The Real Reason Conservatives are So Vehemently Opposed to the Candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger

www.allsouthwest.com ^ | Eric Dondero

[Tony in Hawaii]

 
 

The Real Reason Conservatives are So Vehemently Opposed to the Candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger

By Eric Dondero

What 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.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

I initially had used no html formatting, so I hadn't set up the link accordingly. Please accept my apology.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973882/posts?page=169#169

I had neglected to mention that my allegedly libertarian questioner had offered some legalistic interpretations that you would be better equipped to comment upon than I. In some instances, he had what seemed valid points; but he did evade key points too, choosing to answer the question he rewrote, so I had cause for additional suspicions beyond the others that I had noted about his commentary leading up to posts 169 & 170. So, over and beyond my solicitations of your response to my own ideas, your assessment of the other party's last assertions may arise naturally. While I would like to see that too, it's only with the overarching purpose of discovering tactics for keeping God from being ejected from the public square.

[MichaelDammit]

Good post....but the issue is really more about gun control. Arnie has not hit the "there's already 10,000 gun laws and crime still happens" line enough. That indicates to the conservatives that he believes Maria's uncle's position on this seminal issue....

[RogueIsland]

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.

That's odd. I thought Arnold had expressed his "low gun owner tolerance level" on several occasions. Not very socially tolerant of him.

[SauronOfMordor]

Being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is impossible. Why?? Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results.

The foundation of libertarianism is the freedom to persue your own goals, plus the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your free acts. The success or failure of the libertarian approach has everything to do with the sequence in which things are implimented. Deregulating the S&L's while maintaining federal insurance for them led to the S&L fiasco a few years back.

The correct sequence is to take a machete to the "safety net" BEFORE giving somebody the OK to do things that would have an adverse impact on the rest of us if we have to catch him.

200 years ago, we had a level of personal freedom that would seem radical by today's standards. The reason it didn't bankrupt society is because people were not insulated by the consequences of their actions. You screwed up bad enough, you starved in the ditch -- unless some wiser relative took you in on his terms

[Kevin Curry]

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.

Wrong. I understand it much better than you do. This libertarianism approach to drugs that you describe will NEVER be adopted by American society. Relax controls on drugs, eliminate drugs laws, open the jails and allow the drug dealers to walk freely and unmolested and you will find yourself at a social liberal endpoint--not a libertarian endpoint. That means vastly increased social welfare costs to coddle and care for drug users and insure their irresponsibility at taxpayer expense.

I consider the practical and sure consequences of the bone-headed and short-sighted libertarian approach to drugs. You and all other libertarians play mind games, envisioning this "perfect" society where Americans will step over the bodies of drug abusers lying in the streets and say, "Them's the breaks, bub." It'll never happen.

And Schwarzenegger, like all social liberals, will ensure as he puts it "That everything has to be provided for the people."

[tpaine]

To: Tony in Hawaii

I well understand that you are only posting the article and not expressing agreement with it. It is a worthwhile post because it shows more of the ugly underside of the dishonesty that is Arnie's campaign.
In 1969, Mr. Dondero's friends/heroes tried to hijack Young Americans for Freedom. They failed then and they will fail now to hijack the GOP.

The Rino wing of the GOP needs hijacking, especially here in CA where it is an abject political failure.

George Schultz is about as libertarian as Slick Willie.

Bull. He has said he is libertarian on many issues.

Frank Meyer died in 1972 as Managing Editor of National Review, baptised Catholic on his deathbed with Bill Buckley as his Godfather. He was NOT purged from the conservative movement at any time. I believe he was the sharpest ideologue at NR. His wife Elsie was also an NR editor until her death.
Friedrich von Hayek's Road to Serfdom is a major bulwark of conserrvatism and was distributed free by Young Americans for Freedom in tens of thousands of copies long after 1962. Friedrich von Hayek was not a conservative because he did not believe in God.

Everyone that doesn't believe in your version of God is "not a conservative"? -- Bizarre

That Arnold attended a few economics conferenes or even believes in market solutions is not enough. The market is failing in job creation. Dondero can say that our philosophy is "Devil take the Hindmost" but Arnold had better not agree publicly or he is complete toast.

Meaningless rant..

Ron Paul is an honorable but thoroughly evventric man who has totally marginalized himself. As I understand it, Ron Paul is still a militant pro-lifer, unlike Arnold. Ron Paul's problems are neo-isolationism and an yutterly impractical expectation of treatment of the onstitution as the Ur documen of our nation. If, blessedly, that view might ever be restored, it will not be within the lifetimes of Ron Paul's great grandchildren.

Another meaningless, even weirder rant. What's you point?

I will give Dondero this much. The fight over California IS a fight for the soul of the national GOP. Will it be pro-death (like left Demonrats and other libertines) or pro-life (like GOP platforms and voting records)? Will it be pro-gun (like libertarians and conservatives) or anti-gun (like Arnold)? Will it be pro-homosexual or not? Will it be (like Demonrats and "paleos" and unlike Arnold) isolationist or interventionist (like Arnold and normal conservatives)?

The GOP should return to advocating its basic principles, -- fiscally conservative small government and constitutional liberty for individuals.

There are m,any other issues as well. Thirty some odd years into the existence of the Libertarian Party it is obvious that that party is stricly an electoral loser. Those in LP circles are again looking at taking over the better brand name of GOP. They aren't going to be allowed to have it.

Don't bet on it, kiddo. Constitutional libertarianism will lead the rebirth of republicanism.

[tpaine]

You are a so-called conservative, kevin, scared to death that if Arnold wins; -- his new brand of
"fiscally conservative/socially tolerant" Republicanism will catch on.. -- And upset your big brothers applecart.

[FastCoyote]

"This libertarianism approach to drugs that you describe will NEVER be adopted by American society. Relax controls on drugs, eliminate drugs laws, open the jails and allow the drug dealers to walk freely and unmolested and you will find yourself at a social liberal endpoint-"

Gee Kevin, that's where we already are. Had a drug dealer living next door in a middle class neighborhood - nothing could be done. So your worst nightmare is here and the War On Drugs is a big flaming failure. So, what are you going to do about it?

[MHGinTN]

If Arnold is actually mostly Libertarian, it is another reason to put him into office ... to test what happens when liberalism butts against libertarianism. Leftafornia would be an excellent place to find out!

[Kevin Curry]

If Arnold is actually mostly Libertarian . . .

Arnold isn't a libertarian. Not by a long shot.

Arnold is a social liberal who is more than willing to tax and spend to support costly, failed social liberal programs. Again, as he put it in an interview with CNN last week, "We want to make sure the mothers have affordable day care. We want to make sure the older folks have their care that they need. That everything has to be provided for the people.".

I will give social liberal Arnold this much credit: he apparently knows you cannot fund social liberal programs out of thin air. Libertarians are not nearly so savvy. They believe you can have a pro-drug, pro-dope, pro-abortion social liberal state without paying for it.

How does Arnold expect to fund his social liberalism? It's hard to say because he isn't telling us. He keeps mouthing that he's a fiscal cosnervative while assuring the public educators and illegal alien lobby that he will keep the state coffers open for plunder. I suspect he believes a spontaneous economic recovery is underway that will boost tax receipts sufficiently that he will never have to actually cut the social liberal programs.

It's a fool's bet, if not in the short-term, then certainly in the long term.

[and the horse you rode in on]

Call Arnold what he is, A Goldwater Republican

A proud title.
A tribute to the man who saved Republicanism in the 60s

[and the horse you rode in on]

Being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is impossible. Why?? Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results.

Nonsense, it is prohibition, with its policing and incarceration costs which is more expensive. Most of the costs of todays activities is due to black market conditions.

[Kevin Curry]

You are deluded beyond help. Almost pyschotic.

You must be a libertarian.

[Kevin Curry]

Tell me, what do you make of this statement by your steroid savior?

"We want to make sure the mothers have affordable day care. We want to make sure the older folks have their care that they need. That everything has to be provided for the people." CNN Interview

How does that meet the teeth of your fervid froot loop Goldwater quasi-libertarian mental mastications? How does that make Arnold a "fiscal conservative"?

I suspect you lack the guts, the honesty, or the intelligence (maybe all three) to answer forthrightly.

[and the horse you rode in on]

Tell me, what do you make of this statement by your steroid savior? "We want to make sure the mothers have affordable day care. We want to make sure the older folks have their care that they need. That everything has to be provided for the people." CNN Interview

I think it is a stupid idea and a stupid thing to say. I think he was blathering because he didn't really have an answer he trusted.

[and the horse you rode in on]

I suspect you lack the guts, the honesty, or the intelligence (maybe all three) to answer forthrightly.

Did you just call me a Democrat, Bubba?

[68 grunt]

... ." 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.

There you go. FEAR!

VOTE COURAGOUSLY - VOTE SCHWARZENEGGER

[Kevin Curry]

So you're supporting a candidate you concede is stupid, who cannot control his mouth? And you expect him to lead California and the Republican Party to greatness?

It is an honest answer.

[xzins]

When Christian Conservatives in the Republican Party get attacked like this by their own, then it's definitely past time for them to form their own caucus within the Republican Party.

[JoeSchem]

I guess my question is why RINOs think that California would slide into the sea if the governor was pro-life.

Actually, it goes deeper than that. RINOs and liberals in general have made it clear that they would PREFER California to slide into the sea (of red ink, at least) rather than elect a pro-life governor.

Why are RINOs and liberals so dogmatic over a single issue like abortion?