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.
"Hatred"?? Puh-leeze??
You see ANY criticism of Dubya as "hate." That's some kind of paranoia.
Some of us DO "hate" some of Dubya's policies. Is that alright with you? Is dissent allowable? OR is that grounds for the brig?
You know where criticism of leaders are verboten?? That's right -- Muslim countries, fascist states, kingdoms, AND within the Democratic Party. NOT FREE REPUBLIC.
I don't understand why you think Bush voters would be turned off because a few people were asked to take their dissention elsewhere. Many posters have voiced their concerns about the current situation and have been treated fairly. Heck, even the owner of this site has voiced his displeasure at times. Most of these people have used their voices writing letters, sending emails,signing petitions etc, instead of dumping their rants on every thread they see.
Jim simply stated that his site would not be a part of electing a Dem. If your agenda was to drum up support for a third party, take your voice there. What offends Bush voters ??
Having grown up knowing politicians and those who work behind the scenes,on all levels of the government, I don't worship any political figure, I am part of NO cult,and couldn't care less,if I tried, what any of them wear or look like.I am NOT in " awe " of them at all.I know that none of them are " perfect ", that I'm lucky if they manage to do 50% of the things I'd like to see them do, and have worked/still work for the ones I think will do the job with some modicum of skill.
I don't expect the impossible.I don't expect that they'll do things immediately. I have been disappointed and sorry that I worked so hard for some, but President Bush doesn't fall into that category.
Come on. You've been here a long time, so have I. We're ALL grown-ups, and YOU and well as I have flamed and been flamed. Nothing new under the sun. There's moderators. Relax. It's live and it's real. You add intellectually honest debate, humor, and patriotism to the mix, and you've got FR. THAT'S what makes FR what it is. Do you REALLY want to turn the place into Kindergarten??
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!"
Kevin explained in great detail his rationale and strategy for his thinking. Which was ultimately for the cause making true conservatism stronger! I think some of it made great sense, but for heaven's sake -- he was hardly campaigning for Kerry!
"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."
Fair enough answer -- but the "prevailing credo" of FR it appears might be metamorphasizing before our very eyes...
Yes, I admit to having been flamed and flamed backed. I've also been suspended.
No, I don't want FR to be a kindergarten, but that's EXACTLY what it becomes every now and again.Many of FR's best and brightest have left, or thought of leaving,and/or taken month long times out, or longer, because they just got fed up with certain factions.
Jim waited well into the primary/election cycle of '00, before he delivered the kind of ultimatum he did today and the mass bannings, which are yet to come.It is one thing to disagree with the president and quite another to actively promote his ousting. Kevin promoted his ousting and his replacement with a Dem.This was neither well thought out,nor well reasoned.IT IS POLITICAL SUICIDE !
And, when he claimed that there had not been even ONE good refutation, he was in error; there were many, including quite a number of my own posts.He stated his position and it was either agree with him, or you have nothing of worth, nothing valid to say. Then, he went off the edge completely, with that Stalin thing.
Thank you for the compliments;much appreciated. :-)
Yep. Anything to keep a gun out of your hands is a good thing.
Spent nine miserable months in that state with Dukakis as the Gov and Kerry as a Senator. There is zero, zip, nada chance I would support anyone but a Republican after that! No way would I EVER cast my vote for a RAT from MA and I don't care how mad I would get at any Republican running for President.
Yep. Anything to keep a gun out of your hands is a good thing.
I don't think the AWB refers to just his hands.
" I won't be tolerating aggressive attacks on Bush or any of our Republican candidates, especially with smear propaganda from the left or vicious rabid name calling, nor will I tolerate continued attacks on our posters by third party advocates."
I want to understand this...
Are you saying criticism (aggressive attacks?) of Dubya Bush's policies is verboten?
"Name calling" is already one of your restrictions, although if I were to count number of times I saw the phrase "bush-hater" or "bush-basher," I'd be an old, OLD man.
And finally, as per your restriction of "attacks on our posters by third Party advocates" -- shall we assume FR is still a "conservative" site, and not a "Republican" site? That fact is now become very ambiguous. Maybe I'm wrong?
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.