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 I could have said that any better.
Is censorship now a "mirage" as FR? Or is it reality?
You tell me.
Seems to me, being a conservative at FR means having the freedom to support through logical debate the candidate who most reflect our political philosophy -- NOT strictly a registry for pom-pom wavers only. What a DULL place this would become, while driving out great minds.
"I have not agreed with EVERYTHING President Bush has said and done since he took the oath of office and said so; repeatedly."
And I would expect nothing but your honest opinion in your case -- but should your opinion grow to be that of stronger dissent for any reason, what then might your position be? And will you then be considered "out of the fold" by others? See how this works?
As for your "message," you must look real cute with your pom-poms and short skirt. I hope you at least shave your legs.
That's fine by me.
It all depends on if you believe actual advocacy for a Bush defeat "friendly fire". I had a feeling last night that this thread would be the last straw.
The truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
I did too. What a warrior! Kevin Curry is/was one of the best outspoken true conservative patriots ever at FR.
I don't, as you should know.
Perhaps I should have said 'collateral damage'. Much of the fierce opposition to the folks you describe has the effect of just POing a whole bunch more people, when it is delivered as a slam on conservatives.
To put it more bluntly: destructive divisiveness is coming from more than one direction here.
Foolish of me to even get into the middle of this. I have an early day tomorrow, and should be in bed.
I've been around politics all of my life. I wouldn't ever go fringe...I understand this " game " far too well to ever do that.
Censorship? I wouldn't call what Jim has said must be, to be censorship. He doesn't want constant flaming here. He doesn't want people saying that a Dem president is the way to go, on a Conservative site. No Conservative, not a one, would claim that a Dem president is " good " for Conservative goals; especially when faced with this choice of Dem primary candidates!
The pom pom thing is old, tired and should be put to bed already. There are two major political parties. The next president, whether you like it or not, will come from one of these two parties. That's just how it is;no waving of pom poms, no hero worship, just that simple fact.
If I am ever "outside " of the prevailing credo on FR, I'll leave. There are other places, other sites on the web, for those who don't fit FR.
The main problem as you know has been Dubya's 'Amnesty Plan,' and passionate dissent of it. And since there IS no other logical "side" to that specific debate, bad blood has spilled over.
I don't know if your policies (as per post #712) are "official" and etched in stone, OR you yourself was just blowing off steam, but to me it's counter-productive because it will ultimately stifle honest debate. It's already happening....
It's not like FR is or will ever become a hangout for real DU-type trolling -- we know them when we see them. IMO, you need to let the troops break a few beer mugs over each other's head, get the fists bloody, and re-consider your guidelines for the joint.
I don't think they are/were Bush haters. That sounds so Clintonesque anyway.
I think they were people that felt strongly, and were very concerned about the direction this administration is headed. As far as I know, they were not liberals/socialist/ or anti-American.
We'll have to disagree *sigh* --- hopefully, the hatred of Bush expressed here has finally reached its crescendo. Jim had to step in.
Again, I don't think it is hatred for Bush, as much as I think most of these folks were just voicing their disagreements with some of the policies and the direction this administration has been taking. Editorials, and articles from all over the country have been talking about this very issue. There is a clear divide and it's growing. These people are no different than millions of others in the country. Calling them all Bush haters is probably not productive for any political agenda.
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.