Here's a question that I'd like to hear put to prominent Republicans who are backing Arnold S. for governor. This is not intended as a "gotcha" question or an attempt to provoke a slap-fight or anything. I promise you, I'm genuinely interested in hearing a civil, honest answer to this…
We have here a candidate who describes himself as "very liberal" on social issues. He favors gay adoption and certain other gay rights. He favors legalized abortion and some forms of gun control. He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton and said he was "ashamed of his party" for its actions in that regard.
He's not only used marijuana, he smoked it on-screen in the documentary, Pumping Iron. There are more than a few reports of him using illegal steroids and of committing sexual harassment against women, even after he got married. He has also obviously been a leading force in the creation of violent movies in recent years and there are full frontal nude photos of him around. (They're probably being scanned and uploaded even as we speak.) Now, I am absolutely not condemning him for all or most of this. I don't know about some of the morals charges and I'm with him on most of the political positions…
…but I'd like to see his Republican backers asked, "If he were exactly the same candidate but a Democrat, would you even think of backing him?"
It seems to me that some of the above facts are not only things that Republicans abhor in a politician but that they cite as indicative of serious moral and character defects. When Clinton was running, we were told that pot-smoking, even way in the past, and messing around on your wife made you such a bad person that you should be disqualified from public office. Often, from people who will probably vote for Arnold, we hear that to not be "pro-life" makes you a baby-killer.
Is it that these things never really mattered? Or that they don't matter if the Republicans have a chance to win the governor's chair? Or that they matter a lot and you're going to vote for Bill Simon, even though he won't win? Or what?
This intrigues me because I think reflex partisanship — especially along the Democrat/Republican divide — is one of the more pernicious elements of our public discourse. Today on MSNBC, I saw Republican Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, who seems to be Arnold's political opposite, enthusiastically endorse the guy as just the kind of man we need in office. Meanwhile, Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, came out against the Republican. In both cases, they acted like it meant something that they had come to these views of Mr. Schwarzenegger. How often do politicians not endorse and support along party lines? The candidate in question has to be either going to prison or a former Ku Klux Klan leader.
So that's my question to devout Republicans who intend to vote for Arnold or would if they lived in California: Would you even think of supporting him if he had a "D" after his name?