I wouldn't vote for Bush this round for a million bucks, but I hope he beats his Democrat opponent - what does that make me?
|
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.
Don't know if I see it that way Jim -- You're seeing a living, breathing Free Republic. Honest people are being honest. Other people are understandably defensive about the President.
The President has clearly made a couple of bad choices, and we who voted for him are voicing our displeasure with THOSE issues. While Dubya has done a tremendous job in fighting the WoT, and is certainly better than a Rat, we sincerely hope he respects and heeds some opinions here at FR -- we feel we have a ship that has veered a bit off course and should be righted.
That's pretty clear ;-)
"Accusing him of lying about the reasons for going to war or that he was "in on" 9/11, etc. Or that he was AWOL from his service, or that his family supports Nazis, or that he worships owls or is not a Christian, or that he is a traitor..."
Jim, 99% of the Freepers who are real conservatives wouldn't engage in this type of garbage. These are obvious trolls, and I certainly wouldn't tolerate that kinda crap...
Btw, Dubya "worships owls"?? LOL -- better call Drudge!
Not good enough, Kevin. You stopped applauding too soon.
No, bait, it doesn't work that way. You have to implant the memory first, before your victim will "remember" it. I'm one of the ones who won't hold still, so it won't work.
Texasforever the pyromaniac, burning brand in hand, announces "this forest was in trouble from the start!!"
LOL!
I wouldn't vote for Bush this round for a million bucks, but I hope he beats his Democrat opponent - what does that make me?
|
|
|
You have proven to be nothing more than a partisan hack.
I cannot remain a member of your site in good conscience.
Kindly remove my account.
|
|
So, since you raised the question, why aren't we having a primary, as a necessary caucus on the wisdom or unwisdom of Bush's policies on e.g. immigration and NAFTA?
Why is it a given that incumbent presidents always get a pass when they bid for a second term......unless his name is Jimmy Carter?
Why is it to the long-term advantage of the GOP to treat the conservatives like laying hens and cut their beaks off, while rolling out the Persian carpets for Log Cabins and people who voted to expand Social Security?
Why shouldn't a president have to go back and face his base in a primary, so that we can be satisfied that he intends to "dance with the one what brung him"? Even if the alternative were merely "no confidence" or "open seat"? A president who ran strongly to the Left could thus be unseated during primary season, and the Party freed up to find a new candidate in convention.
Imagine that. Picking a nominee at the convention -- what a thought!
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.