Andrew Burkinshaw writes:
In an excellent article in this week's Time Michael Grunwald profiles Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger and looks at their careers and achievements in public office.
Both men are self-made; their hard work and determination making them rich and famous in their sector (Bloomberg) or just plain famous (Schwarzenegger). They are both Republicans whose socially liberal positions have enabled their election in Democratic strongholds. And they are both prepared to take action where they believe the federal government in Washington has failed to do so.
Take climate change. In New York Bloomberg is calling for a 30% cut in greenhouse gases by 2030 and in California Schwarzenegger has signed a cap on greenhouses gases, the first in the country. Or affordable housing, where Bloomberg has used $7.5 billion of private money to build 165,000 affordable homes. Or stem cell research, where Schwarzenegger has endlessly promoted his state's medical-research industry.
Historically many national policy solutions have come from state or city level but this process has been accelerated by the Bush White House's necessary focus on the war on terror and homeland security since 9/11. Both Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger, despite initial unpopularity (both saw their ratings drop in their first terms) have used their subsequent popularity to pursue bold measures - as Bloomberg has said "What good is a 70% approval rating if we don't take risks?".
They have also eschewed the partisan nature of Washington, working across party lines (often through necessity) to get things done. Schwarzenegger worked with his Democratic legislature to get his climate change measures through and Bloomberg formed Mayors Against Illegal Guns recruiting more than 220 mayors to lobby Congress to allow officials to share gun-trace information.
The non-partisan nature of measures like these, and of Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger, do not make them popular with the Republican base but is perhaps the reason they have both been touted for national office (in Schwarzenegger's case if the constitution is changed)!
An excellent article? Yeah well OK. Time's writer thinks it's a "lesson". I should say, liberal Time's writer thinks 2 Republicans elected to office who are not conservative on social issues, thinks its a lesson. How about a lesson on our left of center MSM and their willingness to write a positive angle on Republicans whom they are in agreement with?
It's also a lesson about so-called moderate officials willing to do what they can to get votes:
"Both Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger, despite initial unpopularity (both saw their ratings drop in their first terms) have used their subsequent popularity to pursue bold measures - as Bloomberg has said 'What good is a 70% approval rating if we don't take risks?'"
LOL what good is having absolute miserable approval rating if you can't suck up.
Posted by: Steevo | June 14, 2007 at 07:05 PM
Andrew, Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger are what we call "RINOs," or Republicans in Name Only. Bloomberg was a Democrat who switched to the Republican Party in order to run in the mayoral election, and holds little in common with his putative party. His anti-gun actions are but one example of this, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it "non-partisan." It is distinctly partisan, and I wonder how many of those mayors are Republican.
Schwarzenegger has supported his big government programs with massive state bond sales, and is he working furiously to further his regulation-heavy and economy-killing environmental agenda. Hardly a traditional conservative stance.
In other words, these two politicians are nothing more than sheep in wolves' clothing.
Posted by: JF | June 14, 2007 at 07:09 PM
Any Brit looking at American politics should keep two things in mind.
1. Party is not as important in the U.S. as it is in the U.K. Elections are more based on the individual candidate and voting against ones own party is more common.
2. Geography is important. The part of the country the official represents will often have as much to do with their positions as party affiliation. Even though Arnold and Bloomberg are Republicans they represent more liberal areas of the country.
Posted by: winston | June 15, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Winston:
I would have to disagree with you regarding voting. The average Republican or Democrat will not normally vote for someone in the other party. It is more normal voter to sit out the vote if they do not like their candidate.
RINOs do get some democrativc voters because their platform normally has more to do with the Democtaic platform. Also Bloomberg had to run as a Republican because he would not have got past the Democratic primary.
Posted by: davod | June 15, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Republican run more liberal condidates in liberal areas; and Democrats run "conservative blue dog" candidates in more conservative areas.
So, I don't get what the lesson is.
Schwarzenegger is perfect for California. He is also a "peoples" candidate. I guarantee that he would govern differently in a conservative state.
Posted by: Frogg | June 16, 2007 at 06:56 AM
What really aggravates me and makes me less likely to vote for a candidate is when they want to 'tackle climate change'. Despite what certain scientists are saying (liberal scientists, the only ones governments are listening to), there is not enough scientific evidence to prove that:
A. we are causing climate change or
B. there is anything we can 'do' about it.
Many other scientists who say this is all hype aren't being listened to, silenced and/or ridiculed. Why isn't there a candidate out there taking their side?
It's expected for Democrats to use this issue to get elected because it is a liberal agenda. So when Republicans try to push it, they lose my respect. What I would like to know is what kind of private threats are being made by liberals to conservative politicians for them to all of a sudden push the agenda as their liberal opponents do?
Posted by: Denise | June 16, 2007 at 06:38 PM