Posted on 01/31/2004 3:07:29 PM PST by Kevin Curry
Can conservatives win in November if Bush loses the White House? The easy answer is "No." The thinking answer is quite different. The easy answer overestimates the power of a Democrat president who must work with a Republican-controlled Congress. The thinking answer is that gridlock is often preferable to a government shifting into high gear regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is at the wheel. And gridlock is always preferable to progressivism, whatever its form.
Liberal nanny state progressivism is a rouged tart wearing a high tight skirt standing on the street corner, who whispers "$20 for a good time." Compassionate conservative progressivism is the wholesome girl next door in a county fair booth that reads, "$20 for a kiss"–only the bargain is even worse, because the government forces you to pay, and someone else gets the good time or the kiss.
Neither form of progressivism is acceptable to a conservative who has better and more profitable things to do with his time and money.
The key to understanding why the thinking answer attaches such small value to a Bush win this November is to understand the paradox of unified control. Common sense suggests that conservatives are best served when Republicans have unified control over the two branches that write the checks, pay the bills, and write and enforce the laws: the executive and the legislative. That was the delirious hope of conservatives, including myself, who cheered in November 2000 as Bush won the White House by the narrowest of margins and the Republican Party won combined control of the Senate and the House in 2002.
But this delirious optimism has turned steadily to dark dismay as Bush recklessly and heedlessly cranked the conservative agenda hard left and smashed it into reefs of trillion-dollar Medicare entitlements, record deficit spending, incumbent criticism-stifling campaign finance reform, illegal alien amnesty-on-the-installment-plan, NEA budget increases and the like.
Where has the Republican co-captain –Congress–been as Bush has pursed this reckless course? Mostly sleeping or meekly assisting. Would a Republican Congress have tolerated these antics from a Democratic president? Absolutely not! Why has a Republican Congress tolerated and even assisted Bush to do this? Because he is a Republican and for no other reason.
Thus, the paradox of unified control: a president can most easily and effectively destroy or compromise the dominant agenda of his own party when his own party controls Congress. Bush has demonstrated the potency of this paradox more powerfully than any president in recent memory–although Clinton had his moments too, as when he supported welfare reform.
Does this mean conservatives should desire a Democrat president when Congress is controlled by Republicans? No. Conservatives should desire a consistently conservative Republican president who with grace and inspiration will lead a Republican-controlled Congress to enact reforms that will prove the clear superiority of the conservative, small government agenda by its fruits. Bush's tax cuts are a wonderful achievement, and have had a powerful stimulating effect on the economy. But imagine how much better the result if he had not set forces in motion to neutralize this achievement by getting his trillion dollar Medicare boondoggle enacted.
Ten steps forward and ten steps back is may be how Republicans dance the "compassionate conservative" foxtrot, but in the end it merely leads us back to the same sorry place we started. It is not an improvement.
When a Republican president compromises the conservative agenda and is enabled to do so by a Republican Congress too dispirited or disorganized to resist, the next best answer might well be for a Democrat to hold the White House. Nothing would steel the courage of a Republican Congress and enliven its spirit more than to face off against a Democrat bent on implementing a liberal agenda.
Any Democrat unfortunate enough to win the White House this year will face the most depressing and daunting task of any Democrat president ever to hold the office. The Iraq War will become his war, and he will be scorned and repudiated if he does not with grace, power, and dignity bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. That means he will have to conduct the war in much the same way that Bush is conducting it now–he will not have the latitude to do much else. If he conducts the war in the manner that Bush is conducting it, his own base will abandon him.
Any Democrat president will also have to choose between spending cuts or raising taxes. If he chooses the latter, he will see his support plummet as the economic recovery sputters and stalls. If he chooses the former, he will dispirit his base supporters. In either case he will strengthen the hand of the Republican controlled-Congress and see Republican strength enhanced in the Senate and House.
If SCOTUS vacancies open up, he will see his nominees scrutinized and resisted with a zeal that can only be expected and carried out by a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee that has suffered through years of kidney-punches and eye-gouging in judicial appointment hearings by a Democrat minority (it would help immensely if the spineless, Kennedy-appeasing Orrin Hatch were replaced as Committee Chair).
As his frustrations grow, his support plummets, and the Republican Party adds to its numbers in Congress, a Democrat president would be viewed as opportunistic roadkill by zealots in his own party, including and especially the ice-blooded and cruelly-scheming Hillary Clinton. In the run-up to the 2008 election Democrats would be faced with the choice of continuing to support a sure loser in the incumbent or a scheming hard-left alternative in Hillary. The blood-letting in the Democratic Party through the primary season and into the convention would be grievous and appalling, committed in plain view of the American public–who could be expected to vomit both of them out.
That would leave the field open for the Republican presidential candidate to achieve a victory of historic proportions in 2008. With greater Republican strength in Congress, the opportunity would again present itself for this nation to finally achieve the dream of implementing a real and substantial conservative agenda, of actually shrinking government in a large and meaningful way.
The key to achieving that dream, of course, is to carefully select an electable conservative for 2008 who will remain true to the conservative vision and not cause conservatism to fall victim again to the paradox of unified control.
It is not too soon to start looking for that candidate.
I don't think we need a room as much as some people need to grow up and act like adults instead of spoiled little kids. Seems if they don't get their way they name call or pick up their ball and go home. Some of the name calling is beyond ridiculous.
Personally would like to see some honest debate among Freepers, find out where we have common ground, and build on that common ground to get Pres Bush reelected. We have to find a way to send a message without people threatening to stay home and not vote or worse yet vote for a DemocRAT.
Personally think the concerns have to be addressed and if I cannot defend the President, then I had better go do my homework. I don't always agree 100%, but I don't agree with a whole lot of people 100% -- cannot name one off the top of my head. The discussion has to return to legitimate questions not to attacking the President personally or attacking the Freeper that asked the question. By the same token, Freepers asking the same question over and over again on multiple threads when you have an answer has to stop -- it is irritating as heck.
My recommendation would be to have one thread on a topic such as Immigration where legitimate questions/concerns are listed with reasonable suggestions on how people would fix the problem. Saying round them all up and deport them is not a reasonable solution since it is not going to happen. There are a ton of illegals here with children who are US citizens. There has to be some common ground as we all agree there is a problem. Why not try to come up with workable suggestions so that we can all contact our Congressmen and tell them to get to work on solving the problem? So much anger has been focused at the President but he only proposes -- Congress is where we need to concentrate and Congress is also who sends the message that will be heard in the White House.
Senator Nickles from my State of Oklahoma said that ten years ago Republicans and Democrats used to fight like cats and dogs on the floor of the Senate and then go out to eat together because they didn't do personal attacks. Maybe we could learn a lesson here on FR -- you can vehemently disagree about a policy without being disagreeable. Lower the anger and animosity and we might find we have more common ground then some suspect.
Anyone who cannot agree that very liberal, pro-abortion John Kerry would be bad for this Country then they are not worth my time and are not conservative IMO. The next problem is how to get people to support the President in November so we don't get John Kerry. We have got to be united because we could have four Supreme Court Justices retire and we cannot let a John Kerry name new Justices that will forever change the Country for our children.
Open to suggestions as to how we unite the forum that has become split over a few issues. We have got to find that common ground before November.
I am willing to work at doing just that. When I came on here, I was in such a minority as a Bush supporter that this seems easy compared to that. You get people on your side not by attacking but by being reasonable and willing to answer their questions and concerns. Looking for one vote at a time and if it takes my listening to every gripe in the book for one vote, I will do just that!
Telling.
"Attacks"?? LOL --you are being "attacked" to the extent the commandant at 'Andersonville' was attacked by his POWs...
Just curious -- has FR has been "fumigated" enough to your liking?
And with a comment like that, you expect ANYONE to take you seriously?? LOL!
With you down here on the ground, who's manning watch-tower gatlin-gun?
Speaking of the flakey idea that conservatives should support the election of liberals in order to somehow defeat liberalism, there was another ideologue who held similar ideas ....
 "Are there contradictions in the Worker's Soviets oppressing workers? Yes, but those contradictions are good and should be heightened, for they assure that eventually the glorious Dialectical Materialist Leap will take place to the future paradise! We oppress in order to free!" |
... In other words, we are told we must elect Democrats in order to make the lives of people miserable and oppressive, for only then will they break the bonds of their shackles and live in freedom! And who is against freedom when the ends supposedly justify the means?!
I certainly think there are. I've seen more than one on this very thread, incessantly directing other posters to #712 and insinuating their intent to see the other party banned.
That said, there are trolls on the "anti-Bush" side as well. Those who are serious about civility need to begin calling peopel on their bad behavior - including the trolls on their own side.
I came to this thread because someone posted to me about another matter........I saw your silly comment, and it made me laugh!
Hyperbole, your name is F16Fighter! :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.