QandO

June 10, 2004

Neolibertarianism Redux
Posted by Dale Franks

Think-Tank denizen Joel Kotkin argues in The New Republic that Arnold Schwarzenegger, not George W. Bush, is the heir to Regan's political legacy.

By contrast, George W. Bush has never achieved the same universal connection with the national suburban population outside the south. His support has come mainly from areas where conservative sentiment is solid, notably the south and inter-mountain west (states like Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada). As much as Bush and his followers have tried to inherit the Reagan mantle, the Texas dynasts have never "gotten" California, or warmed to the state. And Californians have never warmed to Bush, or to his style of politics. State residents of all classes have a hard time swallowing the moral agenda of the current administration and the current Republican Party. Distrustful of government, Californians don't favor using "moral values" as a rationale to ban stem cell research or gay marriage. Indeed, conservative and middle of the road Californians have no more love for bureaucrats in the bedroom than they do at the office, on the farm, or in the shop.

Yet the Reagan legacy is not dead in California; it now lives again in the cyborg form of the current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Like Reagan, and unlike George W. Bush, Arnold is a self-made man. In his priorities, Schwarzenegger epitomizes the core values of the former president--strongly pro-business, pro-technology, and highly patriotic. Like Reagan, he has also proved highly pragmatic, cutting deals with legislators and compromising when necessary.

Schwarzenegger has inherited Reagan's base of middle- and working-class suburbanites. In the election, he accumulated his greatest margins where relatively affordable houses are now being built and sold, such as the Central Valley and the sprawling Riverside-San Bernardino area east of Los Angeles. Voters in these areas, including considerable numbers of Latinos and Asians, increasingly see Schwarzenegger as a previous generation saw Reagan--as someone representing them against the taxing and regulatory appetites of legislators in Sacramento.

There is much merit in his argument. California, it seems to me, typifies what Jon calls Neolibertarianism to a great degree. Despite the fact that the legislature is run by aging hippies from San Francisco, the populace in general prefers governance that combines a mixture of conservative, smaller government, and social libertarianism on moral issues, such as abortion, gay rights, etc.

Despite the overwhelmingly liberal nature of the legislature, californian's tradtionally elect conservative-ish governors. If one were to look at who get's elected governor in California, one might reasonably suppose that California is a Republican stronghold. Since the 1943, we've had 10 years under Earl Warren, 6 years under Goodwin Knight, 8 years under Reagan, 8 years undr George Deukmejian, 8 years under Pete Wilson, and now, a year under Arnold Schwarzenegger. Since 1943, the only Democratic governors have been Pat Brown, his kid, Jerry, and 4 1/2 years of Gray Davis, who was unceremoniously dumped from the office last year.

In part, I think this is because, as the Gray Davis experience has shown, a liberal legislature combined with a liberal governor is an unpalatable combination.

But, as the Republican Party has turned more overtly Southern, i.e., religious-rightish, their presidential election hopes have diminished in California.

I think this is because California typifies something I have beleived for a decade. A national politician who espouses limited government, low taxes, and regulatory reasonableness, who at the same time espouses a social libertarianism would be practically unbeatable.

Unfortunately, the two major parties are both stuck in philosphical opposition to one of these two ideas. The Democrats are social libertarians, but the last thing they wish to espouse is limited government. The Republicans talk a good game about limited government (and talking about it is all they seem to be doing at the moment), but social libertarianism is hardly the thing they're noted for.

This is, I think, one of the major reasons why we're a 50/50 country right now. Neither party is giving us what we want in full. No matter what choice we make, it's only partially what we want to have. Therefore the elections are a lot closer than they would otherwise be.

I'd be willing to bet that a national candidate like Arnold, who espoused this neolibertarian type of philosphy, would go quite far. Arnold, himself, of course, as a heathen foreigner, is unavailable for national office.

TrackBack