Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush
Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: gop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 1,961-1,963 next last
To: raloxk
I agree. I think any hardcore, leftist Democrat is a threat to the security of this Country! That puts Kerry and Hillary on the same level because they would both be dangerous IMHO! They are like two peas in a pod and if Kerry was in office, Hillary would be in charge of the Senate before long. You can bet some folks would walk across the aisle to make sure of that!
121 posted on 01/31/2004 7:40:54 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Support Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
"The earlier we discuss these thing--the more debate that is ignited among Republicans--the better chance we have of getting the right result both now and in 2008."

You are right and I wasn't disagreeing with what you're trying to accomplish. I had to throw the reminder out there that we MUST pull off this "Submit Tancredo in the Primary" action or all subsequent complaints, brainstorms and recriminations will all be for moot. You have to forgive former military like myself who tend to see things in a linear manner. I'm quite weary of being ignored by the leadership despite regressing to snail mail. Even worse, many are adopting the evil of voice mail, attempting to funnel the issues they deem important to a choice of phone buttons.
Most of your respondents have contributed excellent points and observations on this thread, especially on the ongoing battle for the Supreme Court. That fight does indeed depend on commitment and planning, and has seen critical losses due to short-thinking politicicians trading votes like baseball cards. I just don't want anyone to lose sight of what they can do now.
122 posted on 01/31/2004 7:41:17 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus (Would you like to know more?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Careful what you wish for. Remember, USSC positions are lifelong positions. Are you advocating that we should have Bill Clinton in our faces and trampling on our rights for the rest of his life? Are you insane? Have you gone off your rocker?
123 posted on 01/31/2004 7:42:59 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
From whom, then? From faithful critics such as myself who are willing to tell him he is screwing up and losing our support.

Oh wow, I am in total awe of you...so it was you and your fellow critics who got him to change his mind eh?

Certainly not from his die-hard supporters and enablers here at FR.

So because I don't post multiple times a day on multiple threads on FR about my displeasure at Bush over the CFR or the NEA, I am an enabler? You check folks' outging email and their mailbox everyday to know who has or has not registered some sort of complain to him and/or his administration???

Just because some people don't post their hysterical "The SKY IS FALLING" rants about things they don't agree with, doesn't mean they always agree 100% of the time.

Then you top this off by trying to convince us we'd be better off in the long run by electing a democrat.

Yea Kevin, it all makes perfect sense.

124 posted on 01/31/2004 7:43:14 PM PST by Neets (Complainers change their complaints, but they never reduce the amount of time spent in complaining.~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
i have fear because the threat is real, not imagined.

also you should not be so convinced that if Kerry wins, that he would necessairly lose in 2008. You cannot guarantee that 100%. The Dem base didnt revolt when Clinton signed Welfare Reform and then shortly after cut the capital gains tax. They are driven not by principle but by a desire to win no matter what the cost. Having activist judges on the bench more than makes up for Welfare Reform and capital gains tax cuts from their viewpoint. Their base is willing to put up with more than our base is.


I posted this on another thread but there was a good article in National Review back in 1999 or 2000 that did an analysis of future elections. The finding was based on future demographics and racial voting patterns from the 1988 election. Result: the last presidential election the GOP will win will be 2004. From that point forth the GOP demographically digs itself into a deeper and deeper electoral hole. So much so that by the mid 2030s, even Reagan's 1984 landslide become a 48-52 LOSS!! Only Nixons 1972 62-38 win survives beyond the 2030s and then for only a few years.


A DEM win in 2004 will allow the DEMS to begin to really consolidate the Hispanic vote. The DEMS wont sit around waiting to lose in 2008.

If your analysis is so brilliant, why arent the DEMS saying let Bush win, he'll have to raise taxes or cut spending and then we can win back the congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008???????

If there is so little value to the 2004 Presidency, why do they want it so much?
125 posted on 01/31/2004 7:48:22 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: arrow107
" But by then, their interpretation of conservativism will probably look alot like liberalism is today"

You keep on the good fight now to keep conservatism alive. In the two party system we are dealing with liberals and conservatives. Clinton was a liberal but he swung to middle on some issues. ANd with other issues he was right of middle. But the democrats--liberals/moderates stuck with him and defended him no matter what b/c it was not about the person as much as the fact that they would control the whole agenda. If you do not fight for a conservative now what makes you think that your children would recognize conservatism when the liberals take over. No mention of God, abortion a la carte, no defense of AMerica, and more taxes on you and me and them. I believe Bush with the economy turning and with employment down that we will eventually with spending
containment increase revenue to the government and decrease the deficit.

126 posted on 01/31/2004 7:58:09 PM PST by olliemb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
A Bush loss is not the end of the road. It could--and I believe would--actually be beneficial over the long haul.

With they help of Kerry's voting record .. this is what we got ... So I'll take a pass on your so-called common sense that a Bush loss is not big deal

Is John Kerry the new Democrat Golden Boy?

Is Senator Kerry in full support of our intelligence gathering capabilities? His voting record indicates he is not.

In 1994/95, Kerry proposed a bill to gut $1.5 billion from intelligence and freeze spending for two major intelligence programs — the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence Program. (S. 1826) That bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was retooled, the amount dropped to $1 billion, and it was finally defeated as S. Amendment 1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)

He voted to cut 80 million from the FBI budget. (HR-2076)

In 1997, Kerry felt there that were no threats to the United States. This prompted him to place this statement in the Congressional Record: ''Now that the [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary?'' (Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)

Twelve days after 9/11, Senator Kerry had the nerve to make this statement: ''And the tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. ...we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it's going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.'' (CBS's ''Face the Nation,'' 9/23/01)

After spending years trying to lay waste to our intelligence capabilities, succeeding at times, and failing at times, he now preaches about how our intelligence community was negligent.

In ''Golden Boy — Part Two,'' his abysmal record on supporting the military will be covered.

127 posted on 01/31/2004 7:58:22 PM PST by Mo1 (Join the dollar a day crowd now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Most of Bush's supporters seem to be driven by fear and emotion.

Oh is this more of you so called common sense?

128 posted on 01/31/2004 8:00:16 PM PST by Mo1 (Join the dollar a day crowd now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Great post. I believe Kevin is trying real hard to convince people to not vote for Bush. Makes me wonder if he really is a conservative. Way too eager to throw out a conservative for a real left of Kennedy liberal.
129 posted on 01/31/2004 8:01:01 PM PST by olliemb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: raloxk
Excellent points! Does King Curry dare call you a sycophant who bases his or her vote on emotion when you provide a rational, well-thought out reply to his election scheme?
130 posted on 01/31/2004 8:05:05 PM PST by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Anyone who advocates that Bill Clinton be put on the USSC bench is neither using common sense, or being a "principled Conservative".
131 posted on 01/31/2004 8:13:57 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Better that she be forced to burn vast sums of money slogging it out with a failed Democratic incumbent in a bloody and vicious Democratic primary and convention in 2008 than she get a clear shot at a fresh Republican candidate with all her money intact.

She's already an official write in candidate in Wisconsin with the city clerks ORDERED to record and report her votes -- a sharp departure from the usual practice with write ins. Can you say TRIAL BALLOON? Or LISTENING TOUR?

You must really be naive.

132 posted on 01/31/2004 8:14:42 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic (Re-elect Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
From whom? Certainly not from his die-hard supporters and enablers here at FR. From whom, then? From faithful critics such as myself who are willing to tell him he is screwing up and losing our support. His sycophants--his ever-approving greek chorus--are next to worthless in terms of shaping the debate.

It's this type of sneering arrogance that makes the left so unattractive, it's always distressing to see it creep into the right. This elitist attitude also keeps ivory-typers from seeing how politically destructive their values are. When someone is working so hard to pat themselves on the back for being smarting than the rest of the world, it's impossible for them to see their actions next to other mere mortals with any perspective.

133 posted on 01/31/2004 8:20:41 PM PST by Tamzee (W '04..... America may not survive a Democrat at this point in our history....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
with regards to hoping Kerry wins in 2004, so we can have a principled conservative win in 2008....when was the last time in the history of the Republic we had TWO back to back one-term Presidents? Forget Ford, he was never elected in the first place. No assassinations or deaths. One failed 4 year President followed by another failed 4 year President. My guess is between the end of the civil war and 1900. So it doesnt happen often.
134 posted on 01/31/2004 8:20:57 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: olliemb
Good point! I think this thread proves he is not only a liberal but a liberal DemocRAT. No one I know except DemocRAT liberals would ever support Kerry for President and come out and post on a Conservative website.

Must admit it takes nerve to post this claptrap after the great post from Jim this week. We sure see what this person who posted this nonsense thinks of Jim and his post.



135 posted on 01/31/2004 8:22:16 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Support Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
"She's already an official write in candidate in Wisconsin with the city clerks ORDERED to record and report her votes -- a sharp departure from the usual practice with write ins. Can you say TRIAL BALLOON? Or LISTENING TOUR?"

Now that is interesting and a good find. Wonder if Hillary is registered in any other primaries.

136 posted on 01/31/2004 8:23:43 PM PST by windchime (Podesta about Bush: "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." (TIME-1/22/01))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I agree. We are better off without Bush.
137 posted on 01/31/2004 8:24:08 PM PST by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
and with Kerry for 8 years?
138 posted on 01/31/2004 8:24:44 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Santorum/Keyes in 2008.
139 posted on 01/31/2004 8:26:00 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
I believe that this isn't creeping into the left, I believe what we are seeing on FR are actual RATs posting pretending to be outraged conservatives. It is working too because some people have quit thinking and have their heads buried. They seem to have forgotten 9/11 and what a DemocRAT did to our CIA and military.

Pretty convenient -- go on a conservative site, register, turn the heads of some of the people that want a President that gives them 100% of what they want, and then make them followers. When it is all a scam by a poster who is not a conservative but actually from the RATs to help split the largest conservative website on the Net.

That is my take on this whole thread!
140 posted on 01/31/2004 8:29:55 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Support Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 1,961-1,963 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson