If I like Arnold in particular fictional movies, that doesn't mean automatically I support him as a non-fiction political actor. A fictional movie is essentially a fantasy. But the governorship of California is not a fantasy, it is a real political responsibility for real people living real lives.
If I was a Stalinist, or a neo-fascist, or a racist-Hitlerite type of neanderthal Marxist, or a fundamentalist christian, then of course I would argue that either you support Arnold as movie star, person and political candidate, or you oppose Arnold as movie star, person and political candidate, in black-and-white, yes-or-no terms. But I like SOME movies by Arnold and when I consider Arnold as a political candidate for the Governorship of California, I don't give a shit about his moviestar credentials, I look at what he has to offer as a politician, his political experience, his friends, his policies, his supporters and so on, and I look at what workingclass Californian people want, and whether Arnold can really deliver on that. Arnold might attract votes because of the "magic of the flesh", or the "magic of the movies", but people with any brains look beyond magic at real policies, real political interests, real consequences for their own lives and communities. Personally I would be more inclined to vote for Peter Camejo or somebody like that (I do not know whether there is a Socialist Party in California). But you would never catch me saying that Arnold is an idiot or something like that, he might be a very likeable person, but that is neither here nor there, except if I met him personally - in political affairs, it is what he stands for and what he politically represents, that counts. In Britain, there's a movie star parliamentarian for New Labour, I just forgot her name for a moment. I liked some of her movies, but that doesn't mean that I thereby necessarily support her political views or actions. Similarly, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark fancies herself as a bit of an artist. But her artistic merits ought to be evaluated quite separately from her political behaviour, except where art is pressed into the service of politics, in which case I look at what political interests or constituency the art represents, and the truth-content of the art. Just because you have a lot of muscle, or just because you have a lot of brains, or a lot of beauty, doesn't mean that you will make a good politician. A good politician accurately represents the immediate and long-term interests of his constituency, and doesn't bullshit about that, but explains it in a principled manner, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to honour his commitment. This is not a simply question of intelligence, strength and beauty, but a question of loyalty to your own constituency and capacity for objectivity. A lack of objectivity means that the politician claims to represent something, but really represents something else. Now, politics is a complex game full of contradictory impulses, but we ought to expect that a politician delivers at least on the basics I have sketched, even if human error occurs. Jurriaan
