plutherus

Arnold Schwarzenegger is running for governor of California, the state I only recently moved out of.
Although many people seem to be treating it as a joke, it seems he's leading the rest of the candidates by a very large margin. His lead is obviously based on the name recognition he has as a famous actor not on his politics, but still there's a good chance he'll win.

Most of the letters to the editor in California newspapers seem to be decrying his lack of experience in politics. But, despite never having held office before, he's got a lot more experience than our current president did before *he* became governor of Texas. And, it's due to his own work and interest, rather than simply due to his father's connections and money. He has been active in politics, and influencing public policy on a national level since at least the days of Reagan, where he was named chairman on the new Council of Physical Fitness. He has been fighting, both with policy and education, America's obesity problem for at least 20 years before it became a headline issue.

Another plus is that he's a self-made man. Schwarzenegger did not inherit his money. He actually started out in this country as a poor immigrant wanna-be actor and through his own business sense, sense of humour, and ability to game the Hollywood system became one of the countries biggest and longest-lasting stars. He is also a republican in Hollywood. From what I understand of the political climate there, this is more of a detriment than a boon to a career, so that speaks of some level of integrity if nothing else.

As for his politics? Unfortunately, he still doesn't have a position statement up on his web site. However, based on what he's talked about and fought for in the past, it seems like he'd follow something like the following. Bear in mind that I am not quoting any official Schwarzenegger source, and the lack of such kinda bothers me, but this is what I remember from various comments he's made and programs he's been involved in. If you have a better source that contains contradictory evidence, please feel free to post here.

Religion: In the past, he's spoken out against the Christian Right for their undue influence in politics, so I don't think he'll be a big supporter of Bush's more religion programs like the plan to give churches more of our tax money, or replace science education with Christian mythology, or actively supporting fundamentalist Christian missionaries masquerading as relief workers in Iraq. Separation of Church and State is one of the issues I'm most concerned with, as so many others can be traced to it, and I'm not terrified of what he'd do with it, the way I am with most Republicans.

Guns: He's mentioned that he opposes firearms bans, but would not necessarily support a registration or tracking scheme.

Education: He's been a strong supporter of education in California, giving millions of his own money and lending his celebrity to after-school programs for latchkey kids and others, which have included not just sports programs (which he has always been a very loud proponent of) but extended literacy training, music classes, ESL classes, and computer centers.

Abortion: He has stated many times that he believes in a woman's right to choose. Even after the Bush team was threatening to withdraw party support from anyone who didn't support them on this issue, he continued to say so.

Gay rights: One of the biggest attack points from the religious nutcases running the republican party. I don't think I've ever heard him mention where he stands on it, but he is from Hollywood. Of course, Reagan was, too, but a lot has changed since the 50's.

Immigration: As an immigrant himself, he can't be nearly as rabidly anti-immigration as the core Republicans. But again, I can't think of any time he's mentioned it.

Foreign policy: Despite the primary theme in his movies, he has said that violence should be the last resort, not something we should jump into. He opposed bombing Iraq before we did so, but I don't know what his feelings on the matter are now.

Economy: Definitely pro-business. He's said we need to lure the businesses back to California that have left it. No idea how he's planning on doing that: whether through bigger cuts on their property taxes, or repealing minimum wage, or what. Of course, a lot of the businesses that "left" California in the last few years did so because they no longer exist. Pro-business talk always makes me nervous because it so often is a euphemism for anti-worker, kind of like how the "economic stimulus and job creation act" is really just a tax cut for the very wealthy that even by the overly-optimistic projections of its supporters will create less than a third as many jobs as have been lost in the last few years.

Anyway, in short, would I vote for him were I still a registered California voter? No, probably not. Definitely not if he doesn't issue some official statements on where he stands on these issues and exactly what he's planning on doing in the name of the "bringing businesses back to California."

So who would I vote for? I dunno: it looks like Bustamonte has the biggest support among democrats, but why bother going through the whole farce of getting rid of Davis if we aren't going to ditch his accomplices as well? Definitely not Larry Flynt. Sorry, Larry. I'd probably vote for Wil Wheaton if he was running like he joked about, just cuz he seems to agree with me on just about every major issue. Maybe Gary Coleman, purely as a protest vote. But whatever happens, it's sure to be interesting. Or, at the very least, somewhat entertaining...