October 08, 2003
Schwarzeneggar declared winner.
Arnold Schwarzeneggar has been declared the new Governor of California. Preliminary stats indicate that he garnered a huge protest vote based on everything from legislative actions, national economy effects on California, Davis’s performance, “puke politics” aimed at the Los Angeles newspaper and many other factors. Arnold has set his goal on body building and turned that venture into a success. He turned his sights on Hollywood, and he became a success. It is possible that now that he has set his sights on political leadership, he will be a success in that venture as well.
The election of Schwarzeneggar however, makes a statement about American politics which is not very flattering. This election demonstrates that big money wins of political office is no guarantee of good governance, as Davis has demonstrated. This election also demonstrates that political experience and knowledge of the political system is not a necessary qualification for office. Equally important, it demonstrates that a person with fame and money are all the qualifications needed to lead Americans in economic, policy and legislative decisions. Governor elect Swarzeneggar has no political experience, no educational credentials in law, economics, or political science. Thus, fame and money and the media PR that that money can buy is all that is needed to win the confidence of the American people to lead them.
This I find a sad statement on the political future for California and the country as a whole. Nonetheless, there is hope that Schwarzeneggar's past success will bode well for his learning to meet the needs of the California people for executive government and leadership.
Posted by David R. Remer at October 8, 2003 12:43 AMTime to start the recall campaign against Arnold.
Go Gary Coleman!
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at October 8, 2003 02:40 AMabsolutely terrible, yet not terribly surprising. PR wins elections, plain and simple.
Posted by: cole at October 8, 2003 02:28 PMArnold had terrible PR, he wouldn’t debate or candidly answer questions. This election was won by the tyranny of the majority. A majority that had a morbid sense of curiosity, the same majority that would elect a screen character that constantly spouted movie lines and cliches.
By all means, Californians deserve this man, simply out of the fact that they elected him as the replacement.
As for mobid curiosity, they wonder… how bad could it be? Who knows?
Personally, I don’t care, but it’s empty nd meaningless to gloat at an ignorant majority.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at October 8, 2003 02:45 PMDavid: I appreciated your response to the e mail I sent about your Al Sharpton remarks. Thanks for that.
On the current column, I would like to submit that people may be smarter than we sometimes give them credit for. I am referencing your remark that all it takes is fame and fortune and pr (or words to that effect ) to win the confidence of the American people to lead them.
It seems that, often, if a person is attempting to break into the political game, people are more comfortable if there is a string of pertinent credentials attached to their name.
Now, maybe this is just me but I think there is a time and a place to be concerned with pedigree. If its brain surgery, yes, I want to see that the practitioner is fully licensed and qualified in the procedure at hand. If , on the other hand, I am looking for a competent juggler, I am far more concerned with demonstrable skills than that the person can produce a diploma from the Oshgosh School of Juggling. I personally feel that the skills necessary for politiking are more akin to juggling than brain surgery . I believe the career politicians would like us to think that one must train for years in arcane schools to attain a level of proficiency.( If so, Gray Davis should get his money back for all of his training.)
I am personally interested in having an outsider (other than a career politician) tackle the job of putting Calif. right. What we don”t need is more foxes watching the hen house. Didn’t both parties agree to squelch the soft money issue? They are just too addicted to the gravy train to really be objective and do the right thing- in this case, put the kabosh on the special interest monies, honoraria, and other perquisites of office. Shame on them. So lets move them aside and give someone else a crack at effecting the remedy for a broken system.
I liked Uberoth right out of the gate and I didnt see as many objections raised about his qualifications as were raised about the “actor”
I’m the first to agree that Marcus Welby shouldnt be pitching drugs to the public as if he was , indeed versed in the field of medicine: as an actor this clearly would have exceeded the scope of his training. But politics?………….
The fact that lobbyist have had such an impact on the political process for lo these many years pretty much elucidates the skills needed to prevail in this field. Didnt Trent Lott’s son move from pizza hutt to power broker in one deft swoop?
Lets give Arnold some credit. He is a self made multimillionaire. To put a spin on an old homily, If he’s so dumb, why aint he poor? I believe he’s just what the doctor ordered (thats what Marcus Welby told me anyway) a guy who has demonstrated focus, energy, determination and a willingness to take on the intransigence of the career politicos. apparently, a great many Californians agree with me, and I dont think its just because he’s good with a sound bite. In the early campaigning, Arnold gave us an indication of his game plan—surround yourself with people who have the skills you need. At least we know he’s that smart. I think Californians believe he will assemble a powerful team who will be able to crash that old party and get it moving in the right (actually, centerist) direction. And because he so well versed in the media field, I expect that he will be very effective in shining the spotlite on those dark corners of resistance to change that will surely emerge. Today, information is the key and Arnold is pretty much a media, communications expert. I think it bodes well for much needed change. But what do I know, I’m just one of the famous California Lemmings
greg smith
Posted by: greg smith at October 10, 2003 05:32 PMGreg, I appreciate your cogent and well laid out argument and agree with much of what you have said.
I think there is, in my mind anyway, a distinction between holding executive office vs. some other political postion in government, with regard to qualifications. I agree that a degree, or some other experiential qualificaton, is not prerequistie to hold, say, a congressional seat (excepting the Senate). The office of executive however, I believe should be held to a higher standard of qualification by the voters in general. The reason is that the executive, in large measure, has the power to stear the agenda congress (and the courts in the case of the presidency) take.
Selecting advisors presupposes that the executive knows enough about social, governmental, and political history to make intelligent and discriminating choices in regard to those advisors. Arnold brought on board Buffet as one of his economic advisors. Now Buffet is no longer visible as part of the team. Poor choice? I don’t know.
In the case of President Bush, however, it seems many of his political problems stem from his choices of advisors. I have read the 2000 Republican Party Platform a couple of times, now, (no easy feat - it appears to have been written to discourage anyone from reading it due to its length) and there are a host of dramatic differences between the platform and President Bush’s actions of leadership.
I know 9/11 shifted priorities, but, the actions taken by Bush and the party platform seem irreconcileable on the issues of the environment, peace, education, social security and medicare as well as the economy. I don’t believe Bush is using the promises in the Party Platform to guide him, but, instead, his advisors. Thus explaining the divergence.
It seems to me a candidate for executive office needs more than fame and wealth to justify their election. I believe they should have a demonstrable capability of making appropriate choices of cabinet and advisors to keep their actions in accord with their campaign promises and rhetoric.
I found it interesting that Arnold made only one promise to the people in his campaign, and that was to immediately set up accounting review of the states budget. He even refused to promise there would be no tax hikes.
I fail to see where his agenda was that gave the voters any indication of what directions he was going to take. In the absence of an agenda, the fame, PR, and party seem to have bought the 50% of the vote that he got. Not a direction with concrete steps to further the causes of the Californian people.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2003 10:03 PM
