The scene of Arnold Schwarzenegger with Milton Friedman (no less) figuratively on his right, and George Shultz (no less) on his left, declaring his intention to run for governor of California is heady conservative endorsement. For one thing, the contrast was vivid. The first announcement was done under the auspices of Jay Leno.
There was the distracting presence of Warren Buffett, sitting next to Mr. Shultz. Mr. Buffett is richer even than Arabian sheiks, but to the conservative community he is noticeable mostly for having endorsed high death taxes and capital gains taxes. The fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger is endorsed by the richest man in the world tells us very little about what Californians can hope to accomplish after Mr. Davis is ousted.
But Friedman-Shultz is another matter. Mr. Friedman is the prime figure in the conservative pantheon in matters that have to do with economic growth and statist continence. Mr. Shultz is, after Henry Kissinger, the senior alumnus of conservative statecraft.
But why Schwarzenegger (hereinafter, Arnold, for convenience)? California conservatives have correctly dismissed any argument that he has gained his eminence by toiling in the vineyards of political thought. Comparisons with Ronald Reagan are mindless -- Reagan spent 10 years developing his political thought before seeking the governorship. Arnold and Ronald have in common only that they were theatrical celebrities, their names and faces instantly recognized by the voters.
But Arnold is out of step with conservative thinking on social policies, most particularly the question of the rights of the unborn child. He is vigorously in favor of abortion, and it pays to remind oneself that neither Friedman nor Shultz is active in social conservatism. Richard Nixon once told a friend that he had learned from his own experience running for governor of California in 1962 that you can't win merely by appealing to conservatives. "But you can't win unless you do appeal to conservatives."