The Arnold and Mike show

A mixed night for moderate Republicans

Nov 10th 2005 LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

The east-coast brand of Republican Lite sold rather better

MR UNIVERSE has finally met his match: California's voters, preferring the arguments of the public-employee unions, this week resoundingly rejected four ballot initiatives sponsored by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Republican governor had earlier called the vote “Judgment Day”, describing the special election as “the sequel to the recall”, the vote two years ago that sacked the Democratic governor, Gray Davis, and elevated the erstwhile cyborg to the position.

So much for the Hollywood metaphors. The sequel is a flop and the man who boasted he could sell anything failed to flog a package he had deemed “essential” to reform dysfunctional California. One proposition would have made teachers wait for five years, instead of two, for tenure; a second required public-employee unions to have the annual written permission of a union member before using that member's dues for political purposes; a third gave the governor power to cut spending across the board in a mid-year financial crisis; and a fourth moved the power to draw political districts from the legislature to a panel of retired judges.

Even though the unions and the Democrats spent a fortune on TV ads opposing the measures, much of the blame lies with Mr Schwarzenegger. Overconfident after a honeymoon first year in office in which his approval rating soared above 60%, he carelessly described California's generally popular nurses, firemen, police and teachers as “special interests” whose butts he was “always kicking”. It was risky to demand budget-cutting powers that would also curtail spending on education (California's schools are nothing to boast about, and voters tend to be parents, too).

Above all, the governor never explained to the public why the election, costing around $50m to administer and another $200m or so in campaigning, could not have waited until next year. Showing their displeasure, the voters also rejected the four other initiatives on the ballot, including one, supported by the “pro-choice” governor, that would have banned abortions for minors without parental notification.

In the process, Mr Schwarzenegger allowed himself to be categorised as a “Bush Republican” in a liberal-minded state where Democrats outnumber Republicans. His star appearance at last year's Republican convention in New York; his campaigning for Mr Bush in the key state of Ohio; his pro-business stance and relentless fund-raising from corporate donors: together they have hurt the old image of a “Republican-lite” governor who could reach across the political divide.

Mr Schwarzenegger's discomfort must be all the greater when he looks at the easy re-election in New York City of a mayor who has remained Republican-lite. Whereas Mr Schwarzenegger (to his credit) banged on about the need for reform, Michael Bloomberg, a super-rich businessman, could point to a city moving already in the right direction. Seemingly satisfied with an improving economy, better schools and a falling crime rate, voters gave Mr Bloomberg a 20-point lead over the Democrat, Fernando Ferrer.

Mr Ferrer was certainly a less taxing opponent than California's nurses. He offered no compelling message, save for envy of Mr Bloomberg's billions. He wanted Hispanics to vote for him because he was Hispanic, Democrats because he was a Democrat. That was never going to be enough to unseat Mr Bloomberg, whose liberal social values made him a natural cross-over candidate for New York Democrats fed up with their party's left-wing local leadership. Many rich liberals kept their wallets closed to Mr Ferrer, who ended up with about $9m-10m to spend on his campaign—against the $75m or so which Mr Bloomberg could spend by signing his own cheques.

Will Mr Schwarzenegger now jump back towards the Bloombergish centre? There is already talk of some of the gubernator's more conservative advisers being ousted and a smiling Arnold was notably conciliatory on election night: “Believe it or not, I even want to thank the people who were so passionately vocal against us.” He promised an early meeting with his opponents in the search for “big ideas, radical ideas”. With the sound-system blaring out “Let the sun shine in”, the governor declared with typical chutzpah: “I recognise we need more bipartisan co-operation to make it happen.”

The Democrats, exhilarated by their success, may well be tempted to give Mr Schwarzenegger the cold shoulder. It is certainly true that a humbled Arnold is no longer a shoo-in for re-election next year. On the other hand, their own approval ratings are even lower than the governor's; and they have no candidate with his clout, with the potential exception of the eternally coy Warren Beatty. And you should never doubt the powers of reinvention of a once rather puny Austrian.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.