September 1
Essential disclaimer: I did not watch Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech at the Republican convention last night and so any extra context that ought to go with what I'm about to quote wil have to go missing. But I read William Saletan's review on slate.com this morning, and I couldn't help puzzling over this:
If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican. If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican. If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican. If you believe that our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican. If you believe that this country, not the United Nations, is [the] best hope of democracy, then you are a Republican. And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican.Sorry for the lengthy quote, but there's something odd going on here. Most Democrats could agree with most of these statements. For my own part, the misty-eyed patriotism in the part about the United States being the best hope for democracy is a bit much. For one thing, it conveniently ignores our long history of propping up decidedly undemocratic regimes when we think it suits our interest (something we've been mistaken about more than once.) Also, like at least some of my fellow Democrats, I think patriotism is a problematic emotion; it often shows itself in ways that are a bit too close to jingoism and tribalism. That said, I think that the United States at its best does have a unique capacity to promote democracy and I'm all for the thoughtful use of that capacity.
I also think it's naïve to imagine that we'll ever "terminate" terrorism. That doesn't mean we shouldn't go after terrorists when we can. If Osama is captured, I'll cheer along with everyone else. But -- again like many Democrats -- I think that in addition to fighting terrorists, we need to pay attention to the ways that some of what we do encourages them. Seems to me that anyone who ignores either side of that coin is short-sighted.
Arnold has offered us six propositions. As worded, I agree outright with the first four and can go at least halfway with the fifth and sixth. But then it seems to me that more or less any reasonable person ought to be in the same position, and since Republicans don't hold a monopoly on reasonableness, something has gone askew. Let's look a little more carefully.
Totalitarians don't think that government should be accountable to the people, but few Americans, let alone few Democrats, have totalitarian instincts. What's the real issue here? Democrats are famously accused of "social engineering," and maybe that's what Arnold has in mind. But Democrats are also much more likely than Republicans to think that government should allow terminally ill patients to choose assisted suicide, much more likely to think that harsh penalties for simple drug possession are a bad idea, much more likely to think the court did right in deciding that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and much more likely than Republicans to think that the questions about abortion are hazy enough that draconian government rules are a bad idea. On the whole, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to think that government ought to let people lead their personal lives as they see fit, so long as no one else is getting hurt.
Most of us also think that people are individuals before they are members of groups, and that in general, we ought to be treated that way. The real issue is about trying to decide how to take account of an undeniable fact: people don't always get treated as individuals, and the systematic results of that fact are all around us. In spite of the undeniable progress that blacks have made, there's a gap between black and white that's largely a result of massive racial discrimination, past and present. The problem is what we do about it now. If equality of opportunity were a reality, affirmative action would be a dead issue. But whether or not affirmative action is the right solution, opportunity isn't equal, and it's worth asking what we ought to do about that.
The bit about families knowing how to spend their money better than the government is a little silly. Is it supposed to mean that there shouldn't be any taxes? Even minimal government takes money. The disagreement isn't about who should tell us how to spend our money, but about what services government ought to provide. I suspect that a good many Republicans wouldn't be in favor of eliminating public schools, for example. I'll bet there are a lot of older Republicans who are glad that there's such a thing as Medicare. And more or less everyone agrees that we need law enforcement and a standing military. But all of those things take money, and things being what they are, it will be money that the government gets from us.
As for accountability in the schools, let's grant the premise. But let's also keep in mind that in most jurisdictions, the resources a school has to work with depend heavily on the local tax base. Money may not be the only thing a school needs to do well by its students, but if schools with less money do less well, no one should be puzzled. Perhaps Democrats don't pay enough attention to accountability issues. But perhaps Republicans don't pay enough attention to the real difference that adequate funding can make.
To be fair to Arnold, this was a political speech at a partisan convention. But it's a legitimate complaint against both sides these days that political discourse isn't nearly as serious or as nuanced as it ought to be. This snippet is an example. Whatever it is that makes someone a Republican -- or a Democrat -- Arnold didn't come close to getting it right.