James Lileks: Assessing the Schwarzenegger Factor in Republicanism

The Newhouse News Service ^ | August 12, 2003 | James Lileks

[quidnunc]

In the forgettable movie "Eraser," Arnold strapped on two guns the size of telephone poles for the final battle. Cool! Each gun had a floodlight that lit up the set like movie-premier searchlights — wicked cool! Only one problem: When you saw him coming toward you, all you had to do was shoot between the lights.

An apt metaphor, perhaps, for Schwarzenegger's campaign. He's not gunning from the left or the right. What counts is the center, and this is where Arnold resides.

This has caused much lamenting and rending of garments on the ironclad right; he's not this, he's not that, he said this, he smoked pot, he has no solid position on the treaty of Ghent, etc. The social-issue wing of the Republicans has its checklist: You must castigate abortion, glower at the gays, gag at the sewage the entertainment industry produces, and above all you must believe that the Kennedys always wear shoes in public to hide their cloven hooves.

Arnold fails these tests. He's pro-choice. We can be reasonably sure that he jokes with gay make-up artists instead of punching them in the jaw on general principle. His movies are notable for the funny lines he says before he blows nine-inch holes in his adversaries' skulls. He does nude scenes in his Terminator movies, for heaven's sake; he might be the first governor whose granite glutes have appeared in Panavision all over the nation. He is literally sleeping with the Kennedy family. And he calls himself a Republican?

Sure. It doesn't really take that much. A little populism, a brief salaam in the direction of Frederick Hayek, some furrowed-brow remarks over the need to lift the regulatory burden, some swipes at the coddled and ossified elements of the civil-service sector (the "special interests" he keeps talking about) and you get to wear the big R on your super-hero costume.

Arnold may not be a rock-ribbed conservative. But consider this: If he didn't feel affinity for the basic tenets of the party, he wouldn't be a Republican. Being a Democrat in Hollywood is the path of least resistance; it's as natural as breathing air or complaining about the help. Sure, Arnold's a liberal variant of the Republican idea, but that just means he's electable in a liberal state. He isn't the end of Republican come-back in the Golden State; he'd be the beginning.

-snip-

[annyokie]

http://www.joinarnold.com/

[William McKinley]

Part good, but also part not so good. Example:

But you couldn't tell the impeachment boosters that, either. Hey! Impeaching Clinton is a bad precedent! "I'm sorry, your lips were moving, and some sounds came out, but it didn't quite make sense. Bad precedent? Of course! Clinton is the worst precedent we've ever had."

The chief executive committed perjury. He used a position of authority to entice a girl half his age into an on-the-job sexual relationship. If you or I were to get caught having sex with a subordinate in the office we would be fired. If we lied about it in a sexual harassment case we would be heavily fined and/or jailed.

Another not-so-good part:

Recalls ought to be reserved for the characters you find in a Thomas Nast cartoon, and the proponents of this fandango shouldn't be surprised to find it used against Republicans elsewhere.

Such as? Which states have such laws other than California? And by what silly stretch of the imagination does he think that the Democrats wouldn't use a political power tool unless the Republicans used it first? Is there anything in the nature of the Democrats or their history as a party that shows such restraint, especially lately?

Lileks is usually much better than this.

[Plutarch]

[Arnold] …he has no solid position on the treaty of Ghent, etc.

Treaty of Ghent
1814

American victories at Plattsburg and Fort McHenry influenced the British to take the ongoing peace talks at Ghent, Belgium, more seriously. Napoleon had been defeated, but Britain was financially depleted. The American peace commission included Albert Gallatin, Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams. The resulting peace agreement, which basically restored prewar conditions, included the following provisions:

· Called for the end of hostilities
· Required that conquered territory and prisoners be returned
· Appointed a commission to study lingering boundary issues between the United States and Canada.
What was most significant about the treaty was the lack of mention of such items as impressment and neutral rights. The United States was strong enough to defeat Britain in what has been called a "second American Revolution," but was not powerful enough to force more favorable terms at the peace table.

[John H K]

The United States was strong enough to defeat Britain in what has been called a "second American Revolution," but was not powerful enough to force more favorable terms at the peace table.

Huh?

We spent much of the war losing land battles in embarassing fashion. It was a draw. (New Orleans was AFTER the peace was signed.)

Problem is the schoobooks gloss over the Battle of Bladensburg, etc.

And actually the British pretty much stopped the impressment even before they received our declaration of war.

The United States declared war mainly in order to conquer Canada. We failed miserably to conquer Canada and had our capital burned in humiliating fashion. We certainly didn't win the war.