Replies

Capitol Resource Institute

September 19, 2003

www.capitolresource.org

The Great Divide

Capitol Resource Institute sent a number of representatives to the Republican Convention in Los Angeles on September 12th to 14th. In an effort to draw people to the CRI table, we conducted a straw poll between the various candidates for Governor. The final results of the poll showed Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock receiving almost the same number of votes.

Admittedly, a poll conducted in this environment suggests little about the possible results in the election originally scheduled for October 7th. But, the passionate conversation as these votes were cast indicates that a wall has been erected in the "big tent" over the issue of who should be the preferred candidate of the GOP.

It was no surprise that most of the passion seemed to be aimed at the divide between pragmatism and idealism; pragmatists siding with Arnold and idealists stubbornly holding out for Tom. But, it is these so-called idealists that feel the most slighted in the current battle, and they are not without a point.

Many GOP leaders, pundits, and those who want to be both, have loudly expressed their disgust for others who can?t read the writing on the wall, put aside their allegiance to certain issues, and join the Terminator?s team. In too many instances their calls to unity behind their chosen candidate are not so persuasive as they are bitter and condescending. Calling Tom?s supporters idiots (incapable of understanding the implications of continuing to support McClintock), traitors (helping Bustamante to win), spoilers or martyrs adds bricks to the ever-higher wall in the tent. But, even the more nuanced arguments will require some rework if they are intended to persuade.

GOP pragmatists are quick to downplay the ideological differences between the two candidates and simply point to the numbers. "Sure, Tom McClintock would make the better governor, but he can?t win." More and more it appears that if Tom McClintock had a vote from every person that says this, he might indeed win. Many of Tom?s supporters believe that the party elite jumped too soon in embracing Arnold. Some Republicans, who should have known better, thought the vote was for Mr. Congeniality. Immediately after Arnold Schwarzenegger entered the race, they decided that public celebrity trumped political competence.

If victory is defined simply as putting a Republican in the corner office of the Capitol, it is easy to see why Arnold?s supporters are angry with those Republicans who are still clinging to McClintock. Still, "We are only concerned about the win" sounds more appropriate when commenting about one?s favorite football team than about who will sit in the Governor?s seat of the fragile-but-still-fifth-largest economy in the world.

Clearly, there is a point beyond which few Republicans would go. Had Ed Asner joined the race as a Republican, and shown well in the initial polls, it is doubtful that he would have found so many eager Republicans boosting his political hopes. And lest anyone misinterpret the point, I am not saying that Arnold and Ed share the same political ideology. But, can we agree that simply putting an R behind one?s name is not enough?

For many tagged as stubborn idealists, it is specific ideology, not celebrity or team spirit that drives their political participation. It is no minor thing to ask them to put aside the specific issues that have characterized their political ideology and often animated their political participation.

In contrast, it is not surprising that some with an R behind their name are comfortable with the switch to a candidate that is so out of step with the party?s stated ideals. Let?s admit that for many Arnold is their kind of Republican. And it is quite easy for them to ask fellow GOPers to, once again, get over those "troubling" social issues, immigration issues, environmental issues, gun control issues, educational issues and the like.

There are solid conservatives who have signed on to support the larger than life celebrity. And for many of these conservatives it is about ideology-- that which they share with Mr. Schwarzenegger, not that which sets them apart. They argue that Arnold is 55% or 70% with them because "he is a fiscal conservative."

The idealists are baffled by the math that allows Arnold to be more with them than against despite the fact that they can so readily list the differences, not the similarities. The pragmatists are unmoved. After all this election, this recall, is not about all of those other issues, especially the "moral" issues. Wasn?t it motivated by the Governor who ran up an incredible debt?

Not so fast. No governor will have the luxury of sticking just to the fiscal issues. And for those who have spent so much of the last five years criticizing this governor for his high-speed implementation of a socially liberal agenda, it is hard to look the other way to support a candidate that does not share their pain.

Further, even the recall itself was not rooted only in the State?s bloated budget. California?s unprecedented debt certainly gave rise to hostility toward Governor Davis. But he does not control the business cycles, nor did he alone pass those hefty spending bills. However, he misled the public about the State?s financial condition and he appears to have acted less than honorably in pledging public favoritism to those whom financially benefited his campaign. For those who signed the recall petitions, moral outrage certainly accompanied fiscal disgust.

Among those who have not endorsed Schwarzenegger, there is skepticism about the claim that he is on their side on fiscal issues. Bluntly put, they are not that impressed that an incredibly wealthy Californian opposes higher taxes on his income or holdings. And, they know that liberal social policies often make a demand on the public purse. Further, if affinity for a balanced budget is the test of a true conservative, they know that Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean also has a right to the label.

We should not forget that the celebrity candidate supports Proposition 13. Nor should we forget that he felt it necessary to defend his position on the quarter-century old law because his chief fiscal advisor, a fiscal liberal, does not support Proposition 13. The candidate?s alleged fiscal conservative credentials simply have not been proven.

Pragmatists are at their best when they describe the uniqueness of the current campaign. Republicans do not enjoy the luxury of voting their conscience in a primary and unifying behind a single Republican in the general election. A good case can be made on simple math alone, that following one?s conscience may give the victory to the lone competitive Democrat. They argue that unifying behind the leading Republican is a must if we wish to achieve victory. And it is here that the pragmatists and the idealists part company most dramatically?on the very definition of victory.

It is inconceivable to many that any Republican could risk the possibility of a win by Cruz Bustamante in the hopes that their candidate could beat the current odds and win. But, the very people that tout the virtues of incrementalism do not seem to allow for its application on the other side. The Ronald Reagan Republicans that support Tom McClintock do not want a Bustamante win. But, neither do they want to be told that a "moderate" Republican is the best that they will ever do.

Should Schwarzenegger continue to draw conservative voters willing to hold their nose and vote for the win, leaving McClintock with the "stubborn conservative" vote, conservatives will hear about it in the next election. The very next time that a conservative is on the ballot, especially if it is Tom McClintock, they will be reminded of the conservative?s poor showing in the last race. The conservatives that gave in to the request to side with the winner will be forgotten. Ideology, not the uniqueness of this race, not an effort to unify, not funding disparities, or anything else will be the agreed cause of the conservative?s poor showing.

For those who define victory as eventually getting a conservative, not just a Republican, in the corner office, it is at least understandable to see why they are going for the win?of Tom McClintock.

Tim LeFever
Chairman of the Board