California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger describes his new mode of working cooperatively with the Democrats who control the state legislature as “post-partisanship.” The way the former bodybuilder describes it, post-partisanship is bipartisanship on steroids — yes, he’s working with the Dems but, no, he is not kowtowing to them. Post-partisanship, he suggests, empowers both sides.

California Republicans aren’t buying it. As state Sen. Tom McClintock, a hardcore rightwinger and therefore a sad and lonely figure in these parts, said, post-partisanship “is the process by which Arnold sits down with Democratic leaders and gets them to do exactly what they wanted to do all along.”

Sen. McClintock and I are are in rare agreement. Schwarzenegger’s “post-partisanship” is a pile of hooey.

Schwarzenegger was forced to move to the left politically in order to get reelected, and now he has to govern that way to stay popular. This move fools no one on the left or the right in California, which is fine with the governor and his messagemesters. The post-partisanship message was not crafted for Democrats or Republicans, it was designed to appeal to California’s burgeoning independent voters — and they are eating it up.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or even a political scientist, to game this out. In his first term, Schwarzenegger governed to please California’s Republican minority — probably in the misguided belief that his celebrity alone would convert voters to his side. As a result, by the end of his term, the governor’s popularity was around 30 percent.

In his second term, he has done a strategic 180 to appeal to Democrats and independents, and guess what? His poll numbers have flipped, and now hovers above 60 percent.

So what’s with the post-partisanship hooey? In politics. if you don’t define yourself early in the minds of voters, your opponents will define you the way they want voters to see you. The label Schwarzenegger is terrified of is “moderate,” which for the GOP is a code word for “liberal.” To be a moderate — or let’s just say it — a liberal Republican is to be an apostate to the party’s troglodyte-Dittohead base.

In the days before Republicans re-framed the word “liberal” into an epithet, liberal Republicans were commonplace and even powerful.New York City Mayor John Lindsay, Vice Pres. Nelson Rockefeller and even Pres Gerald Ford were liberals. But liberal Republicans were unceremoniously kicked off the bus in the Reagan era because they fuzzied up the GOP’s new dumbed down marketing plan to attract unsmart voters: “Liberal” means “bad.” “Conservative” means “good.”

As elegantly streamlined as this marketing plan was, it would have never worked if the left had not capitulated. By the end of the 1980s, even liberals ran from the “liberal” label — they were “progressives.” (Contrast this with, say, gay people who neutralized the slur “fag” somewhat by wearing it proudly.)

To avoid the “liberal” stank, poltiicians with money to burn, like Gov. Schwarzenegger, pay strategists big bucks to come up with bushwa like the “post-partisanship.”

Schwarzenegger can waste his time and money on re-branding his liberalism anyway he chooses but Californians have a right to ask what he is up to. There is speculation he’s running for Barbara Boxer’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010 . Fine — but why is he taking his post-partisan campaign to the New Hampshire and Iowa, of all places?