I’ve known Arnold Steinberg for nearly twenty years, and he had been involved in political campaigns and causes long before we became aquainted, and developed our longtime friendship.
Strategist Arnie Steinberg has been involved in virtually every phase of political and advertising campaigns. Also, he has created more than 1600 opinion survey projects and focus groups and has testified as an expert witness frequently on elections, public opinion, advertising, and related issues. For major litigation, he has helped develop legal strategy and jury profiles. Many years ago, he wrote two graduate textbooks on politics and media. He has served on various government and foundation boards. Currently, Steinberg provides strategic counsel and survey research to private clients and selected political clients.
I was very excited to interview Arnie because, as you will see, he pulls no punches in speaking his mind…
Jon Fleischman, Publisher, The FlashReport
This is part one of a two-part interview, which concludes tomorrow.
FR: Arnie, thanks for agreeing to participate in yet another interview with the FlashReport. We received such positive feedback from your last interviews, so I am really excited to dig right in… Who do you favor for President?
AS: I’m enthused about nearly all the major Republican candidates, however flawed. As for the second tier, I could not support Ron Paul.
FR: Why?
AS: If he had been President in the 80s, the Soviet Union would still exist, powerfully. Paul’s American mea culpa for 9-11 wasn’t a verbal slip. Like left-wingers, he thinks the problem is the West. I’m a [Ludwig von] Mises/[Friedrich] Hayek guy. But [Murray] Rothbard-type “libertarian” foreign policy is more than oxymoronic. It’s disastrous in our predatory world.
FR: Is McCain acceptable for conservatives?
AS: He paid his dues but gets no respect. Can we entrust governance to a repetitive candidate who nonetheless reprised Phil Gramm’s [1992 Presidential] masochistic campaign, squandering the bulk of his substantial warchest to pay YR {Young Republican] hacks? His campaign was a re-run of Bush 2000 primary, but with money mismanagement. McCain could yet pick up the pieces if the top three stumbled fatally. McCain continues to appear tired, unenthused. He has no money and downward momentum.
FR: What about McCain appearing at the Univision debate? And immigration?
AS: In general, I think Republican candidates err in skipping appearances before African-American and Latino and other non-Republican groups. That’s because at some point, Republican primary voters might focus on general election viability. Also, a Republican candidate telling it us could be a plus among Republican primary voters. But for McCain, this appearance could compound his problem with Republicans. Inexplicably, McCain had replicated George W. Bush’s failure to define secure borders per national security. With 9-11, GWB had the opportunity to move toward closing our borders, certainly as a sine qua non for amnesty. Similarly, Arnold Schwarzenegger blew the unique opportunity the recall provided for him – and the Republican Party — to turn California around with generation-changing government reform.
FR: Is the governor mindful now of his legacy?
AS: He has a [Nelson] Rockefeller complex. Instead of slave labor, he borrows to pay for pyramids. The legislative Democrats initially feared him, but he quickly and needlessly gave away the store. He then compounded bad policy with inept politics, notably his inherently and clearly foreseeable doomed special election. Now, legislative Democrats like him. They just don’t respect him.
FR: So his legacy is…
AS: The recall was the perfect storm for Republicans. Now, we see that no recall would have been superior. Fiscal collapse under Gray Davis would have assured Republican victory in 2006. Now? Schwarzenegger’s legacy is, effectively, the disorientation of the Republican party as we know it.
FR: Because he’s off on social issues?
AS: No. A few years ago, when he said, no more debt, and then pushed for statewide borrowing to fund stem cell research, that wasn’t a social issue. I saw Milton Friedman say as much in front of Schwarzenegger in noting this was a private sector task. Republicans knew Schwarzenegger was as much libertine as libertarian, and many Republicans themselves are laissez-faire on social issues. Remember, in Washington, GWB failed to veto a single irresponsible spending measure, while Republicans in Congress celebrated earmarks. Indeed, GWB’s first threatened veto was, get this, that he would veto Congressional legislation to prevent the obtuse Dubai ports deal. At that point, even compliant Congressional Republicans countered. Republicans in Sacramento have finally, though belatedly, stood up to the governor, but his earlier abdication to [Fabian] Nunez has prevailed. All the governor has left is what I believe he will never lose – his heartfelt, and sometimes moving, patriotism. That’s not enough to change the constitution to elect him president.
FR: What’s the governor’s strongest point?
AS: His decency. He’s a good man with a big heart. He’s just in the wrong job. His constituency has become mainly Wall Street bond underwriters. His turning point was incredibly early, when he did not act on his mandate, when people were ready for bold reform, spending cuts and tax limits. Once he failed so quickly, he compounded his strategic misjudgment. He listened to the political vendors around him and pursued that special election whose outcome likely would, and, in fact, did, make him impotent. After the failure that he himself, however unintentionally, scripted, he switched parties. He just didn’t re-register. Although, occasionally, even miraculously, he still does the right thing, as he did a couple of weeks ago by invoking “last, best offer” against the prison guards union. At such times, he deserves our support, even if the public cannot comprehend his seemingly inconsistent and poorly marketed actions.
FR: And Republican leaders?
AS: The media, led by the very predictable George Skelton, depict Republican legislators (not very competent in communicating) as heartless Scrooges who want to deny minimal government aid to the helpless in our society. Never mind that mainly (but not entirely) the Democrats in Sacramento and in county and local government are largely to blame for creating a class system in California – (a) the professional and wealthy and yuppies, versus (b) everyone else, except (c) a special protected class of government employees with limited hours, guaranteed health care and, in many cases, early retirement.
FR: Republican state legislators have drawn a line in the sand against new taxes, but they have placed various bond measures on the ballot.
AS: For as long as I can remember, Republican legislative leaders in Sacramento have not made their case in the media. Indeed, they have not had much presence outside Sacramento, especially in the Los Angeles media market. The public does not understand what they are talking about. They waited too long. People think they are upset at the governor because he is a “moderate Republican” who is against global warming. Republican legislators are easily caricatured by a media eager to define abortion and homosexuality as issues that dominate party conventions.
FR: The issue of reforming the Congressional earmarking process seems to have unveiled a split within the California GOP delegation, with "appropriators" Lewis, Doolittle and Calvert defending the status quo, and Campbell, Royce, McCarthy, Rohrabacher and Issa seeking to end embarrassing, egregious pork. Your thoughts?
AS: If someone like Ed Royce had been in charge all these years, Republicans would still control Congress. Jerry Lewis and others are part of the reason we lost. Does anyone believe we would have lost Congress if Chris Cox, rather than Denny Hastert, had become Speaker?
FR: Larry Craig?
AS: Sure, it’s a double standard. If he were a Democrat, there would be no serious discussion of his resigning. And it’s demeaning police work that should be done differently. We were about to cut our losses, when former district attorney Arlen Spector urged Craig to fight the case.
FR: Shouldn’t Craig do what’s best for him, if it were a bum arrest or a bad plea?
AS: Of course, but he can do that as a private citizen. Spector is a law-and-order guy with a real sense of fairness, as we saw in his defense of then-nominee Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill. We’re talking about our party’s image, and that may mean Republicans like Craig are treated unfairly by their party and the media. Sure, let him pursue due process in court.
FR: Back to California. Where does the California Republican Party go?
AS: Well, the CRP’s main mission in recent years has been to act as a money-laundering machine for the governor’s pet projects and, of course, legislative races. But, somehow, the party did not raise enough in “profit” to tide it over for the lean years. The governor should have paid a higher brokerage fee. And now that the governor no longer needs the party, it declines, financially. The party has always been hostage to the state’s chief executive when he’s a Republican. And now, the party suffers from the national Bush-bashing.
FR: Was there a turning point for President Bush?
AS: Katrina. That’s when it moved from policy to competence. When we learned that political operatives with no crisis experience or relevant background had been appointed to critical emergency slots in the Federal government. It’s tragic. I respect and admire President Bush, because on the defining issue of our time, he gets it. He knows we’re the good guys.
FR: So does Rudy.
AS: Yes, and that’s why even many pro-life conservatives back him. But Rudy has his craziness – as we saw when he interrupted his speech to the NRA with a prop cell telephone call from his wife. Does he think he’s the Big Bopper doing Chantilly Lace? This was the worst moment of his campaign, because of what it may portend. And you wonder, is there no one around him that he respects, who can pre-empt the silliness?
FR: What do you like about him?
AS: Lots. He has good instincts. He’s a fighter. He’s pro-American. And he has deflected many of his negatives. He gives disarming deposition- like responses. When a pro-life Republican asks his views on abortion, he doesn’t give a long-winded evasive response that offends. He readily tells you where he stands and how he differs from the questioner. People find it refreshing. Now, he starts to pander a bit. If he continues, he’ll erode his perceived genuineness. And, there is an authoritarian side that libertarian conservatives might find discouraging.
FR: Should conservatives support Romney?
AS: Super-bright guy who has come across as needlessly slick. He needed to evolve, but for awhile his main coverage was as a flip-flopper. Given his pro-gay rights stance in his Senate race against [Ted] Kennedy, it would have made sense to oppose a Federal marriage amendment but support man-woman marriage at the state level. It was silly, for example, for him, weeks before ending his term as governor, to issue an unenforceable executive order on immigration. It looked expedient. And he brings so much to the table. My wife found him very impressive at a reception. He does much better at a personal level, but in outdoor speeches, he seems to be shouting. He doesn’t seem to have a comfort level with his team.
FR: If he’s so smart, why the mistakes?
AS: There is tension between the usual suspects, the campaign’s beltway vendors with no emotional attachment to Romney, and a younger, smarter group who are true believers. But these sharper and harder-working groupies are largely inexperienced, lack institutional memory, and don’t have seasoned judgment. But you will see significant Romney strength in Iowa or elsewhere
FR: Is Romney’s Mormonism a handicap?
AS: About twenty years ago, I did a national study on religion, and I was surprised at the significant prejudice against Mormons. I think Romney needs to turn a negative into a plus. The fact is that JFK in 1960 with his Texas speech confronted anti-Catholic bigotry.
Tomorrow, Arnold Steinberg continues his discussion of the Presidential race in FR’s wide-ranging interview that covers a variety of topics, from Erwin Chemerinsky to Antonio Villaraigosa.
FLASHBACK — This is our third interview with Steinberg, read the others: February 10, 2006, November 2, 2005.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.