Customer Reviews

Party of One: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of the Independent Voter

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

"Party of One" by Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub is the book i just finished reading. It is a very good read that I would highly recommend.

The start of "Governor" Schwarzenegger was something that I missed. When I came back from Iraq in the summer of 2003 I had missed the signature gathering for the recall and the tensions surrounding it. When I left, Gray Davis was getting inaugurated for his second term. When I got back, he was toast, and the candidates to replace him included the Terminator, a porn queen, Peter Ueberroth, and Arianna Huffington, 2002 GOP nominee Bill Simon, Gary Coleman, and Senator Tom McClintock. It seemed like things were more stable in Baghdad.

Many of you will not find the parts about the recall as interesting as I did. What you will find interesting is the observations of someone that has observed the Governor almost every day for the past four years.

We all have our views of the Governor that may be based on individual issues. Weintraub breaks down some of the policy positions of the Governor with individual chapters on infrastructure improvements, environmental reforms, health care, immigration, prison reform, education, redistricting, and post-partisanship.

The Weintraub writing style in this book is exactly what you get in the Sacramento Bee.

Even if you think you know everything about the Governor, Weintraub has so many good facts included in this book that most any political observer can take something valuable from it.

Like it or not, people all over the country are going to be looking for a road map on how to try and be more like our Governor. They will use this book to do it.

"Party of One," by veteran California newspaper columnist Daniel Weintraub, details the amazing life of America's second most important chief executive, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Weintraub begins with a brief overview of Schwarzenegger's early life in a small town in Austria, as a bodybuilder who, "...left his native country as a young man to pursue his vision of the American Dream. He believed with the passion of the converted that anyone who worked hard and focused on his goals could make it in America. Not just make it - but make it big. Fame. Wealth. Adulation. A beautiful family."

The author, befitting his profession as a political journalist, quickly fast forwards to 2003, the year of California's fateful recall of Gov. Gray Davis. During that election, Schwarzenegger promised to "tear up" the state's credit cards as California groaned under a huge deficit caused by a complete lack of spending restraint coupled with the tech bubble bursting that served to end a spike in capital gains tax earnings. It was this political promise that would serve as the central criticism in Weintraub's story; the greatest failing; the biggest lost opportunity. Weintraub writes, "Schwarzenegger's failure to deal with the long-term, structural problem in the budget - the fact that spending was programmed by law to grow faster than tax revenues - allowed state spending to rise from $78 billion when he took office to $102 billion as he ran for reelection three years later, an increase of more than 30 percent... By the time he was reelected in November 2006, the state was spending more per capita and more as a percentage of the economy than it ever had before... His goal of bringing the state's books back into the black - the defining issue in his first campaign for the governor's office - would continue to depend on little more than a gamble, a hope that the economy would perform better than his own experts expected. It might have been a good formula for political success. But as fiscal policy, it would never get the job done." Schwarzenegger's fiscal failings became increasingly obvious in 2008 as California's deficit came back with a vengeance at $17 billion.

Weintraub adequately retells the phases of Schwarzenegger's public career, his first foray into politics with his after school program initiative, his initial year in office, his failed "year of reform," his retooling by coming out with a proposal to massively borrow to build infrastructure, and his push to capture the environmental issue. All of this is set into the context of examining how Schwarzenegger, while nominally a Republican, governs with no discernable set of principles - a "liberaltarian," as Brink Lindsey coined.

Weintraub wraps up by breezing through Schwarzenegger's convincing reelection in 2006 and his efforts in 2007 to increase government involvement in healthcare, reform the prison system (something I had a supporting role in), and reform the political process.

All in all, Weintraub tells the story of a remarkable man trying to govern a remarkable state, doing some things well, but failing in other, more basic tests of leadership. Weintraub leaves the impression that Schwarzenegger could have done more and could be doing more, but somehow is falling short of his initial high promise.

Reviewer: Chuck DeVore is a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010, a California State Assemblyman, he served as a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs in the Department of Defense from 1986 to 1988, retired from the Army National Guard as a lieutenant colonel, and is the co-author of "China Attacks."

This is a terrific book. It takes a very complicated and important subject -- how California is governed -- and explains it in a way that is clear, accurate and fun to read. The book is particularly valuable for explaining a much misunderstood and timely subject: Schwarzenegger's health care plan, which passed the Assembly but failed to get out a committee in the state Senate. Although this book is important and should show up on a few college syllabi, it doesn't feel like homework. Some of the writing is more than clear -- it's beautiful.

Considering the subject matter, Dan Weintraub was able to capture my attention long enough to get through the book. I liked Arnold more as a paid actor saving the world than a paid politician using the State of California to perfect the art of "bait and switch". Where or where are public servants who serve the public or has public servant become an oxymoron. Kudos to Weintraub for his research and coherent presentation of a plate of "green eggs and ham" dressed up as a thought out road map to move California forward.

Basic disagreements among Americans are limited to a few, mainly religious areas, such as creationism, gay marriage, abortion rights, and sex education. Otherwise, there is remarkable agreement on such basic values as civil liberties, democracy, social security, individual opportunity and responsibility, parental rights and obligations, non-discrimination based on race or creed, freedom of religious expression, tolerance of cultural and ethnic differences. There is not even much disagreement on such basic values as fairness, honesty, trustworthiness, fidelity and the other character virtues.

Why, then, does it seem that Americans can be divided into distinct camps called "liberal" and "conservative," with very clear characteristic social and economic policies attached to each camp? Part of the answer is that these ideological boundaries are heavily overdrawn: most Americans are not firmly wedded to the philosophical positions of the parties they vote for, and indeed many (about 30% of) voters are self-professed Independents. Part of the answer is that in a two-party system, the commitments of a party are the result of historical forces giving rise to "unholy alliances" that have little to do with ideologically coherent bodies of thought. For instance, international isolationism has wandered back and forth between the parties over the years, as has protectionism. The fundamentalist religious groups have allied with the Republicans, and progressive Catholic with the Democrats (despite disagreement over the abortion question), but there is no logical connection between free markets and restrictions on how people their lives in the privacy of their homes and intimate relations. Similarly, the southern racists were tightly allied with the Democratic party until 1960 or so, whereas since, Democrats have been strongly anti-discriminatory. Yet again, Democrats for many years argued for deficit spending and republicans for a balanced budget, but in the past fifteen years, this has turned around.

Daniel Weintraub's journalistic biography of the political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger stresses that the ex-weightlifter, ex-actor, now politician is a new breed of politician who does not conform to the ideology of either party, but rather attempts to address social problems with whatever tools seem best to achieve a successful outcome. Weintraub does a fine job of outlining Schwarzenegger's positions and policies, and has a clear-eyed and insightful understanding of the governor of California's strengths and weaknesses.

Schwarzenegger is a self-made man who grew up believing anyone could be successful if he or she just tried hard enough. Only in his third brilliantly successful career (politician) did he come to understand that some people are sufficiently disadvantaged that they cannot achieve their potential through sheer self-will and personal ambition. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don't have any boots, Schwarzenegger found out, and this led to his commitment to improving the lives of the poor and disadvantaged. Schwarzenegger came to realize that his success was predicated on a family life and an array of social policies (in his native Austria) that fostered independence and self-confidence---social conditions that huge numbers of people in the United States, and indeed the world, lack. Similarly, Schwarzenegger grew up valuing free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit, but learned early in his political career, that vigorous public policy is needed to protect the environment against the hazards of modern industry and high level energy consumption. In this and many other areas, we find the governor taking positions that indicate a real care for solving the problems, without the usual level of consideration for what the party platform says.

There is no doubt but that our two parties are corrupted an in need of an overhaul made possible because of the increased number of independent voters. The Democrats profess to believe in helping the average citizen, but they support the massively anti-progressive teachers unions, who stifle competition and choice, render a decent education for the poor impossible, who fight against meritocratic reward for teachers and the firing of incompetent teachers, and who absorb increases in educational funding in the form of increased teacher salaries. The Democrats depend on organized labor, which is really just a labor aristocracy with absolutely no future except in the public sector, where it greedily opts for lining its pockets at the expense of the average taxpayer. The Republicans depend on a small minority of religious fundamentalists and the super-rich for its funding success, and they thereby betray their ostensibly individual responsibility creed at every turn. It's time for a large number of Schwarzeneggers to emerge from the political fray to open up the creative possibilities of our political future in America.

Schwarzenegger remains the tool of big business while pretending to be the "Peoples Governor". However, when
you ask the question: Which people? The answer is those who contribute to his campaign, aka, big business.
He has decimated benefits for workers injured in California and his staff illegally implemented the permanent
disability rating schedule, like the V.A. did with Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. However, a California Work-
ers' Compensation Judge has refused to use the schedule and filed a case reporting how the Schwarzenegger administration is cheating injured workers by lying to the legislature. Most importantly, like G.W. Bush, he refuses to correct the problem and has twice vetoed bills passed by the legislature to fix the deceit. We are awaiting a decision on the Boughner case to correct the problem. Please don't be fooled by his act that he is not a typical Republican. He is, and always will be, a big business Republican.

Recently, Daniel Weintraub argued that correctional officers should not receive raises. He also suggested that officers should make LESS, since there are so many applicants for the job. His logic is not only twisted, but also a reflection of the "scrooge mentality" afflicting many bosses.

In Weintraub's world, men and women would be paid the least amount possible, and unions would be banned. This means that the teacher's union would not be allowed to ask for better wages, and that the Hollywood writers (without their union) should be paid as little as possible. Because, after all, there are thousands waiting in the wings to be teachers and writers, which, by Weintraub's logic, means writers and teachers are paid too much! This flies in the face of the obvious: labor creates value (John Locke).

Also, in America, if a job is dangerous, requires skills, or involves education or training, we pay more for that career-- which is why NFL players, despite "only having a high school education", are paid more than Bee writers! Why don't we don't hear Weintraub and his cronies attacking the 49ers? After all, football players make way more money than correctional officers.

The fact is, officers are required to attend hundreds of hours of training (they attend an arduous academy) both on and off the job. They are educated (many have BA's and MA's) and their job is dangerous (if you don't believe this, ask the family of Manny Gonzalez, an officer recently murdered by an inmate). Officers work long hours, and yes, get paid overtime for those long hours-- would Weintraub expect them to work for free? And officers do a thankless job that neither Daniel nor his cohorts would be willing to do, for any amount of money.

As for the officers' union: membership in a union is a legal right, guaranteed by U.S. law. An officer can choose to not join the union (membership is voluntary), but he still receives union protection. Officers organized a union, because prior to the union, in 1970, a "prison guard" only earned $600/ month. At that time, guards had no training, no education, no protective equipment, no baton, and no alarm (just a whistle)-- They had just their wits to protect them. Before the union, a guard's retirement (if he lived that long) was $240/ month. So, that is where officers came from, and they don't want to go back.

Also, folks join unions for protection-- to receive decent pay and decent benefits-- which is why McClatchy and all the other newspapers destroyed the newspaper unions, over 30 years ago. Newspapers hate unions, because unions give the workers rights-- the right to speak out against abuse, the right to pick one's job assignment, the right to expose corrupt bosses, and the right to sue for better work conditions. The union, in spite of Weintraub's complaints, is less influential than the rich business lobbies, and certainly less powerful than the writer's union (assuming Daniel is a member; certainly not possible).

Contrary to Daniel Weintraub, Officer's salaries are not a major cost to the state: 41% of California's budget goes to schools and 25.3% to Health and Human Services (welfare). Corrections is only 7.3% of the budget; officers salaries actually account for less than 3% of the total state budget. With gas rising to $4/gallon, and inflation at over 5%, no pay raise means pay cut-- for a job which is dangerous, dirty and difficult.

There is a certain irony about Daniel, a wealthy man, lecturing working stiffs about making too much money. Perhaps Weintraub could take a pay cut from his cushy six-figure editorial job? Because, as Weintraub argues, a job which has more applicants than openings is paying too much. And many new journalism grads want Daniel's job! But then, ignoring or manipulating the facts is common for reporters and editorial writers at the Bee. When you have an agenda, then fair and balanced reporting goes out the window.


In ending this letter, I realize I have wasted my time: the Sacramento Bee (Daniel's boss) will never print this letter, or give equal time to dissenting viewpoints. Or, if I am "lucky", the editors will pretend to be "fair" by allowing me a hundred words or so to respond, thus crippling my comments, and making my letter impotent. After all, as all working folks know, only rich men who own newspapers have freedom of speech. The rest of us go online and read blogs.


#####