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.

[Krodg]

In states where Bush could be expected to do very well (>55% of the vote), voters wishing to put a shot across his bows could vote third-party with a clear conscience

That margin isn't good enough to get me to consider switching. Too much can happen during an election and I will not ever risk my vote putting a Dem in the WH again.

Besides, I will be voting with a clear conscience...for Bush!

[F16Fighter]

"I only had to read 400 posts since I was last here. Looks like the fumigating is coming along nicely."

Have you ANY idea how this comment made you look?

[onyx]

Tone it down. There's a truce underway or haven't you heard?

[Fawnn]

Read these links regarding time and place and the purpose of FR:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069214/posts?page=712#712

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069214/posts?page=1158#1158

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1069214/posts?page=1430#1430

[nopardons]

No, I don't'; that's just that stuff you're filled with, bubbling out from your eyes, distorting your view.

[OWK]

No, I don't

No... really...

It's just a little butt-smooching debris... right there next to your left nostril..

There... you got it.

[Barnacle]

Why yes, the old , "Stay in the frying pan because the fire is so much worse." trick.

I still haven't heard Bush even try to explain to his former supporters of the Conservative persuasion just what the *%&$ he's doing!

[F16Fighter]

"Tone it down. There's a truce underway or haven't you heard?"

I HAVE heard of the advocacy of Stalinist-type FR purgings.

You can begin doing your part in the name of a "truce" by apologizing for your "fumigation" comment.

[Howlin]

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.

LOL.....look at this!

[Diva Betsy Ross]

I have avoided all of those threads for good reason. There are too many stubborn people, on both sides, who are not willing to discuss this rationally . I was thinking third party myself , because I was mad for awhile. I blew off a bit of steam about it.. and then I thought about it. I agree third party is not going to help me get what I want.

All I really want is for President Bush to take the immigration stand back.

I know plenty of third party people who are right behind me. Many would come back to Bush, if they thought President Bush was listening to them on this one single issue.

I am just trying to help, and give some prospective from my side. We both want the same thing.

[onyx]

I'll do my part by continuing to ignore your attacks. Haven't you noticed after all this time, that I do not respond to you? We used to be friends, which is why I ignored your comments on Arnold threads as well as this one.

[itsahoot]

You "true conservatives" got 2nd degree burns when you all helped elect Clinton back in 92.

Give it a rest Dane, neither candidate garnered 50% of the vote. Any one but the party elite and the (R)bots knew that Dole was a loser.

[nopardons]

Oh goody, your eyes cleared up? Just wait, that dark brown gloppy stuff is pouring out of your mouth and nostrils. My, my....you really ARE just FULL OF IT !

[Fawnn]

Badly paraphrasing an old film quote, but what I think probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world....

I do know that finding FR during the impeachment and fiasco of the Clinton years, and finally getting brave and registering here and starting to post to the threads, has been a Godsend in my life. I love being around those who for the most part are like-minded people. (I quit watching network news, and Tom Brokaw specifically, during the first Bush administration, when I heard Brokaw -- with an "if you can believe this sh*t" voice inflection --say, "Today, President Bush SAID....")

IMO, those who don't agree with the intent of FR can go find a home on the Internet elsewhere. There are plenty of other places out there. Those people aren't here to debate. Most of them seem to be here to disrupt. (I wouldn't invite most of them into my home, and I really dislike them disrupting my home here.)

But, I don't rule the world ... or even FR. ;)

However, because I've been big on posting quote links to you, here's another one I think you should take a look at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070227/posts?page=712#712

[CrazyBillyJack]

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. All of your insults are dross.

You are about as entertaining as watching grass grow in a windowbox. What do you do for a living? You are living, aren't you? Do yourself and everyone else a favor: take a fatal overdose of your medication. Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you didn't eat all those paint chips and lead pencils when you were a kid.

You are an ineffably cretinous lout and a maniacal, nostril-offending lamentable mistake by your parents.

Why don't you shrink your head and use it as a paperweight? It's not much use for writing intelligent posts with, that's for sure. Does your train of thought have a caboose? However, I'll consider letting you have the last word if you guarantee it will be your last. I suggest you need Mark Twain's advice; "It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." What possessed you to think that you were capable of being entertaining or interesting to read? I'd get more pleasure from running my nostrils down a cactus, than reading another contribution from you.

In closing, I helpfully suggest that you support your local Search & Rescue Unit, and get lost.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

I am not quite clear on this .. are you saying you think I am a disruptor, or that anyone who is thinking third party is a disruptor ,or that people who say stupid things like, Bush is Hitler ,is a disruptor.

[CrazyBillyJack]

XXXX, did you see the skullandbones thing I posted and the quote of robinson? If you go over there to get banned would you do me a favor? Add that to whatever you post, direct it to robinson and tell him that malador said that he had never forgotten the lie he told about him posting under a bunch of names he had never heard of and that he could "BITE ME!" - malador

[Fawnn]

I never called you personally a disruptor! However, I'm wondering why you're so worried about third party supporters who are leaving.

<< or that anyone who is thinking third party is a disruptor >>

Yes

<< or that people who say stupid things like, Bush is Hitler ,is a disruptor >>

No. I'd say anyone who compares Bush to Hitler is totally ignorant of history, and is an idiot.

[Fawnn]

Link correction.

I can't find the corrected link for the thread where Jim's quote originally appeared, so instead I'm going to correct the link I posted earlier (on #1574) and give you a link where somebody quoted Jim's quote (follow all that? LOL):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1070227/posts?page=25#25

(This is NOT accusing you of being that type of 3rd party person. It is to point out the FR philosophy about those who DO support 3rd party candidates.)

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Well of course I agree with you that anyone who says Bush is like Hitler is a fool.

I think some of the people talking third party need some TLC right now.

I am concerned about the numbers leaving ( not just FR but the Republican party) because I think they are high, and because I think there is a simple solution for us ( people who want to see President Bush win). Perhaps not so simple for the President in the short term, but I think it is something he will be forced to do anyway, which is come back off the Immigration thing.

Then it is win , win for us. The numbers are up , the margin is not so close, and people feel like they have been heard on a wildly unpopular Immigration platform.

Just for the record, I am not a disruptor, that is why I stay off those threads. I have read them all. I have had my say already. Today when I saw this chance, I thought I may be able to offer a bit of insight which I feel has been over looked on this issue. I can not speak for everyone who is thinking third party, but I can speak for some of them. My intent here is to help and not disrupt anything.

Like I said ,you and I want the same thing in the end.