|
|
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.
|
|
Hey I'm one of the class of 98 who posts at other than election time. Missed the whole thing yesterday for my granddaughter's birthday party. Trying to catch up.
The vets of '98 got on board because they were 'original conservatives' [pre neo-con GOP takeover] who wanted to end liberalism in government. That is probably still their objective in posting at election time.
There was disenchantment with the Bush I pursuit of New World Order entanglements both military and trade [that old job sucking sound is getting louder].
I think good America first conservative positions are: opposing foreign war entanglements, illegal immigration, exporting jobs and factories, abortion and homosexual practices, and strict constitution construction.
I voted for Buchanan for being the closest to these conservative views. If you read [some no doubt posted] what Buchanan and his supporters were called [and still are] on this site, what Bush is called is pretty mild. But I don't bash Bush. I hope being a strong supporter for life, jobs and the troops is not considered Bush bashing because this is a great site for discussion.
My thoughts exactly, Joe.
Is there a way to allow people to blow off a bit of steam ,and then see what we can do about getting the third party people back.
I agree with 100% that if we don't get President Bush reelected we are in big trouble, but I am afraid that if we can not get the message to him that danger is brewing and he needs to take heed, that our job will be insurmountable.
I have already gone on the record as being upset.
IMHO, the only way to reclaim some of the more level headed posters, who like myself were strong supporters of the President and could be again, is to listen to their concerns and try together to see if we can get things done to get Bush reelected, to see if we can reach him.
We know Freepers can get things done when we work together and we have seen it a whole bunch of times.
I am not sure exactly how to do this, but tearing each other apart, is just what the Dems would like to see.
We all could spend this energy on something more constructive, like seeing if we can the President to come back a bit. I think most of us can agree that there is some work to do on his domestic policies.
He really needs to know what the voters are thinking. Is there an organized, helpful way to do that without flame wars?
BTW- Calling President Bush a Nazi, and a liar about the War, and a deserter in the military is out right disgusting, and I do not ever condone that in any way.
At least Fox knows how important it is to protect his country's national sovereignty.
I'm glad there is something of value Bush might learn from him.
LMAO! Now, that is hilarious.
Heck I was one of them..for awhile. Some need to blow off steam, but I do think the number of people upset is much larger than have been led to beleive.
It is scary to me, the numbers I hear on very very Conservative sites and sources. Of course some where in between is the real number.
Bush, like ever other sitting president who sought re-election, is on the primary ballots, but Bush is not being challenged, and for good reason. He's doing a good and commendable job.
I'm far from thrilled over his immigration "propsal" but it is only a "propsal" and now Congress will have to determine its fate. From what I've read, there's ample votes to kill it.
I agree with you --- conventions should be in "real time" --- suspense and the old smokey back rooms.
The concern of mine is that not allowing the Conservatives into the Republic party, over something that isn't even in front of Congress, is going to loose us the election.
It has happened in the past. They know they need Conservatives as much as anyone else.
I wish we could work together and grow the numbers and make some changes. We know we are going to have a mess on our hands with this next election.. there will be fraud , dirty tricks and the Dems will pull out the stops.
Why alienate huge groups of people right now? I really believe that without the Conservatives President Bush is going to loose. Beleive me, I do not want to see that either.
And I say that as a Conservative who loves this country and loves President Bush, not to be disruptive or troll. His domestic policies have been far harder for me to accept than Clinton's were. I know some of it had to be done, and some of it was a bad call.
But the Amnesty thing is something I think we can work on.
79% of Americans do not like the platform. We can get him to work on that I think.
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.