If I Am Not Me, Den Who Da Hell Am I?

|

John Fund takes to the pages of the Wall Street Journal—the east coast paper that's been unusually hopeful for the future of a west coast politician—and bemoans the end of Arnold Schwarzenegger's libertarianism.

Last year, he savaged Phil Angelides, his Democratic opponent, for proposing what he called a "job-killing health-care tax." In a memorable debate moment, the governor taunted Mr. Angelides: "I can tell by the joy in your eyes when you talk about taxes, you just love to increase taxes. Look out there right now and just say, 'I love increasing your taxes.' "

Yet whereas Mr. Angelides's plan would have spent $7 billion to require employers with more than 200 workers to provide health benefits, Gov. Schwarzenegger's new plan calls on employers with 10 or more workers to provide coverage or pay into a state fund, and would represent the second largest tax increase in California 's history. "The governor ended up dreaming up more taxes than ever popped in my head," a bemused Mr. Angelides told reporters this month.

The theory for why Arnold decided to raise taxes? It's, uh, odd.

One Sacramento wag notes that the free-market economist Milton Friedman, whom the governor described in a 2004 interview with Daniel Weintraub as "my mentor, and the king," died just three days after the Mercury-News article. "The coincidence is just that, but it's worth noting things really changed after that," says a friend of the governor's. Even former congressman Tom Campbell, a moderate Republican who served as Mr. Schwarzenegger's finance director for a year, is nonplussed. "God rest his soul, but would Milton Friedman have been putting forward mandates for health care?" he told the San Francisco Chronicle.

I don't think we need to consult the bones or the ouija board to figure this out. Yes, Schwarzenegger had a lot of libertarian ideas before he entered politics. Once he finally made the plunge, he decided that… he wanted to stay in politics. In a liberal state with an unmovable Democratic legislature, that meant acting like a Democrat. This is exactly the behavior that liberals bemoaned in Bill Clinton in 2000, when a couple million of them were fixin' to ditch the party and vote for Nader.

NEXT: The Costs of CLEAN Energy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Pure libertarians are too busy belaboring the obvious and tisk tisking over the stupidity of non-believers to do politics.

  2. As if the media would deign to notice Ron Paul?
    JMR

  3. Anyone else noticed that the quickest way to get libertarians angry is to be supportive of democratic processes? Or support the bill of rights? (I still remember when every libertarian for miles hated the ACLU for backing the Bill of rights on a regular basis).

  4. I still remember when every libertarian for miles hated the ACLU for backing the Bill of rights on a regular basis

    My what a big strawman you have, Granny.

  5. My what a big strawman you have, Granny.

    I’d think a strawman would have to at least be coherent.

  6. Johnny, my boy, did you forget to take your medication?

    I mean do you have actual conversations with the “libertarians” in your head or do they just talk to you.

  7. As I noted in another post, Arnold has political aspirations.

    Hmmm, Senator Schwarzenegger.

  8. How you can you be aginst the ACLU? They’re for CIVIL LIBERTIES for frak’s sake! It says so right on the label. See?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.