Quixote Endorses McClintock

The Californian recall election process has fascinated me because the choice facing Republicans is so dynamic. Tom McClintock seems to be that rare breed of politician – one who actually says what he means, means what he says, and clearly articulates policies based upon principles instead of political expediency. Arnold Schwarzenegger still is learning about the issues, but seems to be more Libertarian than Republican (that is, he strikes me as fiscally conservative, but socially liberal – and I suspect his social liberalism will trump his fiscal conservatism when the two conflict). Obviously his name recognition is a huge asset, especially amongst the voters who really don’t care about the Republicans nor the Democrats. The question is why should Republicans vote for Schwarzenegger?



In previous posts, I’ve assumed McClintock would bail out of the election once he saw Schwarzenegger was the more popular candidate. However, as I have learned more about McClintock, I no longer think this is the case. I also now hope McClintock fights to the finish. Why should a man give up his dreams and principles for a man who does not share those principles?



Many wishy-washy Republicans, blinded by seeing a chance to get someone associated with the Republican party elected as governor, are ignoring their principles and urging McClintock to abandon his. From a game-playing perspective, this makes sense. Ralph Nader probably cost Gore the last election. Twelve years earlier, Ross Perot allowed President Clinton to get elected by splitting the conservative vote. Clearly Republicans fear that McClintock’s staying in the race will allow Lt. Governor Bustamante to remain in power.



I say take the risk. Republicans should vote their principles and vote for McClintock. If Bustamante wins, then a few more years of Democratic misrule should guarantee a Republican victory next time around. If Schwarzenegger wins, as I predict he will even with McClintock staying in the race, then the Republican voters would have remained true to their principles without making a difference in the race’s outcome. And if all Republicans actually voted for McClintock, I suspect Tom McClintock would win. Unfortunately this outcome is quite doubtful.



No matter what the outcome, this pundit fully supports and endorses Tom McClintock and his quixotic quest. And I will defend his right and responsibility to stick to his principles and remain in the election against all the misguided and/or unprincipled Republicans calling for him to withdraw. The ends do not justify the means.

 
 
Comments

I would vote for McClintock as well, were I a California voter. And I don't think he should withdraw.



However, two things. First, Arnold doesn't strike me as a libertarian (lowercase "l") at all. Statements such as "everything must be provided for the people" could have come right from the the Socialist party. Arnold is a "statist paternalist."



A practical libertarian isn't necessarily "socially liberal," rather, he believes in limited government with respect to both social and economic issues. He believes government should leave people alone to be what they want to be and do what they want to do, provided they aren't "picking the pocket" or "breaking the leg" of their neighbor. He believes in self-government above all.



McClintock strikes me as much more libertarian in his thinking than Arnold. Granted, I'm only basing this on a couple of radio interviews and written news stories, since I missed the debate.



Second, a couple of my liberal friends, in 2000, were cursing Nader voters for having screwed over the country by not voting for Gore. The idea was that Nader "stole" votes from Gore.



Now, I have nothing for Nader nor the Green Party whatsoever, but Nader ran a legitimate campaign (against the odds), and the way I saw it, Gore actually stole votes from Nader, rather than the other way around.



However, in 2000 I would have voted for the ALP candidate had it not seemed so imperative to prevent Gore from becoming President.



My liberal friends insist those who voted "Green" in 2000 have learned their lesson for 2004...

Posted by: Kevin White | 09/29/2003 - 02:27 AM

Kevin,

Thanks for the comments. It is interesting how different people perceive Arnold. I got an email from one California Republican – which I may share later – who believes Arnold is a conservative. Arnold struck me as a Libertarian and you perceive him as a Socialist. That covers quite a bit of territory. I doubt he would do well in a long campaign if people had the chance to get a better understanding of his philosophy. Right now, many people (probably including myself) are seeing what they expect to see vs. what may really be there.



I’m not sure I would consider McClintock a Libertarian although conservative Republicans and Libertarians have many things in common. For example, both are skeptical of big government and believe in fiscal prudence. This may be the basis for your comment; however, I hope Arnold also shares these views. The main difference between many Libertarians and Republicans is social conservatism. In general, most Republicans believe government should support traditional values and are pro-life, while most Libertarians think values are up to individuals (except the unborn who have no rights). I know I am painting with a broad brush, there are exceptions in both parties (Log Cabin Republicans and Libertarians For Life). However, I think this applies to the majority.



I think your Liberal friends are wrong about people voting for the Green party. Those who feel strongly about the issue will (and should) vote their principles. That is the only way to grow out of a two-party system. Before the recall election, I knew California conservatives who thought Republicans would never duplicate the Ross Perot “mistake” again. The events in their own state are causing them to reevaluate this.

Posted by: Admiral Quixote | 09/29/2003 - 09:44 AM

Don,



I don't think Arnold is a full-blown socialist by any means. I think his early statements were mostly an unfortunate choice of words, but they could be telling. I think we will see where he falls on the political graph in practice. :o)



As for the difference between Republicans and libertarians (and I don't think the terms are mutually exclusive, especially considering the breadth of views "libertarianism" supports -- see Ron Paul), your assessment is essentially correct.



While I am a believer in traditional values and rather conservative myself, I don't feel it is the proper role of government to manufacture and then socially engineer a set of values which the people must be coerced into adhering to.



And there are issues on which I depart from many libertarians -- I am pro-life and I am not for open borders, for example.

Posted by: Kevin White | 09/29/2003 - 08:15 PM

I think Mclintock shouldn't withdraw because, it is possible he may end up in a statistical tie with Bustamante. (judging by the latest polls showing Arnold at 40%, Bustamante 30% and Mclintock at 18%) Bustamante and Mclintock are going in opposite directions and i suspect both will end at about 25% with Arnold at around 35% (just going with feelings here).



Arnold is against raising taxes and I think that he can then point out that with Mclintock and his most Californians are also, which will provide him some needed political capitol.



Personally, I think Arnold is closer to a New England Republican. Socialy liberal, fiscally conservative.

Posted by: Wayne | 09/30/2003 - 02:34 AM
 
 
Send this Post
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):