California conservatives and the choice they face

Has conservatism become an unaffordable luxury in the California governor's race?

California conservatives appear riven over Arnold Schwarzenegger (hereinafter plain Arnold, due to the tedium connected with typing a 14-letter surname).

"We have to stop this government from overtaxing, overspending and over-regulating," Arnold said the other day. Of course, that's a conservative message. But flip to the social issues -- abortion, gay rights and the like -- and Arnold, from the conservative standpoint, flubs it. He's on the same side, generally speaking, as Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. A conservative Baptist pastor tells The New York Times: "I can't bring myself to vote for someone who is unabashedly pro-gay."

Even so, the influential and unquestionably conservative Lincoln Club of Orange County, Calif., put such reservations on the shelf the other day. It endorsed Arnold, mainly, it would appear, on account of his electability.

The prominent economic and social conservative Bill Simon reinforced this view shortly afterward by bowing out of the race. Simon's thesis: Too many major Republicans (himself, Arnold and two others) spoil the electoral broth, potentially clinching a victory for Democrat Cruz Bustamente. A poll released over the weekend showed Bustamente leading Arnold but the Republicans together handily outdistancing Bustamente.

It is not for outsiders presumptuously to advise locals on local matters. (That's for federal judges, I suppose.) But the conservative predicament in California resonates outside California and deserves at least passing consideration.

Social (i.e., pro-life, pro-family) and economic (i.e., pro-free market) conservatives fail to line up automatically these days. They profess different interests and convictions. Some of us have watched this thing come on for a long time. It disappoints but doesn't shock.

If you define "conservatism" as "skepticism of government's ability to solve any but basic problems," you may, but also may not, want government prescribing particular moral practices. Morality, you may assert, is a private matter, one from which government should stay away. This would mean, in practice, that the government should allow abortion and prohibit school prayer and that, additionally, it should affirm sexuality in all its forms.

If, on the other hand, you define "conservatism" in terms of its relationship to hierarchical and time-tested norms, many of those norms being religious in origin, you may posit a governmental duty to roll back particular wrongheaded government policies.

The policies in question have a common denominator: The U.S. Supreme Court has imposed them by judicial fiat. Roe vs. Wade comes to mind, also the school prayer decisions and, just this summer, Lawrence vs. Texas, in which the justices advised us that the Constitution protects sodomy.

Pure economic conservatives (a k a libertarians), focused as they are on getting and spending, tend to dismiss the social conservatives' non-economic frustrations. Which is too bad inasmuch as the concerns of both overlap at vital points.

I would mention two of those points. First, free societies don't flourish in conditions of moral anarchy where -- does this sound increasingly familiar? -- the individual judges right and wrong for himself. Didn't WorldCom's Bernie Ebbers, among many others, recently take this approach? Second, you have to wonder how anyone seriously committed to limited government can excuse the U.S. Supreme Court for regularly assuming the task of rewriting the moral code. Don't we, the people have any say in all this? Not, apparently, as the court sees it.

None of the foregoing speaks precisely to the question of how California conservatives should vote in the recall election. I would note only that pure "pragmatism" rarely gets anybody very far. You win and then what? An eventual glance in the mirror tells all. The face that stares back is that of Dr. Faustus.

And from the other side of the door comes unearthly scratching and snuffling. Some dark something has come to claim its end of a disastrous bargain.

THEY HAVE NO SHAME

When it's Barney Frank or some other liberal supporting these perverted liberal ideas such as, same sex marriages, gay rights, gay adoption and gun control it's a no good, liberal, corrupt, immoral Democratic assH***s. But, Now that it's the same type running as a Repubilcan things look much different.

This is exactly the same mind set and how we ended up with a Supreme Court that perverted the country and done more damage than the libs could have ever thought of.

Morals do count. In fact, It's Moral judgements that balance budgets also. For the good of the rest of this country we should INCLUDE social morals along with the Fiscal policies you are all worried about.

Don't feed us any of this CRAP just because this Glittering Movie Star will only Gov. he has no impact on national issues. Only a fool would beleive that one. Moral people can balance a budget as well as the immoral ones. AM I from CA, (AKA Mexico) Hell no I wouldn't live in that Moral cesspool for all the money in the world. Do I care Yes, I care for the rest of the country that has to watch this stinking decay. Get off your Kneepads Republicans. It's not becoming of you.

Remember this pervert sup[porting Glittering star wants to take care of your children also.

WAKE AMERICA--Wake up CA.--Wake up Parents

I probably fall on the economic side of the alleged split between economic and and social conservatives. However, I regard neither abortion nor school prayer as "private" matters from which state action should be proscribed. In the former case, there is clearly another party to the process whose interests must be considered and indeed are paramount. In the latter case, I agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion that recent interpretations of the Establishment Clause do not reflect the intent of the Founders and do not withstand historical scrutiny. I also believe that many of the ills of today's society can be traced to a rising amorality disguised as tolerance which has been abetted by the diminishment of the role of religion in contemporary America.

Now that you know the perspective from which come, you should also know that I will vote for Arnold if he is the Republican most likely to defeat Bustamante on October 7. I will do so for the following reasons:

1. I was born in California and have lived here for 33 of 52 years of life. The degradation suffered by California's business climate and infrastructure under unfettered rule by Democrats must be experienced to be believed. If our children are to enjoy any prosperity here, we must at least restore some balance in Sacramento.

2. Although Arnold does not share my views on aboriton, as Governor he will have little to no impact on abortion rights.

3. Although Arnold is said by some to be pro gay rights, the only quotes of his offered to support that assertion seem to me to be more consistent with a libertarian view, i.e. he would support the repeal of sodomy laws but oppose recognizizng gays as a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. That is a view, by the way, that I share.

4. Arnold suppports Proposition 187. Cruz does not.

5. Arnold has given a no new tax pledge; Cruz has said that he will raise taxes.

My take, as a "right-coaster" conservative:

California is finished. Nothing, nor anyone, can save it now. Repeat: no one -- not McClintock, not Swarzenegger, NO ONE -- can turn California around. Whatever destiny California faces, it is rushing headlong towards that fate _now_.

It's not that California's course can't be changed. The problem is that the steps necessary to actually _reverse_ California's progress towards disaster will be perceived as too draconian to take. Too draconian even by the terms of a Swarzenegger or McClintock. With tongue only half-in-cheek, it would take a politician of the persuasion of David Duke to actually speak the "fix" that is needed on the left coast.

It is obvious to me (and I would think also obvious to most readers of Free Republic), California has two overwhelming problems, one social, one fiscal, but both related.

The "social" problem is the innundation -- more succinctly, the INVASION -- of illegals (mostly Mexicans) from across the southern border. How many are living there now? I presume _any_ number officials come up with actually UNDERcounts the present number of illegals in the state. And how many more arrive every day?

And how many millions more will come in the future? 10 million? 20 million? Who is going to STOP them from coming? The border patrol? (hearty laugh) The answer: NO ONE. No politician in California (again, short of Mr. Duke, if they can persuade him to migrate there) is going to bluntly state that there are:
• Too many illegals in California now, and
• That no more should come, and
• That the ones already there should be "encouraged" to return to their native land(s).
Does anyone reading this seriously think that Arnold Swarzenegger will say as much?
Does anyone reading this seriously think that Tom McClintock will say as much?

So I think that it's a certainty to state that the illegal invasion will continue into the foreseeable future.

With the continuing flood of illegals, the second problem is economic. To wit: the hordes of illegals must be subsidized by the state, and, it follows, by the productive citizens of the state -- i.e., the taxpayers.

But there are so many [largely illegal] "tax-consumers" now (with their numbers growing daily) that there isn't enough revenue from the tax-producers to pay for them. The state is going broke at breakneck speed. Many conservative Californians perceive this, and are packing up and moving out. That will exacerbate the problems, like some kind of "Laffer curve" gone insane. As the tax-consuming population zooms upward, the tax-producers will escape across the borders. And the state's deficit will degenerate into something resembling an economic black hole.

They _had_ a chance to put some brakes on it with Proposition 187. But we all know what happened to that.

Not being familiar with the particulars of the court decision that declared 187 unconstitutional -- and whether that court decision could still be appealed to a higher forum (read: U.S. Supreme Court), would Tom McClintock be willing to push for a _new_ ballot initiative to deny benefits to illegals? And -- after it is again declared unconstitutional at the Circuit Court level, will he keep pushing? Would a Governor Ah-nuld do the same?

I doubt it. Whatever steps a Republican governor might take, he is going to be thwarted by the overwhelming Democratic majority at every step. The more drastic the proposals a McClintock or Swarzenegger might make (and, as explained above, only drastic measures can have a Chinaman's chance of turning the Titanic of California around), the greater resistance he will face from the legislature.

Ultimately, California will likely become the first state in history that goes bankrupt. $38 BILLION in debt NOW, with no relief in sight. How are they going to get out of this? Will Congress force the other 49 states to pay for it? Answer: unknown at this time. This could become an issue in the 2004 presidential election - remember that you read this here first.

Perhaps, for the _rest of us_ (meaning everyone in the other 49 states), the election of Bustamente might be the preferable alternative. For, if anything, Bustamente will take pro-active steps to accelerate the conversion of California into a quasi-Mexican state, finishing off any hope that the bulk of the state will remain something resembling the rest of the United States.

In other threads, I've stated several times that conservatives in the "other 49" should ask themselves the "Ann Landers question" regarding California: would we be better off with it, or withOUT it?

I realize there is still a conservative base within California, but in the future, they will find themselves marginalized in the same way that whites are being demonized in South Africa. The only recourse for survival will become physical escape.

And as California inches ever closer to the precipice, perhaps the best course for the rest of America will be to let it fall away. For all the talk of the legendary earthquake that would cause the state to slide into the Pacific, ultimately, it will be an "earthquake" of social/economic upheaval that splits the erstwhile golden state from the rest of the nation.

Cheers!
- John

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.