(Cross-posted from The Courage Campaign also at MyDD)

Leading up to the November 7 elections, Arnold Schwarzenegger came out strongly against Proposition 90, which you’ll recall was an anti-government regulation measure masquerading as eminent domain reform. In the process he positioned himself to the left of his own conservative Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Tom McClintock, who was strongly advocating FOR 90.

To make this maneuver, as I wrote then, Arnold cleverly used conservative talking points to make the progressive case for NO on 90. In his statement opposing 90, Arnold railed against wasted tax payer money, frivolous lawsuits and more government intrusion into our lives, conservative bogeymen all.

When my Republican uncle told me on election day that he had voted against 90, I knew it was going down and I came to appreciate the potential value Arnold holds for progressives.

More over the flip…

a. When Arnold takes our position he gives it credibility

As a moderate Republican or, as he would call himself, a "post-partisan public servant," Arnold has the benefit of instant credibility when he takes the progressive position, because noone can accuse him of adopting it for political reasons. You've seen this phenomenon with McCain over the last few years; when a Democrat would criticize Bush on the war, for example, he would be deemed a partisan Bush-hater yet when McCain would do it, perhaps even using the same rhetoric, he was labeled serious and independent-minded. It was bullshit but it sure worked against Democrats in 2004. At this point McCain's maverick status has been pretty well debunked but Arnold very much has that aura about him, especially post-November.

We can see this phenomenon in action on the healthcare debate. As many on the left who have plenty of criticism for Arnold's healthcare proposal have said, the mere fact that we have a Republican advocating for "universal healthcare" (no, his plan is not universal and yes it is quite flawed) is huge because it gives the entire premise instant mainstream credibility. Chris Matthews put it well on Hardball yesterday:

MATTHEWS:  You know what?  You know what, fellows?  I think we‘re on the verge of a national health care plan.  You know why I think so?  Because the middle is moving…Romney and Schwarzenegger.  It‘s not just Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

Like it or not, Arnold has had a hand in moving the debate to where it is now. As Juls puts it in the comments at Calitics:

We are staking out the concept of universal health care and mandatory employer contributions as the middle.  That is a huge change from where this debate was last year.  Framing the debate this way helps not just Californians but the rest of the country.

Which leads us to the other way in which Arnold can benefit progressives: the unique way he communicates our position.

b. Arnold normalizes the progressive position by putting it in terms Republicans can relate to

As I mentioned above, Arnold made it OK for Republicans to vote against Prop 90 despite the fact that the talking points for 90 tapped into conservative fears of eminent domain, another HUGE bogeyman of the right. I have no doubt that his framing of the issue as the correct position for those who want to reduce government intrusion in our lives as well as frivolous lawsuits helped push No on 90 over the top in November.

Arnold is doing the same thing within the healthcare debate.

On This Week With George Stephanopolous on Sunday, this is how Arnold defined universal healthcare:

What we want to do is eliminate the hidden tax. Right now the 6.5 million people that are uninsured are being covered by all of us that are insured.

Message: against taxes? against freeloaders? then you should be FOR universal healthcare.

In addition, look at the way he frames his desire to cover children of illegal immigrants:

This is not like I say should we cover them or not cover them. By law, by federal law, it's very clear that no patient can be turned away from an emergency room if they need care…They are by law already insured so let's not argue about that.

I mean, is it me or is Schwarzenegger channeling Stoller?

It's been clear for some time that America already has a universal health care system, it just works through pushing costs to states and localities and shunting people to emergency rooms where they die faster and their care costs more.  Once we accept the framework that American taxpayers already pay for health care coverage for everyone, we just do it in the worst way possible, the argument changes from 'should the government pay for health care' to 'who's ripping us off'.

Arnold's strategy of selling universal healthcare to the anti-tax, anti-freeloader, anti-immigrant crowd has the added benefit of normalizing our messaging for us, which will only benefit the pro-universal healthcare position in the long run. So yes, there is an upside to Arnold. We just need to make sure that elected California Democrats exploit Arnold’s “new middle” messaging when it benefits us and challenge it fiercely when it doesn't.