The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush

Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

[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.

[EdReform]

read later...

[gatorbait]

Out damned spot is Eternal Warming here.We had a discussion about the tagline Tancredo in 04 and three of us were saying he had no chance,etc.

You need to go see how the true believers are trashing Tancredo over there. Fascinating.

[international american]

"Conservatives certainly lose bigger if a Democrat is elected no matter what their beef with Bush maybe."

No getting arounds this fact!!

[Lando Lincoln]

Thanks MOG for the ping.

Jim, thank you for your stand. For any forum to be successful, there must be some give and take. But some of these people who are mindlessly and senselessly bashing GWB simply don't understand the alternatives. I, too, have criticized some of the spend now, pay later proposals of the President. But, the political reality is that the dems have appealed to the "margin" groups for years with huge success. The party of Lincoln has been demonized and categorized as the party of rich white males. This can't hold. Electoral college notwithstanding, the large urban areas will have more and more sway in presidential elections - it is an enormous task for any republican to carry California, New York, Illinois and even Florida. If the republicans fail to reach out to minorities, women and the elderly, it will surely die in the long run. The trick is doing it without compromising core principles. This is largely where the debate lies.

For me, GWB has shown unfailing, unblinking leadership in the WOT. This despite blistering commentary and criticism from the media, the left, so-called allies, etc. To me, his sure and steady approach is leadership at its finest.

A Bush win in November is far better for this nation than any other alternative. Especially for my young sons. God bless,

Lando

[Joe Hadenuf]

Isn't it possible, too, that if elected to a second term, Bush could move back to the right cause he knows he can't get elected again so its like what the heck,

Yikes! I think that would be, uh, unlikely.

And by the way, why do you keep posting to someone and asking them questions, when they have apparently be banned?

[Conspiracy Guy]

Yep.

CG

[Joe Hadenuf]

Say he banned all assault weapons. Well, that would just make me strive more mightily to get him elected, cuz then he'd have a chance to reverse himself later. Makes sense?

Sure it makes sense. And if he puts his amnesty plan into action, that too would give him an opportunity to reverse himself later.

[Sabertooth]

I don't think all of the dissenters are plants.

But it is hard to believe that a whole bunch of conservatives signed up in 1998 and then for some reason only post during elections.

What...don't these people care about government at any other time?

Why? It's human nature.

A lot of folks don't follow sports during the offseasons, either.

When you have a watershed event like Impeachment, you're going to attract more attention than at other times. You're going to get a lot more people who are willing to challenge authority, even if they don't live and breathe politics on the internet year-round.

In other words, "troublemakers."

Plus, moderators will tell you that there have indeed been sleeper accounts here. Just ask them.

I don't need to ask the Mods, I've seen sleepers.

I just think the willingness to assume conspiratorial plots behind posters who disagree with President Bush are as generally silly as are similar assumptions about posters who stridently defend him.

Look at the way some of you swarmed after Joe Hadenuf. Too much.

Here's a funny story: during the 2002 campaign, I was actually contacted privately by someone who is active in the Republican Party, and who was posting and lurking with colleagues at FR to get a feel for what the rank and file were thinking. This person asked if I thought that you and Howlin were Democrat plants. They were concerned that your posts were so strident and divisive that they didn't give the best impression to lurkers and undecideds who were considering voting Republican, driving them away instead. They thought a lot of your stuff did more harm than good, and had started to wonder if that was intentional.

For real.

I said that I thought that was a silly idea, and that whatever my disagreements with you two were, I thought that you both thought your activities were in President Bush's and the GOP's best interests, even though I saw the point about harm and good.

There have been other posters on FR who've been as certain as the sunrise that I'm a paid operative. They've actually freaked out over it.

Heck, there's a poster at LP who was sure that I had conspired with Howlin to get him banned. As if. Fortunately, he deduced the obvious, leaving a glimmer of hope for his future productivity.

Once in a while, especially during elections, plants will be spectacularly obvious, as was the meteoric case of DrMartinVonNostrand last year during the California Recall. Most of the time, though, you end up looking like a tinfoil paranoiac if you give that type of thinking too much credence.

It can also become an easy crutch, to avoid addressing whatever point is being made.

So, I generally just try to make my case, post the facts, hold my ground, and let the chips fall. If the person I'm debating is a plant, it doesn't usually matter anyway, so long I can back up my point.

Occasionally, however, I'll tilt at a windmill, and do something like trying to discourage the use of terms like "Bushbots" and "Bushbashers," but that's just an eccentricity on my part.

[Maigrey]

FWIW, I may disagree with you on some things, but I know you have your brain in the right place.

[tillacum]

I personally think x42 is after Kofi's job. With 97 in the whitehouse and him heading up the un, the two will rule the world. I believe that is one reason she spent so much time travelling the globe during the last 4 years of his occupying the oval office.

[Miss Marple]

As you well know, Joe Hadenuf and I have had an antipathy going back to his remarks he made during the California Energy crisis.

Joe and I disagree most strenuously on my attitude towards immigration, and he has popped up on numerous threads on which I have been participating only to place his usual diatribe against immigration, even when the subject is far afield from that topic.

If several people disagree with Joe, who attacked all government employees, why are you so quick to characterize that as swarming?

If I post that I want open borders and immediate amnesty (which I do not) I would expect that you, Joe and a bunch of other people would "swarm" on me.

[PhiKapMom]

Tom --

What a neat poem. Best wishes to your daughter and her fiance.

It is these children who are going to have to reap the harvest of what we sow now and in the months and years ahead, and we should all keep that very much in focus.

My my sentiments exactly and the thought of the damage Kerry would do with four years in the White House is unfathomable to me. I know what bill that never would have happened if the DemocRAT had been President and that was the Partial Birth Abortion bill for a procedure that I would call murder. Anyone on here that dares to say that Kerry might be good for conservatives have misplaced their priorities IMHO. That one bill should be a testament to the fact that Kerry, who would have vetoed that bill, would be bad for Conservatives and America.

[hoosiermama]

RIght on mom! ANd don't forget the WOT.
Then we must remember THE JUDGES! That may be the most important reason to get Bush re-elected.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Look at the way some of you swarmed after Joe Hadenuf. Too much.

The swarm was indeed ugly, but it was the manner of questioning, the types of questions, their demands for personal, detailed information, that was truly an eyeopener. The smell of a dusty backroom inquisition was in the air, and their paranoia level was off scale. It was brutally revealing.

And I noted that the individual that continued to use very personal attacks is still here. LOL!

[Alamo-Girl]

Kudos to Jim Robinson! Thanks for the ping!

[Scenic Sounds]

("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")

[MeekOneGOP]

Some folks claim it's not true, but I still think that things would
have turned out differently if Ross Perot hadn't run in 1992 ...

[NittanyLion]

Look at the way some of you swarmed after Joe Hadenuf. Too much.

As I see it, there's a pretty simple dynamic in play that's chasing off well-intentioned folks:

1. Legitimate criticism of the administration is offered
2. Other posters who are unable or unwilling to discern proper criticism from "Bush-bashing" swarm the person
3. The person responds in kind by further attacking what the other party holds dear (i.e. the administration)
4. This attacks validates the preconceptions in place, and the person is labeled as a "Bush basher" who should be subject to banishment

Now of course, the reverse dynamic is also in play here. But if we're going to hold those who criticize Bush accountable for inflammatory statements by banning them, it hardly seems fair to allow those who support Bush unlimited leeway in what they're allowed to post.

There are many folks here who were thoughtful posters, who are now quick to jump on their adversary because of history. PhiKapMom, who I always respected for her civility and restraint, immediately attributed the worst intentions to me on a thread a few days ago. PKM: you and I are not that far apart in our views and have been around this site a long time, yet there we were sniping at each other like teenagers. That knee-jerk reaction is a function of history rather than a reflection on our personalities.

There are also some folks here who are more interested in baiting people until they get the person kicked off. Until those people are gone, the incivility will not improve. I won't name them, but I suspect people know who they are. And they exist among both the "Pro-Bush" and "Anti-Bush" sides (I'm using those terms for lack of a better descriptor).

[Joe Hadenuf]

Joe and I disagree most strenuously on my attitude towards immigration, and he has popped up on numerous threads on which I have been participating only to place his usual diatribe against immigration, even when the subject is far afield from that topic.

It's not immigration as you say Miss Marple, it's the government approved invasion of millions of illegal aliens that I have a problem with. Why are you attempting to suggest that it's legal immigration that I have a problem with. Why can't you be truthful?

Why are you attempting to use the word "immigration", and sugarcoat this issue, when you know damn well what the correct term is and what this crisis is all about. It's all about *millions* entering our country *illegally*, and any conservative worth a damn, that doesn't have a political agenda, is extremely concerned about this.

[PhiKapMom]

There are so many reasons to reelect President Bush and have a hard time seeing why some people on here cannot seem to fathom how bad Kerry would be for America from so many different angles. The only good thing would be that Senator John "Botox" Kerry would no longer be in the Senate but I will take him as Senator over President any day of the week. The thoughts of Kerry as President send chills up my spine.

What galls me is the feigned support some of here have for our military because if they really supported military there is no way they would even consider a Kerry presidency.

You bring up a good point with judges -- especially SCOTUS where Kerry appointments would be so liberal that this County would be changed forever since they are lifetime appointments at the Federal level. If we think the 9th Circuit is bad now, have Kerry in office to appoint even more liberal, write their own law judges and more Circuit Courts would resemble the 9th!