May 31, 2004

Schwarzenegger on Schwarzenegger -- no vision for California, no fixed principles, still a fan of Milton Friedman.

"Q: When you ran for governor, you talked about Gray Davis lacking a vision for California. What would you say is your vision for the state?

A: Well, what I was talking about is that you go out there, and you ask people, what are we really shooting for? What are we trying to accomplish here with the state? What are we all working towards? You know, when you pay your taxes, and all this. I think it's always better when people know what the vision is, rather than saying, "OK, my money is gone, I don't know where it goes to... ." (But)at this point I'm not at a stage of creating a vision for California because I'm still kind of like trying to bring the state up to the level where it ought to be, where just our finances are concerned, and our budget is concerned, and where obstacles that have been created over the last few years for businesses are concerned. All of those things have to be straightened out. There are just a lot of things that have to be straightened out, including the prison system, and all that. Then after we have done this, after we go through this year, then the mission is to go out and to really let the people know, this is where we are trying to go, and this is what we are trying to do now, if it is the mass transit systems, and all that ..

Q: You haven't really had a chance to lay out a long-term plan?

A: Absolutely. The clear thing is that for the first year we have to kind of stop the bleeding and correct some of the problems. And what we are trying, what my goal is, is to eliminate a lot of those problems within the first year, sort of the things that were created over the last few years. And then really - you know, basically, what we are trying to do is, make this giant ship stop the direction it's going. And instead of hitting that iceberg, we want to steer it a little bit to the right, and then set a new direction after it's standing still. It's not standing still yet; it's still moving. But it's much slower, and now we're going to then go and turn it, and send it in a different direction after the stop, and then go in the right direction.

Q: The campaign was so fast and so strange that it's like you never actually were asked to define your ideology, your political ideology. What is your sense, from your experience and your instincts, about the proper role of government to play in society?

A: I think in general I would say that government's role is to assist people, and not to be an obstacle. And, you know, there's a fine line, as there is with everything. I think that if you have a government that feels like they should be involved in every step of your way, like it was under socialism in Austria, or in general under socialism, then you become kind of an obstacle for moving people, inspiring people to move ahead. You maybe take care of a certain segment of society, but in general you don't really support the whole state, or the whole nation, to move forward. So, what I'm trying to do is - and what I always saw was - there is a middle ground between what Austria did and what, for instance, a very conservative government would do. Where they say, you know, limit it down to the minimum of the government.

Q: When you first started becoming involved in politics, and talking about economics, you associated yourself with Milton Friedman.

A: Right.

Q: Do you feel like you've pulled back from that a little bit?

A: No, no. Milton Friedman is still my mentor, and the king. I read everything of Milton Friedman. And you know, you don't have to - when you have someone as an inspiration, that doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything that the person does. ... So Milton Friedman laid out a lot of great principles and laid out also where government goes wrong with trying to think that they are the ones that can solve all the problems, because they cannot. And he laid it out, you know, how things have happened before ever government was, how things miraculously came together because of the private industry, because of people's needs, they will come then together. And so, I just think that a lot of times the government makes a mistake by getting involved in things, and sitting around and making up laws that really become, then, an obstacle. It maybe again solves a problem of a certain segment, but then for the mass, it maybe does not. ... The balance is the key thing. For me, everything is about the fine line, finding the fine line, because in everything there is a fine line where you go a little bit to the right, you fall, and it's like being on that balancing beam. You go a little bit to the right, you fall; you go a little bit to the left, you fall. So, finding the fine line - it's the same with negotiating a workers' comp deal, it's negotiating the budget. What is that fine line, and what is reasonable? And so, to me, government can be a great, great asset. But it also can be a huge obstacle if you don't find that fine line ...

Q: What have you learned about yourself during these six months? A: I think in general, when I go through the issues, I'm amazed of how much I am to the center, I would say, with the programs and with where government should be and all this rather than to the right.

Q: So you thought you were more conservative?

A: Well, I did not know, because a lot of issues I never asked myself the question, where do I stand on this and that. But as we go along on that, if I go now and take an inventory, you know, I'm surprised, yeah."

The full interview can be found here. Posted by Greg Ransom | TrackBack