Wednesday, November 05, 2003

Arnold and the GOP: Harold Meyerson has an insightful (if perhaps plagued by overheated rhetoric) look at the curious relationship at work, what it means for the next year or so, and how Schwarzenegger could change the party:
In California, the governor-elect is hailed as the Republicans' Great White (or, through the miracle of modern tanning, Orange) Hope. The first Republican gubernatorial candidate to proclaim himself pro-choice, anti-assault weapon and anti-homophobic, Schwarzenegger exhibited a crossover appeal that the GOP hadn't seen since Ronald Reagan invented the Reagan Democrats.
Meanwhile, though, Bush has a base to appeal to:
More pointedly, as Karl Rove himself has noted, 4 million Christian evangelicals did not bestir themselves to vote in the election of 2000. At the rate things are going, Bush will need every one of those votes next year. Time, then, to unveil the real risk to our security. No, not al-Qaeda fanatics plotting the deaths of Americans at home or abroad. The administration's credibility on military and security matters generally may not be a whole lot higher than the Democrats' when the election rolls around.

Happily, Republicans have identified a threat right here at home on which the Democrats lack all backbone: marauding Unitarian ministers, cruising back alleys, threatening to swoop up same-sex couples and, before anyone can think better of it, marry them. Listen closely and you can almost hear the whispers: "Hey, big fellas -- wanna tie the knot?"

So what to make of it? As popular as Arnold is, the GOP is not about to stand for G(ay marriage), O(rgies in the gym), and P(ornography) -- much as we might celebrate such a change. Likewise, Arnold is not going to ever be socially conservative. It looks like it will be an awkward dance for Arnold and the party – and, importantly, for Arnold and Dubya. This is important stuff, and the GOP has to be thinking about the inroads Arnold made into independent-voter territory. Further, if Bush won in 2000 (arguably: yeah, yeah, yeah) with 4 million of his supposed base sitting on their hands, what kind of trade is worthwhile to pick up some Schwarzenegger Republicans in 2004? Meyerson calls for a "Sister Souljah" moment within the GOP, presumably on social issues. Don’t doubt for a second that the Bush team is looking for the right issue, the right time; they showed a bit of this by hammering some of the evangelicals who, post-9/11, attacked Islam.

Where Meyerson overreaches, though, is in his characterization of the stalemate:

[Schwarzenegger could] condemn his fellow party leaders for their manipulation of xenophobic, homophobic and racist fears. That speech would be no less powerful if delivered with an immigrant's accent.

Or Schwarzenegger could take a pass, and the Republican Party could stay its current course, alternating between Old Testament morality and new age sexuality in accord with the demographics of the district. Call it a big-tent party, or a boundless well of cynicism.

That’s a bit unfair, considering even Democrats have local/national conflicts that can’t easily be papered over. A nominee Howard Dean and his party will have to do a similar dance over guns, considering how Democrats accused Bush of giving the NRA their own West Wing suite. Dean, as Vermont (i.e., local) politics requires, is more vocally pro-NRA than Bush. Likewise, Gephardt has spoken loudly against NAFTA, as befits his Midwestern, union-heavy, blue-collar Democrat base. But NAFTA was a crowning triumph of the Clinton administration’s trade policy and a plank in the New Democrat platform that isn’t likely to disappear. A smug right-wing commentator could make hay about such cynicism (to use Meyerson’s word), and no doubt one is out there now, doing just that. In reality, though, that’s politics. Tom Daschle would love a majority in the Senate in 2004, even if it means getting out the vote for a pro-life Democrat. But the party certainly wouldn’t run a pro-life Democrat for president, since it takes away a good gender issue. Good politics? Yep. Cynicism? Hardly.

No comments: