All the commentators have commented on the Governor’s inauguration speech. Most focused on the "dynamic centrism" of which the Governor spoke. The key line was:
"Some said that the Democratic legislature, by working with me to increase the minimum wage or reform prescription drug costs, abandoned the Democratic nominee for governor. This is the kind of partisan thinking that frustrates the voters and diminishes our democracy. The people are disgusted with a mindset that would rather get nothing done than accomplish something through compromise."
The Governor missed the key problem of politics in both his premise and his conclusion. People did not vote for him because he enacted the Democrats’ agenda, they voted for him because he was not Phil Angelides. People, in addition, are not disgusted with a government that does nothing, they are disgusted with rulers who promise to make their lives better if people would just entrust them with power, and then those rulers use that power to line the pockets of their political supporters. People would be happy if they believed that the status quo was best for them. They know that it is not, and they are constantly seeking a ruler who would deliver on a promise.
There are two axioms of politics that guide the actions of rulers.
First, the purpose of the political process is to persuade people to entrust you with power. Whether it is working the media, running a campaign, raising money, talking to communities groups or individuals, the whole purpose of political action is to acquire and maintain power.
Second, the purpose of acquiring and maintaining power is to enact a policy agenda that you believe will make the lives of those who entrusted you with power better. Of course, there are two types of people who entrust you with power, the voters and your political supporters. Making the lives of your political supporters better is often at conflict with making the lives of the voters better. Voters know this, and they are constantly looking at rulers to make sure that they are serving their needs, and not just the needs of the rulers political supporters. A politician who obtains power simply to keep it for him or herself and the his or her supporters are little better than third world dictators.
Republicans believe in individual freedom, free markets, less taxes, less regulation, smaller government, and power dispersed among smaller and more localized governments because they believe that those principles, enacted through a system of laws will make the lives of the people of this state and country better. Democrats believe in bigger government, more taxes, more bureaucracy and more regulation, regardless of what that bureaucracy is trying to do (i.e., clean the environment, redistribute wealth, interfere with families raising their children, and the like), because they actually believe people will be better off with these "protections," because some people just can’t protect themselves or their families.
Given these differences in the perception of people and government between the parties, it is little wonder that the parties fight. There is no middle ground between liberty and government, free markets and regulation, and to think there is ignores history. The eternal fight in government is between the individual, who struggles for freedom, and the ruler, who struggles for power at the expense of individual freedom.
So, Democrats, even those Democrats that supported the Governor, acted out of principle. They got what they wanted, and if they didn’t need to be committed to an individual to get it. Republicans in California did what Republicans in Washington did. They pursued power at the expense of principle. They may have had a good reason. On the whole, Schwarzenegger may be better than Angelides, but that doesn’t change the reality. The Democrats got their agenda enacted and the Republicans did not. Republicans in Washington lost power for their heresy, Republicans in California have never been able to persuade people to entrust them with power since the days of Ronald Reagan.
There is no dynamic centrism. The fight in politics is between the individual and the ruler between freedom and government, between free and regulated markets, and between productivity and taxation, and between the dispersal of power amongst smaller, more responsive government or the concentration of power in a central government. Those who claim that they want to consolidate power, just slower than their opponents, are the same as their opponents. They are not advocating a middle ground, just a slower pace.