Arnie's Libertarian Lunge

Just in time for tonight's debate, Arnold Schwarzenegger lays out his economic program and philosophy in today's Wall Street Journal (registration required). The lede:

I have often said that the two people who have most profoundly impacted my thinking on economics are Milton Friedman and Adam Smith. At Christmas I sometimes annoy some of my more liberal Hollywood friends by sending them a gift of Mr. Friedman's classic economic primer, "Free to Choose." What I learned from Messrs. Friedman and Smith is a lesson that every political leader should never forget: that when the heavy fist of government becomes too overbearing and intrusive, it stifles the unlimited wealth creation process of a free people operating under a free enterprise system.

For news of Schwarzenegger's actually substantive proposals, click here. (WSJ link via Robert Garcia Tagorda, whose unique theories about Arnold's unorthodox campaign tactics will be put to the test tonight.)

Comments

[Robert Garcia Tagorda]

Thanks for the pressure, Matt!

Seriously, though, the only reason why I've ventured toward "unique theories" is because it's such a unique election. The very nature of the recall has led me to wonder whether traditional methods and analyses will work this time around. Who really knows? I could be wrong, but it's exciting to be challenged by a very different political beast. And perhaps that in itself makes up one justification for the whole existence of a recall.

[bennett]

Personally, I think that such a statement from an individual seeking elected office sounds too good to be true.

[Andrew Lynch]

Very interesting quote. Arnie's writers are good. The ideology is sound, sexy even, for some of us who frequent Reason.

Unfortunately, tonight's debate is going to be Candidates vs. Arnold, with lots of smarmy rim-shots from Arianna, a couple of gut punches from Bustamante, harsh remarks from McClintock to cement his superiority as a state-government expert over his GOP foe, and various clever quips from Camejo that may or may not stick to their target.

I'll bet $10 that the debate will devolve into personality one-upsmanship, completely derailing Arnold's attempts -- artificial or otherwise -- to finally prove why he's so much better than the others. His only hope is not to lose his cool, to take the high road, answer questions directly and with conviction, and DON'T TAKE THE BAIT from competitors who have been salivating for the opportunity to knock him around to the amusement of Reality TV audiences.

McClintock has the most to lose, and therefore the most to gain from smartly retorting Arnold with better, sounder, niftier proposals, or great reasons why Arnold's approach sucks. Bustamante -- with the throne in reach (the horror!) -- also has lots to lose, but not as much as McClintock.

In the way off chance that Arnold upends McClintock on stage, the latter may withdraw from the race (please?), but I don't have strong feelings either way about the likelihood of that.

I bought some microwave popcorn, befitting the event. At the very least, I'll be pumping my fist at the screen as if watching a sporting event.

[Andrew Lynch]

Oooo, I agree with bennett. Perhaps in espousing a SENSIBLE policy -- at least from one ideological point of view -- Arnold has guaranteed that the only way he'll see Sacramento is from a plane flying overhead. His published views may force McClintock to rethink his positions. Yes? No?

[Steve Skutnik]

How is it that every time Arnold attempts to buy off the limited-government crowd they so easily forget about his own sponsored initiative in just the last election that bound CA state government to shovel even more money into another entitlement program, this one being after-school programs for kids?
No, really, who here's buying Arnold's faith in Friedman? Might I interest them in a bridge or two?

[bennett]

I can not think of anyone elected to a prominent office since the 1994 congressional elections where a candidate espoused the "libertarian" free enterprise views Arney speaks of here. I just don't think it can be a winning position, especially in a state with a lot of leftward momentum. That is why I say its too good to be true.

It does make me smile, though to see a candidate make such statements. Lets see, though, if the op-ed is published in the LA Times, or the SanFran Chronicle, and not the WSJ (whose readers I would imagine are sympathetic to his message).

[Wild Pegasus]

I remember a certain previous governor of California who spouted a lot of great libertarian rhetoric, then presided over the doubling of the federal budget and the explosion of the federal debt on his watch.

Talk is cheap, except when it's a politician.

- Josh

[alkali]

...when the heavy fist of government becomes too overbearing and intrusive, it stifles the unlimited wealth creation process of a free people operating under a free enterprise system.

Does anyone actually think that government ought to be "too overbearing and intrusive"? It's a good sentiment, but in the abstract amounts to "I am against things that I believe to be bad."

[Don]

"I remember a certain previous governor of California who spouted a lot of great libertarian rhetoric, then presided over the doubling of the federal budget and the explosion of the federal debt on his watch."

Yeah, and that other guy actually had Friedman as an economic advisor of sorts. But wasn't the bulk of the budget & debt due to the welfare and pyramid schemes that the opposition had already put in place? Sure, military spending went up & taxes were cut, but the real source of debt was something else . . .

[thoreau]

It's easy to say "The other side added all this spending to the budget."

Well, last I checked, the President of the US and most state governors have veto power. If the GOP was serious about cutting spending then rather than saying "Those programs were put in place by the other guy" a GOP President would actually veto some budget bills.

[Don]

It's one thing to veto proposed legislation, and another to veto a budget that has lots of spending on legislation that had already been signed by previous Presidents (and is now law). Clinton won the game of "shut down the government" with the Repubs, but I doubt that Reagan could have done the same, had he chosen to reduce spending on things like Medicare, back in the 80s.

[thoreau]

OK, maybe he couldn't have won a fight with Congress over excessive domestic spending. But did he even try?

If, as they insist, the GOP truly supports smaller gov't, why not veto some federal spending? The Dems won't be able to override the veto unless they have 2/3 of each house of COngress. If the GOP holds firm they can force the Dems to enact some spending cuts.

Now, you might say it would be political suicide. OK, fine. What were they elected to do? Act in the best interests of the nation, or act in the best interests of their job security? If they decide that holding office is more important than the gov't downsizing that they claim to support, clearly the GOP isn't all that interested in smaller gov't.

Now, some here will say "Duh! Of course most elected Republicans are devoid of principles." And I agree. But I'm trying to call somebody's bluff on the line that "Reagan didn't want all that spending, it was the Dems who did it." And I'm saying that if he was really interested in reining in domestic spending he would have accepted the possibility of being a one-term President. (It's not like he needed the job to survive.) Or, at the very least, he would have vetoed a lot of spending bills in his second term when he had nothing to lose.

[Lefty]

The record over the last 30 years is that Republicans can't handle money, allthewhile thumping the Friedman bible to get votes. These guys have not balanced a budget in almost two generations.

And don't blame it all on entitlements. Think trickle down, voo-doo, S&L's, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Halliburton, Star Wars, Iraq, etc.

[Andy]

Kevin Carson, isn't there a version of Godwin's Law about Simpsons quotes? Something about the entire thread disapearing under a haze of Simpson reverie?

"Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford!" --CM Burns

[Anonymous]

Josh wrote:
"I remember a certain previous governor of California who spouted a lot of great libertarian rhetoric, then presided over the doubling of the federal budget and the explosion of the federal debt on his watch."

Still, the rate of spending increase dropped off pretty dramatically under Reagan compared to Carter, and in addition to the tax rate cuts, the federal register: the book of all government regulations, actually shrank. A libertarian dream come true? No, but way better than Carter or Bush. Bush would look better if the Republican congress would be as tight with him as they were with Clinton.

[Rick Barton]

Last post by Rick Barton

[Rick Barton]

It would likely be a big improvement for the people of California to have a person in the State House who is into Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Reason.

[Don]

"Still, the rate of spending increase dropped off pretty dramatically under Reagan compared to Carter, and in addition to the tax rate cuts, the federal register: the book of all government regulations, actually shrank."

Yeah. And the leftist idiots called the drop off in spending increases "cuts".

Oh, and the REAL voodoo economics is Keynesian economics.

[el jefe]

keeping in mind that Rainier = Ahnold ...

Jay Sherman: How do you sleep at night?

Rainier Wolfcastle: On top of a pile of money, wif many beautiful ladies ...

[Kevin Carson]

alkali,

Boy, you sure got THAT one right. Ah-nold's embrace of Adam Smith is about as profound and genuine as Bob Dole's embrace of the Tenth Amendment he read during every speech. I'm surprised he didn't say "Jesus is my favorite philosopher."

As Jesse Walker pointed out a while back, Schwartzenegger's initial platform was 1) for the little guy, 2) against the special interests, and 3) for making the politicians do their jobs. Oh, yeah--and "children are our most valuable resource." I'm glad somebody had the guts to take such a controversial stand, and damn the consequences.

"I think taxes are too high; let those bureacrats in the state capital put THAT in their pipe and smoke it!" Monty Burns

[Don]

Right Joe, there is no free lunch.

The capital gains tax cut and other "supply side" antics of the Republican Congress and the Clinton Administration helped the economy. On the other hand, the Feds Keynesian fussing with the money supply caused the boom & recession.

[joe]

Yeah, Don, watching the economy grow and deficit shrink over the past two and half years has really changed my mind about Supply Side.

There is no free lunch.

[Osner Miriam]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.1st-host.org
DATE: 01/20/2004 05:13:20
What else can i say after all this ?!