Governor Schwarzenegger's Speech at the National Press Club

Governor Schwarzenegger's Speech at the National Press Club

Thank you very much.

Most people love speaking at the National Press Club to follow in the footsteps of Roosevelt, Churchill or Mandela. Me, I just want one of those windbreakers you give speakers. So thank you for inviting me.

After I spoke about post-partisanship in my inaugural address, it was amazing. It made news stories around the world. There is such political division out there, that when someone simply talks about working together, it's newsworthy.

Certainly the voters in California like the idea of their elected representatives working together. 91% of Republicans and a huge number of Democrats voted for me. Two-thirds of Californians now say the state is going in the right direction. For the first time in ten years, the approval rating of California's legislature is higher than its disapproval rating.

Here in Washington, it's just the opposite.

Last year in California—in spite of it being an election year—we reformed prescription drug costs, passed the world's most comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases and began rebuilding the state's infrastructure. We did this working together.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't claim to be Gandhi. In 2005, I contributed to the polarization. I tried to push through some initiatives the wrong way—us versus them. I'm not a person to get all introspective about my failures, but I do know when something doesn't work. Dividing people does not work.

But division is what Washington has come to represent. For too long, this town has been about divide and conquer. Find an issue that splits the country in half, then crack it just enough so you can come out ahead. I get 51 percent, you get 49. I win, you lose.

But something larger gets lost in the process—the public's trust, the public's respect, the public's faith in government. After an initial flurry of hope, it doesn't look like anything has changed here in Washington. The same things are happening all over again.

What is the point of stirring up bitterness over non-binding resolutions? What is the point of each side preventing the other side from conducting a vote? The point, of course, is political advantage. It's certainly not to the people's advantage.

All this energy being spent on bitterness, all this effort spent on maneuvering—imagine if that same energy were put into working together to build a consensus. The wings of each party say—but we have our principles! Why is being principled reserved for extremists?

The left and the right don't have a monopoly on conscience. We should not let them get away with that. You can be centrist and be principled. You can seek a consensus and retain your convictions. What is more principled than giving up some part of your position to advance the greater good of the people? That is how we arrived at a constitution in this country. Our Founding Fathers would still be meeting at the Holiday Inn in Philadelphia if they hadn't compromised. Why can't our political leaders today?

Some people say, "Arnold, haven't you sold out and become an independent?" No, I am still a proud Republican and I support the guiding principles of the Republican party - lower taxes, a strong defense, free markets and a belief in the power of the individual. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you don't have to give up your principles.

But isn't the ultimate principle to represent the people? We're elected as public servants, not party servants.

When I talk about working together and centrism and post-partisanship, some people dismiss it saying, "Yea, yea, that's just some lightweight, idealistic idea Schwarzenegger has."

Yes, Schwarzenegger—and Edmund Burke and John Kennedy and others.

Edmund Burke said, "All government—indeed every human benefit and enjoyment . . .

. . . every virtue and every prudent act—is founded on compromise."

John Kennedy called compromise "the art essential to keeping our nation united and enabling our government to function."

Politics is about compromise. It is about give-and-take. Doesn't anyone here in Washington remember that chapter from their civics book?

Post-partisanship, however, is not simply Republicans and Democrats each bringing proposals to the table and then working out differences. Post-partisanship is the new concept of Republicans and Democrats giving birth to new ideas together.

Corporations say that the more diverse the team the more creative and better the solution. The same creative approach should be the goal in politics. Should we not have new ways of working to reflect the new iPod world?

It all starts with something very basic—establishing relationships. I read where the president asked a senator about his son who is in Iraq. The senator's dismissive reply was not in the spirit of the question. How did that reply advance the public good?

In the courtyard of the State Capitol, I have a politically-incorrect smoking tent. People come by, light up a stogie and schmooze.

How come Republicans and Democrats out here don't schmooze with each other? You can't catch a socially transmitted disease by sitting down with people who hold ideas different from yours.

My parents-in-law—the Shrivers—would have Republicans over for dinner. They would talk about the Peace Corps or Special Olympics, but it was also bridge to other ideas they could agree on, or not agree on.

But you can disagree with your opponent and still maintain respect.

When I spoke to the Republican convention in 2004, I told how I became a Republican because of Richard Nixon. Some people were angry. They thought that by mentioning this president who had resigned in disgrace that I had in some small way rehabilitated him. And let me tell you a story related to that.

In 1977 over the Christmas holiday, Senator Hubert Humphrey, as he lay on his death bed at home in Minnesota, began calling old friends and colleagues—supposedly to wish them happy holidays but really to say goodbye.

On Christmas Eve, he called Richard Nixon, the man who had defeated him for the presidency. He found both of the Nixons ill and depressed in San Clemente. Senator Humphrey was so troubled by this, he called Nixon back the next morning. He said he didn't have long to live. And he'd already made funeral arrangements, which included lying-in-state in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. He invited Nixon to attend the ceremony as an honored guest, befitting the rank of a former president.

At the time, Nixon was still the object of great animosity and had not returned to Washington since his resignation three years earlier. According to an eyewitness, many people gasped when Nixon came in and took his place. In the photos you can see him with President Carter there in the front row before the flag-draped coffin. What political grace and human compassion Humphrey showed.

Where has that world gone? How do we get it back? What bridge can we take to return there? I believe we can start by simply talking to each other and working with each other. After years of sharp divisions in California, we are consciously trying a new approach to our problems.

The smoking tent is very busy. One big issue we're trying to address is health care. The problem is so pressing we got together and said, "We can't wait for the federal government anymore. Let's do it ourselves."

We're in the middle of that process right now. Here are the politics of the situation.

Part of the plan that I put on the table provides coverage for children of undocumented immigrants. My fellow Republicans oppose this, and I totally understand their opposition. After all, doesn't it encourage people to come here illegally and stick Californians with their medical bills?

The fact is: we have no choice about paying the medical bills of people who are in California illegally. Federal law requires us to treat anyone who shows up at an emergency room in need of care. We have no choice. None.

So the real question is, do we treat them in emergency rooms at three or four times the cost of a doctor's office or health clinic? Or do we treat them more efficiently? I say, let's recognize the reality of the situation and deal with it practically. My Republican colleagues are having real trouble with this.

Now, here's what the Democrats don't like about my plan. It provides individual mandates, which require personal responsibility. I believe part of the health care answer is mandatory medical insurance, just like you have mandatory car insurance.

A lot of Democrats say that individual mandates are unfair. My position is that people who don't take responsibility for themselves end up costing everyone else money. Not everyone can afford healthcare and government should help.

So, these are the kinds of things we're trying to work out and I'm confident that we will. So far, everyone has maintained a good attitude. No one is calling each other names. That itself is progress.

But this is the dynamic I'm trying to encourage in California on a range of issues—the environment, health care, infrastructure, prison reform, energy and water supply and so forth.

In the interests of time, let me mention one final area where Republicans and Democrats must work together—immigration.

We in California cannot do this by ourselves—or else we would. The nation's borders are a federal responsibility. One side says—send all illegal immigrants back and build a fence. The other side says—forget about it and give everyone amnesty.

Hey, I have an idea. What about being realistic and actually solving the problem? There is a totally reasonable, centrist approach to the issue. It is this: secure our borders while at the same time recognizing economic and social reality by providing a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already here and meet a certain criteria. That is a mainstream solution.

It is time we reintroduced the concept of the mainstream back into American political life—and the place to start is with immigration.

Here in the nation's capital, I ask the federal government to come together and pass comprehensive immigration reform. The votes are there. Is the willingness to work together for the good of the country there? For the sake of the country, I hope it is.

Someone must start rebuilding trust and relationships in this town. There are very simple ways to begin. To the Democrats, I say stop running down the President, and just tell the people what you would do. To the Republicans, I say stop questioning the motives of the Democrats on the war and accept their right to believe what they want. To the president, I say get yourself a smoking tent. And to all, I would say remember that the majority of people in this country are in the center.

Ladies and gentlemen, in closing, let me tell you what I have told the citizens of California. I believe the political way forward is this: Look to the future. Look to the center. And look to the dreams of the people.

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/speech/5517/