McFreedom

CNN is reporting, no doubt objectively, that a recent study says "...maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more."

Check out the advertisement I got on the right-hand side of the screen:

Now, I realize, obviously, that they sold this ad in the "Health" section to an Atkins diet firm, and it probably comes up on many of their health pages. And, arguably, this is what targeted advertising is all about: "Hey, that Atkins diet sounds pretty good...oh, hey, here's how I can get started!" And, no doubt, if they did a story on how the Atkins diet really caused one to get leprosy, you'd see the same ad. But it still leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth...

Daniel Henninger, in his usually excellent Wall Street Journal "Wonder Land" column, overreaches this week in claiming Arnold's governership shows things about the wider electorate.

I'd like for a lot of what he says to be true. If Arnold were a bit further "right" on gun control - and one suspects that, were he not both running in California and most famous for doing things like carrying an M16 in each hand in the movies, he might be - he'd be close to my ideal candidate. Fiscally tough (in words, anyhow, only time will tell his actions), yet accepting of people different from he. He has, perhaps, too much of a tendancy to want both his cake and his eating (as he pledges to not touch the 40+% of the California budget devoted to education, and also not raise taxes). Only the cruicible of a Sacremento budget crises - coming soon to a capital near me - will tell whether he finds taxing or spending more abhorrent. I'm optimistic it'll be the former, and I think a lot of Republicans who voted for him are.

Mr. Henninger spends much of his column digging into exit poll arcana - "7% of 'female Democrats' voted for [McClintock]" - yet such minutia is useless in this case. One of the most laudable outcomes of this recall has been the level to which it has returned political discourse to everyday life in this state. Anywhere you go, you can stop and listen, and hear the constant burble of politicians' names as others discuss their opinions on the issues. From these (admittedly nonscientific) data, I've broken those voting for Arnold into three basic groups.

The first, and smallest, is the group who voted for Arnold because they actually like Arnold. Be it celebrity, confidence in his abilities, what have you, this is a group that would've chosen Arnold over any other candidate. They voted "Yes" on the recall, not just because they hate Gray (after all, everyone does), but because they want Arnold in.

The second, and second-largest group, is the pragmatic Republican. This is a person who counts himself a Republican (and perhaps is even registered as one). Had Arnold not entered this race, McClintock would probably have received his vote. But the sudden entry of Mr. Schwarzenegger gave him a sudden hope: A Republican governor in the state of California! Sure, he'd like the governor to more conservative, but Arnold is so much better than any governor he ever expected to see in his lifetime. He voted for Arnold out of a pure pragmatic desire to keep Cruz Bustamante from becoming governor. He voted "Yes" on the recall.

Third and largest (and here perhaps my size estimate are warped by my Bay-Area location) group is the fed-up, left-leaning Independant or Democrat. These people hate Gray (after all, eveyone does), yet many voted "No" on the recall out of party loyalty, or because they thought it unseemly or a poor precedent. Yet, when the time came to make a decision, they decided that Bustamante was as bad or worse than Gray. Like anyone who follows politics in this state at all, they have been disgusted with the "cash and carry" government we've had. They've also been frustrated by the cheap (and probably illegal) accounting tricks used to paper over the budget crisis. What we need is a miracle. And while Arnold's chances of pulling a rabbit out of a hat are low, Bustamantes' was less than zero. These people voted for Arnold because he just might pull it off - and hey, even if he doesn't, it'll be a lot more entertaining a train wreck than if Bustamante had his hand on the throttle.

Trying to read larger California trends from these tea-leaves is difficult, at best. Trying to read national trends from them is a fools' errand. Is the time right for Arnold-style fiscal conservatives and social liberals? If they're a bit more fiscally conservative and a bit more socially liberal (personally speaking I consider opposition to gun control to be a socially liberal position), I certainly hope he's a bellwether. But one data point is not enough to predict a trend.

Professor Reynolds (or more precisely, one his readers) alleges left-wing media bias in calling Iranian mullahs "conservatives." As I've noted before, standard usage is that a conservative is one who wants to conserve the status quo and a liberal is one who wants to change it. In our society, the labels have stuck, and now mean rightist and leftist, respectively. But, when describing other countries, especially ones with entrenched regimes, it is perfectly correct to speak of the regime's defenders as "conservatives." In Russia, in 1989, a conservative was a communist. Now, it's a democrat (or maybe a "Putinist"). That's not a media conspiracy, it's the meaning of the words.

No doubt, California was a close second.