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.
Thank you for putting this so eloquently. If President Bush hasn't done anything else right (and he's done lots of things right, IMO), he's going to be sure we have a strong national defense. If we don't, we're dead....and everything else doesn't matter. Maybe I'm too simplistic, but at this stage of history, national defense is VERY important.
Now, I admit that I don't go over there often, would NEVER go over there at all, but since they delight in giving me awards and making threads all about me, I get notes about it and links from friends, so I pop over to have a brief look. And when I look, I take it all in.
I don't lie, I don't make up stories, and I don't ever talk about things I don't know.When I say something,believe it.
Oh my... no wonder you're such a smoothie! Any gent that knows what Barry White's voice can do to a girl...
;-)
Is that Le'Pew?
Bless you. My remorse is very deep.
however, should I EVER see you posting there again, I'll post a thread about it on FR and I have NEVER posted a thread in my 5+ years here.
I understand. I am forbidden from going there. I won't make the mistake of crossing you.
Ahhhhhhhhhh Barry White ... the King of Smoooooooooooooth ;0)
Very well stated, mountainfolk. People seem to forget that CANDIDATE Bush, once he took the oath of office and became PRESIDENT Bush, honored the promises he made.
From President George W. Bush's acceptance speech, after a protracted election chadhunting debacle where the country was shown to be deeply divided:
I know America wants reconciliation and unity. I know Americans want progress. And we must seize this moment and deliver.
Together, guided by a spirit of common sense, common courtesy and common goals, we can unite and inspire the American citizens.
Together, we will work to make all our public schools excellent, teaching every student of every background and every accent, so that no child is left behind.
Together we will save Social Security and renew its promise of a secure retirement for generations to come.
Together we will strengthen Medicare and offer prescription drug coverage to all of our seniors.
Together we will give Americans the broad, fair and fiscally responsible tax relief they deserve.
Together we'll have a bipartisan foreign policy true to our values and true to our friends, and we will have a military equal to every challenge and superior to every adversary.
Together we will address some of society's deepest problems one person at a time, by encouraging and empowering the good hearts and good works of the American people.
This is the essence of compassionate conservatism and it will be a foundation of my administration.
These priorities are not merely Republican concerns or Democratic concerns; they are American responsibilities.
That's the President I voted for. The one who restored dignity and honor to the White House, the one who promised a strong military, the one who I strongly sensed to be faithful to his wife and would therefore be likewise to his country. He has provided leadership and shown integrity of character.
And he is NOT a Rove-made man. It just happens that he recognizes quality when he chooses those who work for him, and Karl Rove is good at what he has been hired to do.
Since the dim senators have their own litmus test, I've decided to run all FReepers through my Packer fan litmus test.
Are you now or have you ever been a Packer fan?
Ridiculous, isn't it?
Of course I did. Did I get into specifics about who pays me, what is the name of the organization I work for? Of course not. As I stated, if you'd read the thread, I work in an environment where I need to keep details to myself. Not broadcast them on some internet forum. I don't have to answer to any inquisition about the details of what I do for a living. The individual asked what I did and I stated what I did. If that isn't good enough for you, or for this little inquisition clique, to freaking bad. Go back and read the questions. They are laughable given the fact that I clearly explained why I wasn't going to get into specific details.
WTF do the details matter anyway? Or is this some kind of a weird game?
Anyway, welcome back into the fold. :-)
You know, I honestly believe that that is one thing that bothers a lot of the Bush bashers around here; and I do mean that in a bigoted sort of way.
I do not expect him to see everything just my way.
Another trait you don't share with the unappeasables.
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.