I was recently thinking that Arnold is the kind of Republican I could vote for (I'm not a Californian), and I asked myself why (that picture of Arnold I see whenever I come to DailyKos these days must be why I was thinking of Arnold at all). The answer is that he seems to be reasonable, flexible, and non-ideological. Though I think of myself as a "pragmatic progressive" nowadays, it wouldn't bother me to give this person a chance. I would have no problem voting against him if he acted differently than I thought he would, based upon what I've seen of his political career so far.
Then the thought dawned on me; how is Arnold a Republican? The party, at least at the national level, and clearly in specific states, is like a bizarre cult these days, and on how many issues do Arnold and Palin, for example, disagree? Should we call him a "California Republican?" That's fine with me, but why doesn't he support Obama and Biden now? This seems to be the crucial issue, that is, why do Americans who largely disagree with one party and largely agree with the other party feel it necessary to be members of the party with which they disagree? Could this possibly be what the Founding Fathers had imagined? If one reads their writings, one finds the exact opposite. In general, they thought there would be a constant shifting of alliances, as the interests of the individual changed, or as the party they belonged to changed.
As a teenager, I supported Reagan (though I couldn't vote then), but after I saw what he did as President, I became disillusioned and have viewed myself as an Independent ever since. These days, I find absolutely nothing of interest in what the Republicans have to say (or I am offended), and that can't be a good sign for this nation, because it's important to have an alternative. What is a democracy if you can only vote for one party? There is a lot to criticize about Democrats. I was especially disappointed by Obama's decision not to offer Clinton the VP spot, and many of you here, I think, view them as the party of wimps who can't play politics to win, so that they can then put some good policies into effect.
But what amazes me most of all are people like Arnold. I have no doubt that he realizes that Palin's views are "out of touch," to put it nicely (making rape victims pay for the rape kit - simply unbelievable). Yet he feels that he must carry the Republican flag. Why, oh why, Arnold, do you feel this way? He's not the only one, obviously, and that's why I'm writing this. My guess is that such people feel "culturally comfortable" among these people, but that is also a rather frightening thought, given what we saw at the Republican convention. Arnold is not some backwoods kid with little sophistication, yet he feels comfortable around people who cater to such folks in the most crude ways conceivable? What is going on here? Why can't people like Arnold see that, for the good of the nation, people need to support and vote for those whose policies they agree with, and not for those with whom they want to share a beer?
What's the matter with Kansas? I think I know, but what I have trouble understanding is what's' the matter with Arnold?