0 comment Sunday, June 22, 2014 |
It used to be conventional wisdom that a politician's character was reflected in all areas of life, and that a man who was an adulterer was not to be trusted. In this postmodern, post-Christian America -- or more appropriately, post-Clinton America, adultery is to be winked at, and not condemned in a politician. Clinton and his supporters argued that adultery by an elected official was 'just about sex' and 'between two spouses, and none of the public's business.' And this is the default view even among 'conservatives' now. Social conservatism is moribund in the New, post-American America.
I don't particularly care to dwell on Arnold Schwarzenegger's personal life, but it seems the Republicans or 'conservatives' who backed him have buyer's remorse, and feel 'betrayed', rather like Maria, I suppose.
Some comments around the web say that Maria knew what she was in for when she married him, so she deserves no sympathy. I would say the same about the betrayed 'conservatives' who were such loud supporters of Schwarzenegger during the 2003 election campaign.
Back then, I was still a sort of standard conservative, and frequented Republican forums. Those of us who weren't Californians, who warned that Arnold was no conservative and not very qualified to be governor were told by Californians we should shut up because we had no right to express opinions about the race. There was a candidate named Tom McClintock who was far better qualified, and far more conservative than Arnold, but the Arnie groupies derided McClintock because of his appearance, said he couldn't win, he wasn't electable, and above all, he was a 'right-wing extremist.' Arnold himself made disparaging remarks about 'right-wing crazies' during the campaign, and the smitten Republican mainstream swooned over him. Love is blind, I suppose; I think the people who voted for Arnold were just as lovestruck as Maria evidently was when she said yes. I might be able, if I try, to muster up some sympathy for Maria, though I loathe her family's politics and the harm they have done to this nation (think: the 1965 Immigration Act). I have no sympathy, however, for the 'betrayed' Republicans who asked for this guy. More fools they.
Over the years, Schwarzenegger gradually showed his true colors. Back in 2005 he occasionally made conservative-sounding noises about amnesty, but his tough talk was just that -- just talk.
Years later he denies that the millions of illegals in California contribute to the budget crisis, and even says he is ''happy'' they are able to get state services.
And just recently, we read that Schwarzenegger pardoned the son of Fabian Nunez, former speaker of the California State Assembly, who was serving time for manslaughter in the stabbing of another young man.
As to why he did this, here is his nonchalant reply in a Newsweek interview:
"Well, hello! I mean, of course you help a friend."
Helping a friend? By thwarting justice? That's corruption, not helping a friend.
Noting the ethnicity of Arnold's paramour, it's hard not to wonder if his intimate involvement, including having a child by a Hispanic, colored his politics and the decisions he made, not only on amnesty and services for illegals, but in the Nunez case. I would think that having a half-Hispanic child could affect someone's objective judgement about Hispanics as a group. This is one more reason why liaisons with out-groups corrupt and weaken our society; there are more and more people with some kind of ties, marital or romantic or whatever, outside their own people, and those people invariably become double-minded.
And though it may be 'mean-spirited' to say this, his choice of a paramour shows that he is, well, an equal opportunity adulterer. No racist, looks-ist, or age-ist, he.
Of course, who are Schwarzenegger's people? I mean, to whom does his allegiance belong? I wonder if he really considers American Whites his people? Does he have his primary loyalties to us? I can only doubt it, based on the evidence.
Our Founding Fathers were emphatic that we must elect only native-born Americans to high office. The loyalties of the American-born are assumed to be undivided, and their experiences and worldview are more likely to be at one with the majority of Americans. And please remember that in the early days of this Republic, citizens were to be free-born White people. Racist? It's just the way it was then.
I have wondered, over the years, if Arnold's being chosen by the GOP hierarchy was a kind of warm-up or test run for a foreign-born candidate. There was talk among party honchos early on about whether or not he might be able to run, if the Constitution could be amended to allow non-native born Americans to be President. Maybe it was groundwork for our present situation. Just a thought.

Labels: , , ,