RALEIGH — Rob Lowe did it for me. Perhaps for others it was George Schultz or Warren Buffett. But for me, it was definitely the menage-a-twit.
I’m talking about the campaign-advisor pick that officially Terminated the end of the “oh, he’s not so bad, at least for California” phase of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s improbable bid for political credibility. Buffett should have done it for economic conservatives and partisan Republicans, given the uber-investor’s leftist fiscal policy inclinations on taxes and his excoriation of President Bush’s tax cuts. Indeed, the day after Buffett was picked, he gave an interview in which he called for property-tax increases in California — demonstrating either that Schwarzenegger’s free-market credentials are bunk or that he isn’t very good at picking subordinates and advisors. Meanwhile, the Schultz pick should have turned off the vaguely liberal set who think President Reagan’s secretary of state to be evil-hawk personified.
But for me, the turning point — not that I was ever really going in the other direction, actually, as I am a big fan of budget hawk Tom McClintock — was the announcement that Rob Lowe had come aboard the Running Man Express to help “organize celebrity supporters.” It isn’t so much that Lowe himself is objectionable. He did, after all, make his career comeback on Wayne’s World, and thus continues to bask in the reflected glow of a truly funny time in cinema (it was all downhill from there, for him and for Mike Myers).
No, my fear is that his stated campaign role promises to yield a steady stream of Brat Pack refugees coming forward to endorse Schwartzenegger. Imagine Andrew McCarthy, eyes rolling in his characteristic style, mumbling something about how California needs leadership. Imagine Demi Moore croaking about the children and Ally Sheedy whining about the Earth. Imagine Emilio Estevez. . .
On second thought, please don’t. I wouldn’t wish such torment on my worst enemy.
Actually, I do have a semi-serious point here. The zoo-like atmosphere of the California recall election has encouraged many outside observers to ridicule the state and to question the recall, the citizen initiative, and other progeny of the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century. All I can say is: welcome to the club, ladies and gentlement. Some of us have long questioned how truly “progressive” many of the changes of the era have proven to be.
On the other hand, I’m not with the crowd that rejects direct democracy in all its forms, probably because I’ve had enough experience with representative government to sour me on its supposed charms. Civics lessons aside, most members of Congress and of state legislatures have little reason to fear public opprobrium if they make poor policy choices. They indulge the demands of special-interest groups or their own ignorant whims. Ever-more-contorted redistricting maps, for one thing, shield most incumbents from effective challenge and ensure that one party or the other will own a district and merely hold periodic primary elections within it. So to say simply that malfeasance will be punished at the next regularly scheduled election is not to recognize how our political system really works, or fails to work.
As with most things, I’m an advocate of moderation on this. I think that the public should be able to recall their politicians and to bypass them by placing controversial issues directly on the ballot for a vote. But I think the threshold for these actions, in terms of petition signatures and the like, should be very high, much higher than in California, so as to reserve direct democracy for the rare and egregious cases for which it is best suited.
Sincerely, the Breakfast Club.
Oh, no. The memories flood back, and the ’80s retro-nightmare begins. May Crom exact his punishment upon you, Arnold!
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.