Posted on 09/13/2003 2:46:24 PM PDT by Tony in Hawaii
The Real Reason Conservatives are So Vehemently Opposed to the Candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger
By Eric DonderoWhat do you think the real reason is for why the conservatives are so vehemently against the
Schwarzenegger candidacy?It's not the reason they are telling you. It's not because Arnold Schwarzenegger is a "liberal." It's
because our so-called conservative cousins are scared to death that if Arnold wins his new brand of
"fiscally conservative/socially tolerant" Republicanism will catch on and spread like wildfire outside of California across the nation.It almost happened a couple times in the past. Senator Barry Goldwater shocked fellow Conservatives by coming out for tolerance of Gays and for marijuana decriminalization in the late 1980s. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld came real close to popularizing a fiscally conservative/socially tolerant brand of Republicanism in the early 1990s. Jessie Ventura came real close too a few years later. If he had only been a Republican he might have pulled it off. And now out of California comes the Terminator.
Did you all catch Conservative Christian Reverend Lou Sheldon's remarks the day after Arnold announced a few weeks ago? It was vitriolic. This religious right Conservative standard-bearer was vicious in describing the "highly promiscuous hedonist" Arnold Schwarzenegger, playing it like he was almost "Satan incarnate." Now the American Spectator On-line (American Prowler), is brutally attacking Arnold every single day. Social Conservative Columnist George Neuyamar has been merciless for weeks in savaging Arnold. Neuyamar blasts him cause he's tolerant on social issues. He and other Conservative Publications like the California Policy Review have been body-slamming Arnold sometimes even double-teaming him with two hit pieces a day. They paint him as a "liberal" Republican. They conveniently ignore his support for free market economics while playing up his
few liberal stances on social issues.Yeah right! Arnold is a "liberal." If Arnold was such a liberal, than why is he such a fanatic devotee
of Mr. Libertarian himself Economist Milton Friedman? This appears on the Laissez Faire Books web site:I started flipping the television dial. I caught a glimpse of Nobel Prize winning economist Milton
Friedman whom I recognized from my studies in economics. I didn't know I was watching Free to
Choose. It knocked me out. Dr. Friedman validated everything I ever thought about the way the economy works. I became a big pain in the neck about Free to Choose. All my friends and acquaintances got tapes as well as books for Christmas after Christmas. If I had come up with Free to Choose, maybe I wouldn't have got into body building. -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arnold has been a frequent attendee and speaker at Reason Foundation Banquets in Los Angeles over the years. Even more it was recently uncovered that Arnold once attended an even more hardcore libertarian conference. Former UCSD student and current PrestoPundit.com Columnist Gregory Ransom discovered Arnold's name as an attendee at an obscure conference on Austrian Economics held at his college in the 1980s. He wrote, "I remember picking up a small, poorly bound book that was a collection of papers presented at a very academic, very technical symposium on Austrian economics. On the first page was a small list of attendees at the conference, and there was Arnold Schwarzenegger's name."
Highly respected conservative and Washington Times Editorialist Donald Lambro had this to say about Arnold in a recent column; "he has deep-set political beliefs in the power of capitalism, deregulation and free markets to create economic prosperity. His reading includes books by Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist best known for his seminal free-market work, The Road to Serfdom."
And according to a San Jose Mercury News report, Schwarzenegger is a "fan of the University of Chicago Economics Department, which had provided President Reagan's economic advisers."
And this quote from Arnold once appeared in London's Financial Times; "I still believe in lower taxes -- and the power of the free market. I still believe in controlling government spending. If it's a bad
program, let's get rid of it."Lending even more credibility to his libertarianism Schwarzenegger recently appointed hardcore free market economist and drug legalization advocate George Schultz of the Hoover Institute to be his top Economic Advisor. In addition, the fact that Arnold has repeatedly asserted his enthusiastic support for Proposition 13 Property Tax Roll Back and Proposition 187 which eliminates illegal immigrants from the welfare rolls, proves that Schwarzenegger is not only a libertarian, but a pretty loyal one at that.
When was the last time liberal Republican stalwart Michael Bloomberg the Big Government tax-loving, cigarette smoker-hating SOB ever quoted Milton Friedman? When was the last time that RINO Dick Riordon ever contributed money to the libertarian Reason Foundation right there in Los Angeles? When was the last time squishy moderate Pete Wilson's name appeared on a roster of an Austrian Economics conference? When was the last time liberal Republican Senators John Chaffee of Rhode Island or Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania ever appointed a libertarian like George Schultz of the Hoover Institute as his top economics advisor? Come to think of it when was the last time ANY REPUBLICAN AT ALL APPOINTED A LIBERTARIAN AS AN ECONOMIC ADVISOR?
I'll tell you when - 1980 when "supposed limited government advocate" Reagan threw us libertarians a bone in an effort to appease those of us who had backed him instead of Libertarian Ed Clark by
appointing libertarian David Stockman at OMB. And then, Reagan turned right around and stabbed us libertarians in the back by firing Stockman a year and a half later.
Let's take it a step further. Would a "liberal Republican" like Maine's Olympia Snowe, Connecticut's
Chris Shays, or even the Ripon Society, bastion of liberal Republicanism, support a Property Tax Cut
Initiative like Proposition 13? Would they support an Initiative to Stop Illegal Immigrants from mooching off our welfare system like Prop. 187?Hell no! Those sorts of positions on issues give northeastern liberal Republicans stomach ulcers.
I know liberal Republicans. They do exist. I'd say they are about 5 to 10% of the entire Republican
Party, mostly in the Northeast with a few in California. In the early days of the Republican Liberty Caucus, we flirted a bit with the liberal Republicans. We visited with the Ripon Society folks. We made some outreach efforts to liberal Republicans in New Jersey through liberal-libertarian hybrid Dick
Zimmer's Campaigns for Congress. Believe me, Arnold Schwarzenegger IS NO RIPON SOCIETY REPUBLICAN! The Liberal to Moderate Republicans would be strenuously opposed to his views on immigration and tax cuts. They'd be extremely turned off that "right-wing kooks" like Dana Rhorabacher and Ed Royce are acting as Arnold's campaign advisors and accompanying him to
many of his campaign events and appearances.No, Arnold is a solid "libertarian" Republican. That's spelled L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N.
Yes, Arnold leans more moderate than most libertarians, particularly more so than the anarcho-capitalists, paleo-libertarians or the extremist Libertarians in the Libertarian Party. He
is a mainstream libertarian right smack dab in the middle of the libertarian movement. On the World's
Smallest Political Quiz he comes out at about 75% to 80% on economics and maybe as much as 80 to 90% on personal freedom issues on the New Political Spectrum. Even more libertarian than Weld and certainly higher than Ventura. Interestingly, this is exactly where Milton Friedman (and notably Barry Goldwater), ends up on the New Political Spectrum.This is precisely why our so-called Conservative pals tremble in fear of the thought of a Schwarzenegger victory. This is why you are witnessing such a saliva-spewing vitriolic response from Christian Conservatives, The American Spectator and other conservative groups and publications at the mere mention of Arnold's name.
This California race is about much more thanCalifornia. This is about changing the entire face of
the Republican Party for years to come. It is a struggle for the heart and soul of the Republican
Party. It represents the ultimate battle in the never-ending competition between the two frequently
warring right-wing factions: conservatives and libertarians.First, in the late 1950s there was the firing and banishment from the Conservative movement of Frank
Meyers because he switched from conservative to libertarian, and the subsequent dismantling by
conservatives of the premiere libertarian think tank FEE. Hayek reacted to the libertarian banishment in 1962 with his famous article, "Why I am Not a Conservative." Then, there was the Young Americans for Freedom Split in 1969 in St. Louis where the libertarians walked out on the "trads" (more accurately were physically ejected). Then there was Reagan's campaign recognizing the appeal of libertarianism and stealing rhetoric from Libertarian Presidential Candidate Ed Clark in 1980, enough to win the election, along with his subsequent "night of the long knives" firing a year later of the Administration's leading libertarian Budget Director David Stockman. Then there was the Conservative Establishment's on-slaught against libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul when Ron chose to run for re-election in 1996. Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, Ed Meese and just about every single washed up Social Conservative who had an opening on their schedule came down to Texas Congressional District 14 to campaign against that "extremist libertarian" Ron Paul.And now we have the California race, where every social conservative in the country is pulling out all
the stops to make sure that libertarian Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't pull this thing off. So much so
in fact, that I've even seen conservatives in various on-line forums promulgating the line that it's "better to have Schwarzenegger lose and have two more years of Dems Davis or Bustamante" so that they can get a "real conservative" to run in 2004.This race has little to do with California Budgetary matters. No this race is not about Gray Davis. This has everything to do with the Decade's Old War between Libertarians and Conservatives. The Christian Right/Drug Warrior Coaltion, made up of folks like Lou Sheldon, George Neuyamar, Gary Bauer and Jerry Falwell just won't stand for any Republican being elected to a high profile office who has a good sex life and makes a few positive remarks about medical use of marijuana.
A man who once bragged in a Dirty Magazine about some sexual orgies he's had in his life and all the
hundreds of beautiful women he has had sex with?Heavens No! We can't stand for that!" the social conservatives say, huffing and puffing.
Will we let the social conservatives prevail yet again? Or will we libertarians come out on top?
If you are a libertarian of any stripe you should be out there campaigning as hard as you can for Arnold Schwarzenegger. You don't need to agree with him on all the issues. This fight is about much more than Arnold. It is a battle for the heart and soul of the Right. The conservatives have treated us libertarians as a bastard step-child for too damn long.
To steal an old political line: "Let's win won for Uncle Milty."
*Note - Eric Dondero Rittberg is a Libertarian
Republican Activist living in Houston, Texas. He is a
former National Committeeman of the Libertarian Party,
LP candidate for state legislature, and served as Ron
Paul's Travel Aide in his 1988 Libertarian
Presidential Campaign. In 1990, he Founded the
Republican Liberty Caucus. He went on to serve as RLC
Chairman, Executive Director and National
Spokesperson.
A somewhat well-spoken, self-professed libertarian (who has the earmarks of another type though) abandoned the reasoning part of our discussion at what he unwittingly reveals to be his discomfort level. It may be constructive to see if a catholic conservative (on what could be seen as a blasphemous concept) is better inclined to the detente I proposed at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973882/posts?page=169#169 (and 170#170).
Pleasse tell me: yea or nay? I will then know to patiently await one of your thoughtful replies.
Yes, I don't see anybody else around the country really getting too worked up over the California recall circus. It's a source of amusement even to the very politically aware anywhere else. It's certainly not dividing out-of-staters into McClintock/Schwarzenegger camps.
Not in any serious way, certainly.
I don't claim expertise in science or medicine and your theory sounds fine to me. Why is my example not a good one? Certainly taxpayers are paying the freight for most AIDS patients. Where do you disagree?
Whenever I run into a liberal, I'm asked why I like Bush. I say, "I don't. He's too liberal for me."
The Republican Party has been marching Leftward for a long time now. I'd say it's more Left than the Democratic Party of forty years ago. So perhaps it's time we true conservatives let it die and throw our collective support behind a new party with real conservative principles.
That is social liberalism, but not libertarianism. libertarians believe if you are a drug addict, it is your own damn fault. Because you can't understand this subtle but huge difference, it is neveer worth debating you.
Perhaps you could call it the "Losers Club" and you could hold your meetings in a tee House. Some of us tried our own version of thi scheme, it's called the Libertarian Party.
I agree with you. What did I say that is so objectionable?
Bastardy among certain elements of the population springs immediately to mind. Certainly, if were not a method for single young moms to become financially independent by collecting benefits and ADC payments, it might become less popular.
I agree that we are paying the freight. The problem I have with the example is that the premise for the payment is false. The Government is paying for medication that doesn't work and that they know doesn't work because the politics of the situation (don't get the gay communitity and their supporting major media mad at you) requires it. The Government is not doing anything and we are not paying for anything that actually helps people with AIDS.
Consider the "social costs" of my solution which is to do nothing. People with AIDS would die and they would keep on dying until the gays and drug users finally figured out what was killing them. Right now they are told and I think convinced that it is a virus and not their drug habits that are doing the trick. This gives them carte blanche to keep right on taking the drugs that are killing them.
They have taken an extremely pragmatic way out of large scale social spending. However, it is (or was) not a very diverse society, and is well disciplined and educated.
Drop a few hundred thousand of our urban clymers or other low-end Democrats, into it and the country would never be heard from again ... sort of what is happening in Sweden with it's open door immigration from various hellholes.
More broadly, the problem with libertarianism is that it fails to see that a free market economy and civil society can thrive only when the great mass of the population are disciplined by faith in transcendent values.
Only a deeply religious (and I dare say Christian) people could have created the United States.
Is it not clear that as our society has become less Christian it has become more socialistic? It's obvious why that happens: when society is religious, it is strong, and it doesn't need an enormous state machine to keep the peace, ensure that the elderly are cared for, prevent child abuse, educate children. When society loses its faith, it weakens (soaring divorce rates, increased child abuse, failing education of the young, rampant STD's) and the state must step in to prop the whole thing up.
In short, "family values" are the very thing that allow "laissez faire" economics to function. You can't have one without the other, at least over the long haul. Of course, that's really the problem - we have as a people no real historical sense, and can't imagine a "long haul" much past the next NFL season.
A Christian America is a free America, and conversely a pagan America is a tech-savvy pagan Roman Empire.
We're still living on the moral capital of the previous Christian generations, but we've drawn down that account, and little remains, in my estimation. This has actually done a disservice to us in a way, because it's prevented us from making the connection between economic freedom and public morality.
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.