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.

[MeekOneGOP]

Interesting, thanks. Go Dubya ! Go GOP !

Bu-bye 'RATS ! ...

[MeekOneGOP]

Hey ! That bears repeating !!

What I said earlier, IS the reality of the situation:

"Anyone who claims to be a conservative and is NOT voting for Bush, is a hypocrite, the Dems' useful idiot, or a Democrat pretending to be a conservative. It's one of the three."

[EternalVigilance]

You're ignorant of the true nature of the majority of the GOP, and your rant to me is a fine illustration of what I was talking about when I talked about those who are doing as much damage to the GOP as those who are choosing to leave it.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thank you sir ! Great post !

[Sabertooth]

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

I was referring to the demands and insinuations about his employment.

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.

Well, you'd expect wrong. There are some gen-u-ine pro-Amnesty folks in this forum, and they don't get swarmed. They aren't taken very seriously.

[EternalVigilance]

Amen.

[PhiKapMom]

I admit I jumped the gun at you because I was mad at what I was reading from some others. You and I have never really had any problems until I went over the top and I freely admit that fact. I should have rewritten what I was going to post which I usually do when I am mad.

Don't have a problem with people disagreeing with a policy or statement of the President. I do have a problem when they attack him personally about his integrity or what he believes. I don't agree with him 100% on policy, but then I didn't agree with Pres Reagan 100%. I admit I do agree with Senator Inhofe more than almost any other politician I have known and fortunately he is my Senator.

BTW, I detest your senior Senator and love your junior Senator. Thought I would throw that in FWIW!

My thoughts on the whole deal are that if someone cannot defend the President and takes to name calling it is no better than the anti-Bush folks who cannot find one good thing that the President has done and calls him all kinds of names. What bothers me are the Freepers that automatically paint all Bush supporters with a broad brush that we support him 100% and don't think. I don't walk lockstep with anyone I know because I do think!

Think immigration is a major issue, not sure what the real answer is because it is way above my pay grade, but I do know that it is up to the Congress to write the law and that is where the focus should be right now. If President Bush had signed an Executive Order with his proposal, I could readily understand all the disgust, but he didn't. He proposed his ideas to Congress for them to act, but some on here that have trashed him the worst act like it is the law.

Don't think we are that far apart either. I am not asking Freepers to not disagree with a policy or what is stated, but I am asking them not to get so nasty against the President. It is so important that Kerry not become President for all the obvious reasons -- #1 being he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy and I didn't think it was possible.

As most of you know, I really don't like Alan Keyes very much after what he did here in Oklahoma during the primary in 2000 against Pres Bush, but I will guarantee you that if he were running for President against John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or any other democRAT for that matter, he would have my vote, my support, and I would work to get him elected. EV knows what it takes for me to say that and it shows just how much I feel deep inside that a DemocRAT would do unreparable harm if elected at this time in our Nation's history.

That is how important I think it is to defeat John Kerry and make sure that an ultra liberal, anti-Vietnam war protestor does not become President.

I didn't want Bob Dole in 1996, but the other two candidates were so much worse that I held my nose and voted for him. I am asking Freepers if there is anything you agree with what Pres Bush has done as President, hold your nose and vote for him, because I would be willing to bet if you are conservative that you would disagree with John Kerry almost 100% of the time.

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks for those words. I have always known you were a fine and decent conservative Christian woman, notwithstanding any disagreements we have had. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between your political conservatism and mine.

Here's a reality check I received in my email this morning that I think you'll enjoy, and that some people need to read to regain some perspective:



THE WHITE HOUSE NOW

A lot has changed since George W. Bush became president--executive orders that support a "culture of life," judicial appointees who respect the constitution
and members of the Cabinet who are unapologetic about their faith. But perhaps nothing more clearly represents the new leadership we enjoy as a country than that place Mr. Bush now calls his temporary home, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The president is quick to point out that it is not his house, but the American people's house. And, as such, he treats it and the people who work there with respect. From the Secret Service to the grounds crew, the folks who work at the White House rave about the First Family.

The President and First Lady prefer to entertain family friends in their private quarters rather than ask the stewards and waiters to negotiate difficult formal dining rooms.

Harkening back to the days of Ronald Reagan, Bush will not allow any man to attend a meeting in the Oval Office without a jacket and tie. Gone are the days of blue jeans and pizza boxes.

One of the clearest ways to show respect for someone is to respect their time. Everyone who works with and around the President has noted his punctuality. Meetings begin and end on time. This stands in stark
contrast to the previous occupant of the White House, who was notorious for keeping visitors and the media waiting.

And speaking of the former President, in his administration more than 500 staffers had access to the White House kitchen. One presidential aide said they turned it into a fast-food restaurant. These days, only 150 senior staff members have meal privileges.

Of course the Clinton years were known for worse things than that. US News &World Report reported recently that it was common for President Clinton to have violent and sex-laden R-rated films playing on Air Force One. Even seasoned reporters would blush at the images being played out before their eyes while trying to question the President on some issue of national importance. A Marine who worked at Camp David publicly stated that pornography was littered all over the retreat.

In contrast, President Bush has said that even some of the new major motion picture releases, which are routinely sent to the White House for viewing by the First Family, are too vulgar for him. I've visited the White House twice since President Bush moved in. As anyone might be, I was awed by the history of the place. Oil portraits of past occupants reminded me that some presidents have understood the honor of living there and others have wantonly dishonored it.

My visits with President Bush at the White House were an opportunity to witness firsthand how much this man respects the office to which he was elected. He arrived at our meetings promptly and took the time to greet every person in attendance. He was warm and polite to each of us. His manner conveyed the message that he knew he was only a temporary resident, and his job is to leave this august home in better shape than he found it.

In one of my meetings, I made a point of speaking to a young man who is part of the military service assigned to the White House. His job is to escort guests and to help people find their way through the large hallways. His uniform was covered with ribbons and his shoes were perfectly polished.

His face was emotionless, and he drew no attention to himself, but for some reason he caught my eye.

"Thank you," I said, "for the work you do. You really represent us all in your service here. It must be wonderful work."

He paused and then allowed a big smile to cross his face. "Oh, yes, sir, it truly is."

Yes, things certainly are different in Washington.
friends: NOTE WHAT'S SAID HERE AND PLEASE BE MORE DILIGENT IN YOUR PRAYERS for the PRESIDENT &STAFF

--- LOVE GENE AND DIENA NELSON
Courtesy of: Rear Admiral Steve Brachet, USN (Ret) &
Brigadier General Bob Clements, USAF (Ret)

[F16Fighter]

>>"Then, these justices will legalize dope, and then KC will have to kill himself..."<<

"And the downside is ???"

Cleanup on aisle #1470.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting that! That is really neat and sure brings out the glaring differences. Hope everyone reads that and understands what we are trying to say about this President compared the the very liberal DemocRATs.

[EllaMinnow]

EV, I think a lot of people would be pleased if you started a thread with that email.

I'm just so tired of people who can't see the differences - and there are many - between President Bush and Clinton et al.

btw - My son's first vote ever was for Keyes in the 2000 primary. I didn't disown him.

[F16Fighter]

"Many of the folks rejoicing in this thread are the same who would rather post insults and bait people than respond point-for-point to an argument. Those folks are as guilty as many of the banned for inciting flamefests, but for whatever reason it's tolerated."

In other words, the 'trolls of the anti- debate' are granted immunity.

[EternalVigilance]

I will do that, and then post a link here.

[F16Fighter]

"It's difficult to expect others to sit meekly by while they're personally insulted, yet a response in kind will get them banned."

Amen.

[EllaMinnow]

Thank you.

[EternalVigilance]

Here it is:


The Decency of George W. Bush

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070059/posts

[Phaedrus]

My earlier posts on this thread support Kevin's proposal that we contemplate voting for a
Democrat for President this fall with the clear objective of defeating Liberalism longer-term.
Maybe this is a bad idea. Many here clearly think so. Nonetheless I would like to see that idea discussed and defeated or not defeated, on the merits, here. If this position gets me banned, so be it.

[Sabertooth]

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

Thanks, though I confess it sometimes rattles in the wind.

[OWK]

You and your views have been proscribed by the owner of this site. Mine,OTOH, are the exact ones espoused by the owner of this site.

You got a little smear of something on your nose...

No... a little lower..

[JustPiper]

ping