
further left and place more weight on the center," he was quoted as
saying. "This would immediately give the party 5% more votes without it
losing anything elsewhere" [SOURCE.]
No.
What Ah-nold is recommending is a return to the 1970s, when we had liberal Republicans in office like Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller as party leaders. You know what that got us: Jimmy Carter! (Well, actually, anti-Nixon sentiment also had to do with giving us History’s Greatest Monster.)
What Ah-nold is recommending is "Let’s do the timewarp again." He may think that electoral success for Republicans is just a jump to the left, but if anything it is to be found a step to the right (Reagan country).
Now, we all know that after the political conventions, candidates of both parties try to soften their image and appeal to the mushy middle voters who haven’t yet made up their minds. During this time they say a lot of phony baloney stuff meant to appeal to people unable to figure out which side of the fence to fall off. That’s fine. The party faithful know that the candidates have to say this stuff, but they don’t really mean it. They may have to throw the mushy middle a few bones (which it could use, being mushy and all), but they still plan to govern in a way consistent with the party faithful’s core values.
For the party faithful of the Democrats, that means an anti-life governing policy.
For the party faithful of the Republicans (or at least an indispensible element in the Republican coalition), that means a pro-life governing policy.
It’s their intent to honor these values that is the reason the party faithful are voting for them in the first place. If they betray those values, the party faithful will stay home and the candidate will lose.
That’s what almost happened to Bush in 2000 when a previously unnoticed drunk driving record emerged in a classic, last minute dirty trick. Four million Evangelicals stayed home and Bush got into a squeaker that it took the Supremes to decide.
This illustrates the problem with what my governator is recommending: If the Republican party does more than make token gestures toward those who are liberal on social issues like gay marriage and abortion (e.g., letting Ah-nold and Rudy speak at the convention), if it allows its governing center to shift on these issues then pro-lifers will immediately desert the party.
It would be worth it to have four (or even eight) years of a pro-abort president to teach the Republicans that these issues are NON-NEGOTIABLE, because their understanding that is the only way these battles can ultimately be won. They may throw occasional bones to blue-leaning people, but they have to deliver red-meat to the redstaters.
Were the Republican party to permanently shift its governing center leftward it would permanently cease to be the majority party.
Sorry, Ah-nold. That kind of governating may work in blue states like California and New York, but not elsewhere.
I heard this on Johnette Benkovich’s show this morning. Mary Jo Anderson was the guest. I especially liked this bit:
“This would immediately give the party 5% more votes without it losing anything elsewhere”
Yeah, without losing anything . . . ‘cept their souls. To the Culture of Death.
We all know who runs that campaign.
This is probably the best time to ask this. Some German family has asked about Arnold tryig to change the requirement of the U.S. president being a natural born citizen. Is there a movement to change this? Is Arnold actively trying to change this? It would seem awefully difficult to change.
I agree that shifting to the centre would be political suicide for the Republicans.
Frankly, they are already headed toward total political domination if they just stay the pro-life course.
The demographic shift that resulted in a net gain of electoral votes for those states that went for Bush in 2000 will continue. The redistribution of the electoral college in 2004 meant that the Democrats had a huge hill to climb just to maintain their current (losing) totals. After the next census and another redistribution of the electoral votes (when is that by the way? I know it won’t be before the next election in 2008, but will it be in time for 2012?) it will be virtually mathematically impossible for the Democrats in their current form to win.
Their only shot will be to select another “sweet-talking give the appearance of values” type Bill Clinton candidate in 2008. They will be pulling out all the stops in 2008 because they know that if they lose that one they are finished (in their current form). At the present time I don’t know if they have a candidate who can do that. Hillary certainly doesn’t fit the bill.
The Repulicans have some serious thinking to do. The Terminator’s ideas are just plain stupid. Shifting to the left on the values issues would result in a party civil war that would destroy the party and make room for the Democrats to slip right in and take over. Something similar happened here in Canada 15 or so years ago and the conservative movement hasn’t yet recovered from it. It may never recover from it. The conservative civil war has given the Liberals a virtual monopoly on power here. And the Culture of Death has won total victory on all fronts :_(
I hope they resist the temptation to canonize Giuliani. He’d be the perfect candidate if he wasn’t socially liberal. Perhaps he will make some sort of pact with the party to concede on the life issues?
Arnold would be the worst candidate ever. There is no dealing with that man. The law you have against foreign born presidents is a good one. Keep it. You’ll know that changing that law will be the biggest mistake the Republicans will ever make when the Democrats start supporting the move. The Democrats would be very smart to do so.
McCain seems nice enough at first, but grows more and more annoying with time I find. He sometimes acts pro-life, but many pro-lifers don’t like him. He’s not what I would call rock solid. The media seem to like him too much, which makes me suspicious. Besides, he’s a senator and senators don’t usually do well in presidential races, so I’m told. He doesn’t seem like a top notch presidential candidate.
Which brings us to the person everybody here is thinking about–Jeb Bush. If his name wasn’t Bush, they’d have already had the convention and nominated him. He would be the perfect candidate in 2008. Here are just some of the reasons why he is the perfect choice.
1. He is the popular governor of a populous (and growing) “swing” state. He would take Florida completely out of play for the Democrats so the Republicans could concentrate on Ohio, PA, IA, Wisconsin and Michigan.
2. History tells us that a governor would be a better choice than a senator. If the Dems pick a senator (like Hillary), than this would double the advantage for the GOP. The Dems would have to climb a mountain.
3. He is rock solid on life/values. He is, from what I’m told, a rock solid Catholic. He would be the first real Catholic president without needing any scare quotes. He could easily increase the share of the increasingly important Catholic vote. Especially next time around as the great Jimmy Akin, super-apologist, continues to educate Catholic voters on what their responsibilities are in the voting booth.
4. Eight years of Jeb would result in a Supreme Court completely dominated by conservatives for a generation (please God please God please God please God…). Barring any Senate theatrics of course 🙁
5. That Jeb has a Latino/Hispanic wife and son would greatly help the GOP’s strategy to court the vote of this important and growing community. If the GOP could take close to half of the Latino vote, the Dems are dead in the water. Eight years of Jeb could bring them over permanently into the values/GOP fold. Coupled with better catechesis of these Catholics on the life/values issues, it would spell victory for the GOP. Is Jeb also fluent in Spanish? If he is he could start giving some campaign speeches in spanish to Latino audiences. That would be a great political move.
6. If Jeb wins the candidacy, he could still pick Giuliani for VP, which would be good for a 10 point bounce. The Dems don’t have anyone with which they could counter.
7. I hear Jeb is a better public speaker/debator than George W. That’s another 10 points right there.
8. Jeb’s term in Florida expires in 2007. The perfect time to start fundraising and campaigning for the presidency.
–Some potential drawbacks of course, are the Bush name. People might be wary of a “Bush dynasty”, but this could be a wash if the Dems go with Hillary Clinton. Then they will have two dynasties to choose from, Bush or Clinton, and everything points in the direction of the American voters choosing Bush.
Of course, there is also the possibility that voters will just be tired of “Bush” in general and will be looking for something new. You know, those “mushy middle” voters that so often don’t think very deeply. And of course, if any disaster strikes (economic, terrorist, war etc.) people would immediately blame the “Bushes” and that could lead to defeat for the Republicans. The media will certainly declare open warfare on another Bush presidency.
Complete domination by Jeb Bush and a united right would result in the Democrats being forced to rethink their stances on the life/values issues. This would lead to a civil war with their substantial liberal base that could destroy the party for 20 years. The liberal-left in the Democratic party could even split away in a third party scenario that would completely destroy the left and left-of-centre in American politics for a generation.
The Republicans have a choice. Do they want the civil war to be in the GOP? Or do they want the civil war to be in the Democratic Party? Here’s hoping they stop being stupid.
The only problem with the above speculations is that Jeb Bush has said he doesn’t want the job of president. Of course, any politician in his position would pretty much have to say that for now. It would seem improper to announce your intentions for the presidency while you still have many years on the job as governor of a state to go. Here’s hoping that Jeb is engaging in one of those “mental reservation” type thingies.
Adrian,
There are some practical hurdles to this change. There is a small movement. Most in this movement are in the ‘fine if it does change, but I’m not really going to do anything’ camp. The basic problem, IMHO, is that any impetus to change the constitution would be because of a particular candidate. To put it politically, one party (there are only 2 parties for all paractical purposes across the US) essentially would have to vote to allow a superior canidate on the opposing party’s ballot. This is not to mention regional conflicts that wouldn’t necessarily be present with Arnold. Specifically, I would think that a naturalized Mexican would run into some terrible regional fights.
Sorry for the long post.
Of course, I could just be getting a big head. John “worst candidate ever” Kerry still got 48+% of the vote. It’s just hubris to claim that the Dems are dead in the water. They could quite easily retake the senate in a few years. That could ruin the prospects of good judges being selected.
If you’re wondering why a Canadian is taking such an inordinate amount of interest in American politics it’s because I’m strongly pro-life and Canadian politics is much too depressing for pro-lifers.
I’m constantly amazed that in America real Catholics and strong pro-lifers can actually win races, and win them big. Such scenarios are currently unthinkable in the Great White North.
🙁
As an amateur prognosticator, I will predict that the national Republicans will embrace Arnold’s strategy. In fact, I think they adopted this policy over 20 years ago. The only reason the Republicans became the pro-life party is because the democrats decided they would be the pro-abortion party. Until Roe is reversed, you will see an alternation between Democrat and Republican presidents. You will see the Congress become more pro-life. This may be aided by democrats, particularily if they give more cover to the state parties to allow pro-life candidates. Jimmy is 100% correct when he states that pro-lifers will have to stay home when pro-choice candidates come up. Understand though, pro-abortion republicans will split their ticket and elect democrats. The anti-religion sentiment is present in the GOP, but not visible due to the sun that is the democrats’ enmity of it.
Long term, the fight over abortion will divide these United States. At some point, a state such as Utah is going to say abortion is illegal; we are enforcing the prohibition; and if you don’t like it, you better send more than a court injunction.
Well said, Jimmy. I’ve never seen it explained better.
“It would be worth it to have four (or even eight) years of a pro-abort president to teach the Republicans that these issues are NON-NEGOTIABLE”
The test for the pro-life movement will be whether its leaders agree with Jimmy about this precise point. Unfortunately, there are reasons to believe that the establishment pro-life organizations will champion any less-pro-abortion-than-the-other-guy candidate for President if he is a Republican (see Bob Dole).
It seems that the Republican Party needs Roe v. Wade to remain the law. It’s such an easy bogeyman.
And don’t forget that George Bush has still not had the courage to actually call for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Instead he seems to be busy on man-dates with destroying Social Security and making his tax cuts permanent.
Esquire,
Most of what you say is correct. Personally, I wish for the destruction of Social Security and a radical transformation of the tax code. Many do not.
I would question the benefit of Roe v. Wade remaining law for either party. Disenfranchisement, which Roe actually is, generally broods ill will. Similarily, a lot of dems are still foaming at the mouth over 2000. (I think illegimately, but that’s another debate.)
The problem for the dems with abortion is that any moderating position necessarily entails overturning Roe v. Wade.
At this point, I don’t think Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned. It may be moderated at some point, but not overturned. For one, the next generation of supreme court judges is going to be out of the Boomer generation. That generation has been responsible for the greatest loss of public morality in our country. The younger generation is not that promising either; most of the youth are very socially liberal. If we take the age demographics out 40-60 years, support for gay marriage will be over 70%.
Reversal may be possible. It is a very up hill battle. The Church will have to take the lead if it is going to happen. With under a dozen bishops vocally supportive of the gospel, I don’t see this happening any time soon.
I recently sent a letter to the Orange County Register (published Dec. 5) regarding a column by Paul Campos that made a similar argument. Here’s what I wrote:
Paul Campos argues that conservatives ought to hope that conservative elects never achieve any conservative goals, lest they should find it harder to win future elections [“What could save the Dems,” Commentary, Nov. 28]. My question is, if winning elections means never doing that which one was elected to do, what is the point of winning?
The chief issue of contention for Campos is abortion – he believes that country-club conservatives will not compromise their support for abortion on the chance of winning the battle for lower taxes. Yet, he believes pro-life conservatives should be less principled, turning their backs on unborn children to avoid alienating the pro-abortion set.
Campos ignores the fact that the Republican Party also includes pro-life libertarians and fiscal liberals, who vote Republican largely because of the party’s pro-life platform. Dump that platform, and what would keep those voters hanging around?
Further, Campos refers to opposition to abortion as “right-wing activism.” If anything, it is right-wing de-activism. The democratic process had led to anti-abortion laws in most states before the Supreme Court intervened, on the basis of something the Constitution didn’t even say. All a reversal of that decision would do is put the issue back in the hands of voters.
In other words, the battle to reverse Roe v. Wade is not only a battle to save more than 1 million innocent people each year; it is also a battle to decide whether America will be a democratic republic or a judicial oligarchy.
Ahnuld is a scion of the House of Kennedy. I never did buy his GOPness.