HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
by
Seth Sandronsky
August
26, 2003
There
is no doubt about it. Arnold
Schwarzenegger has electoral appeal and a real chance to be the next governor
of California.
Appalled
that the top GOP gubernatorial candidate in the recall election is attracting
such popular support? Wonder why so
many workers and small merchants back a wealthy entertainer like Arnold?
Some
of them want to be as financially successful as he has been, to gain great
wealth to buy impressive commodities and impress others. In this way, they can, one day, live the
“American dream” that now eludes them.
Author
and scholar Thorstein Veblen noted this distorted and distorting trend about a
century ago. He wrote: “Purposeful
effort comes to mean, primarily, effort directed to or resulting in a more
creditable showing of accumulated wealth.”
Veblen
had a term for this. He called it
“pecuniary emulation.”
It
was, for Veblen, a key concept for understanding the social process in class
society. How much has changed since
then?
Well,
Arnold’s run for political office reminds us how ordinary people can respond to
symbols of wealth in a market economy that exalts competition.
This
is a principle that Arnold backs to the hilt.
Is
competition king, a “male thing?” This
brings us to another and related part of what makes Arnold such a popular
figure in California politics.
In
a society dominated by males, Arnold has gender appeal. Some males respond to this, and some do not.
Significantly,
Arnold’s acting and bodybuilding careers diverge from the daily reality of his
many male supporters. Yet the greater
this distance, the more the attraction.
Arnold
personifies one type of masculinity for some men. They can vicariously live larger than they do on a daily basis
through him.
The
cinematic reality that Arnold projects has become political reality.
That
is a contradiction that speaks volumes about U.S. culture.
There’s
something about social life in a modern society such as America’s that creates
the conditions for such a phenomenon.
Why are so many of us willing to follow a film star like Arnold?
Part
of the answer is how Americans live, subject to constant social change. It has torn apart life at home and work.
I
think that Arnold’s movies speak in part to this unstable nature of living and
working. Under such conditions,
Arnold’s mass entertainment offers a comforting morality tale.
His
violent characters defeat foes who pose a menace to one view of society. These villains, not militarism, racism, and
sexism, are demons to fear.
Additionally,
we live in a culture dominated by rich people with white skin. Arnold appeals to some whites who think that
their skin color entitles them alone to acquire such wealth.
In
contrast, there are the others (presumably with darker skin). Government helps them avoid working the long
hours that many of Arnold’s backers must labor (without becoming rich) to make
ends meet.
Arnold’s
run for governor continues the GOP trope about lazy folks living on the public
dole. In California, they have bloated
social spending that has busted the state budget, the biggest deficit in the
nation.
Federal
war spending not going to California is exempt from Arnold’s concern with the
state’s budget deficit. But then he
strongly backs the U.S. occupation of Iraq that is careening out of control
into a quagmire with untold regional and global effects.
War
and racism go together. International
ANSWER, the anti-war group, is on the mark.
Arnold
supports U.S militarism, and progressives should not turn a blind eye to his
related (though muted) appeal to white skin color. It is a coded backlash against nonwhite Californians, but present
nonetheless.
In
California and across America, there is no political race without racial
politics. Arnold’s campaign for
governor complements that of Ward Connerly, Republican backer of California’s
Proposition 54, the racial privacy initiative on the recall ballot.
“Bad
cop” to Arnold’s “god cop,” Mr. Connerly is deceptively brilliant. He says that race is a social construction.
Thus
the state government is wasting resources collecting data based on racial
categories. If approved by voters, the
RPI will end that.
What
Mr. Connerly and Arnold do not say about racial construction is vital.
It
has been created and sustained to justify white supremacy, the nightmare of the
“American dream.”
In
my view, Arnold and Connerly are two sides of the same coin. In their implicit and explicit pandering to
white privilege, they want government to be more efficient.
Many
black, brown and nonwhite folks generally know what this means. They will likely have a more difficult time
getting by in California if Arnold and Connerly succeed on Oct. 7.
Not
that California Governor Gray Davis is a progressive. It will be a cold day in Hades before he warrants that label.
Davis
has never met a new prison construction project to his disliking. On that note, he has accepted much campaign
cash from the state prison guards’ union.
Now
is the time for progressives to analyze Arnold’s class, gender and race
appeal. Such a strategy could nurture
coalitions with many people at-risk from politics of, by and for capital and
its mouthpieces.
Seth Sandronsky is a member of
Peace Action and co-editor with Because People Matter, Sacramento’s progressive
paper. He can be reached at: ssandron@hotmail.com.
* In
California, The Ballot Box And The Market
* Globalize
That: Capital Flight to China
* In
US, A Job-loss Economy Emerges
* For
Black Teens, Jobs Crisis Worsens
* A
New Day for Affirmative Action?
* In
California, A Racial Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
* In
U.S., Slow Growth, Excess Inventory and Mounting Debt