Advice to Bush: Follow Arnold and Become a Liberal
Just one year after California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political humiliation, with all four of his favored ballot initiatives crushed at the polls, the Terminator won reelection yesterday by 17 points. How did he accomplish such a dramatic turnaround? According to the Los Angeles Times, he 1) apologized for his missteps, which were attributable largely to rigidly adhering to right-wing ideology, 2) realized that his job was about “governing,” 3) poured billions of dollars into popular programs, 4) cut bipartisan deals to fight global warming, boost the minimum wage, and reduce the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, and 5) made infrastructure the center of his legislative focus, underscoring his new brass-tacks approach to governance.
Does anyone doubt for a second that President Bush could achieve a similar rebound in popularity by...
1) admitting to at least some significant subset of his mistakes, 2) replacing not just Rummy but a whole host of right-wing ideologues running OMB, Treasury, the EPA, etc. with experienced pragmatists, including a Democrat or two, 3) canceling his tax cuts and restoring PAYGO rules, 4) taking actions to fight global warming, boost the minimum wage and fix the Medicare drug benefit, 5) work with the Democrats to strengthen Social Security after completely disavowing carve-outs accounts, and 6) buying completely into whatever plan Baker and Hamilton come up with for Iraq?
Just asking.
The problem for Bush starts at point 1. To admit any significant mistakes would leave him morally if not legally culpable for some pretty serious stuff. Governor Schwarzenegger only had a few missteps. Bush's mistakes have literally gotten people killed. I'm not sure how one gets past that without submitting a resignation.
I'm not necessarily saying he needs to resign, I'm just saying that the situation makes it hard for him to admit to anything.
November 8, 2006 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no. Arnold is an inspirational self-made man with a ton of West LA Democratic friends and a Kennedy for a wife. His base was the center, and he only flirted with the forces of darkness. Then he realized the error of his ways, apologized, came home, and all was forgiven.
Bush and moderates have never gotten along. He has no support there. Democrats, even Conservative Democrats, will never really support him. If he follows your suggestions he loses his base on the far right. To replace them, he would pick up few or no moderates and no Democrats to replace them. You and I would be really happy if Bush adopted all your proposals, but would we really become fans of Bush after all this? Would we ever trust him after his previous policy choices have gotten this many Americans killed?
Bottom line, anyone who has ever seen an after school special or an episode of Full House knows that in Hollywood an apology is a sign of personal growth, and that's who Arnold was apologizing to. Anyone who has ever had involvement with the military knows that the appropriate response to lack of competence leading to the death of several thousand soldiers is not an apology but a resignation.
November 8, 2006 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it fairly comforting that both you and I wrote back to this comment at the same time and, it turns out, said almost the same thing.
November 8, 2006 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. We have a right-wind idealogue running Treasury? Isn't that Paulson, an experienced CEO with a long history of supporting environmental causes (much to the chagrin of people like the Wall Street Journal)?
On to more substantive points: I think that Mr. Anrig and coreym are right to a degree. Bush's base is a weird marriage of conservative Christians and business interests; the business interests don't want more liberal economic policies, and the social conservatives don't want more liberal social policies. He doesn't have much wiggle room to diverge from his present course without losing their support. Moderates also don't trust him. That said, I do believe that he could make minor policy shifts (on perhaps minimum wage, prescription drugs, etc.) and reap some small gains in popularity from it without losing his key supporters. In the end, though, I think the President has basically lost the country except for his hard-core supporters, and I don't think he can do much to get it back.
November 8, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not particularly comforted; not surprised either, though. I really think that this is a serious problem for our country. A lot of us think that the President has committed serious "crimes" or "atrocities" or whatever you want to call them. The question is what we do to bring healing, and hold the responsible parties accountable, that doesn't also threaten to tear the country apart? What is the responsible course of action?
I think Josh at TPM suggested a while back that we need some sort of Truth and Reconciliation commission to handle this. This worked well for South Africa after the apartheid era, but I don't see how we could ever get to the point where we could convene something like this. At a minimum, it would have to be after Bush is out of office, and we would probably have to find some air tight evidence of real criminal activity; not just lying to Congress or crap like that.
November 8, 2006 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats could give Bush political cover by "forcing" him to submit to the will of the people on things like minimum wage, and various environmental issues that the Christian Right is beginning to support. Rather than use his veto power to appease people he no longer needs the support of, he could allow bills passed by Dems to become law, and then potentially blame Congress during the 2008 campaign for things that don't work out well. That may be a basis for compromise without apology.
November 9, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truth and Reconcilation Commissions require acknowledgement of wrong-doing, and Bush will just never do that. The '08 Republican Presidential candidate will either come out pro-Bush or anti-Bush philosophy.
If he comes out anti-Bush, that will be the apology you get from the Republican party, and Bush fades into the sunset while historians write him up as one of the worst Presidents in American history. If the candidate comes out as Pro-Bush, well, that will be an interesting race...
If you want a subtle sign that Bush realizes he done wrong, look and see if John McCain can cozy up to Bush enough to get access to Pioneer and Ranger donations while being allowed to diss Bush enough to have a chance at winning the election.
November 9, 2006 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wanted to add, for the record, I also don't believe Bush is guilty of crimes, which in this situation to me implies knowing or intent. Its more like gross negligence.
Mmhh... meant to post this as a reply below. Guess now I'm guilty of minor negligence...
November 9, 2006 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the people Bush no longer needs is the Christian Right. The people he still needs is the oil industry (assuming he wants a nice big Presidential library in the middle of Texas). So its far more likely that he would veto any environmental leglislation, no matter what the Christian right thinks of it.
November 9, 2006 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first mistake in this post was this: according to the Los Angeles Times. His major mistakes actually involved his campaign for the propositions. The unions mounted a very effective smear campaign, and he let them get away with it. Only near the end of the proposition campaign did he try to reach out, and one of them was a TV ad that could be kindly described as "Carter-esque". He might have even been wearing a sweater.
And, at least two of his top advisors are linked to Karl Rove. So, it looks like this post is turned inside-out: it's actually Bush/Rove that have engineered his liberal tack. He's also getting advice from Maria.
And, part of his outreach is collaborating with Antonio Villaraigosa and Fabian Nunez. The first is a former leader of a racial separatist group, and the second is even more radical. Those facts are consistently covered up by sources like the LAT, but a (strongly recommended) search for their names will turn up much interesting information: flags with 13 stars, Brown Berets, links to people with distinctly pro-Aztlan views, collaborating with the Mexican government and congratulating them on helping defeat Proposition 187, Chicano Power handclaps on the floor of the California Assembly, and on and on and on.
And, AV hopes to become governor when Arnold terms out in four years, and - oddly enough - he only endorsed Phil Angelides late in the campaign.
And, in contrast to previous elections involving Arnold, the MSM went very easy on him this time around due to his new policies, and also probably due to AV's wishes.
And, contributors linked to Arnold also contributd to AV's fund designed to gain more control over the LAUSD.
November 10, 2006 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink