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.