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.
I certainly hope you are addressing someone else. I support President Bush for reelection. There is no other choice. It's for the soul of our country that he must be reelected.
And I'm sure The Party of Clinton thanks him for his service
Personally .. I'll skip Kevin's co-called common sense
Only a fool would advocate that
Have you so quickly forgotten what it was like when X42 was in office? I stood shoulder to shoulder with you picketing at the White House, if I remember correctly. Surely you don't want to go back to those days?
Bush has given us so much. Let's just start with the ban on partial birth abortion. If he has a change to appoint his conservative judges, I know things will change in this country for the better.
You must be pragmatic and all him to make his changes slowly and surely. There are too many leftist standing in is way right now. And it didn't help his agenda to have our country attached on 9/11. Pray for President Bush, don't deride him.
Uh oh.... Santorum endorsed Specter for re-election so Santorum must be "evil" by our purist standards, too.
Whew! I thought I'd said something that could be misinterpreted! :)
You cavalierly forget all of the things Clinton &CO. that Congress had no part in.
I don't think so. This is discussing the shortcomings of the Bush administration. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I knew Al Gore would advocate growing the government. Now we have a Republican administration acting under the premise of 'oh well it was bound to happen so we'll introduce our version of big spending'. To top it off we're supposed to blindly continue to support said administration for no other reason given other than he is a Republican. You've got to provide more than just the banter of 'he's sort of better than the other guy because we said so'
As much as some would wish us to continue to vote for one or the other, the electorate out there is getting bored. Baskin Robbins has more than 2 flavors for a reason. These people realize there are other solutions which do include staying at home or voting for another party. I personally know more than a few people that haven't voted since they had the responsibility given to them to vote. And the reason almost every one of them give is that they can't see a big difference. Of course most of them couldn't pick out the Constitution in a line up which makes them perfect for running for political office.
While I do not advocate their solution of staying home, I think it is the responsibility of patriotic citizens of the respective states to get out and vote. However I do not think it's their responsibility, if they happen to have conservative leanings, to continually vote for a party that could care less what they think.
You say work within the party. Make your voice heard. And I do. I have for more than a few years. And you know what has occurred? Absolutely nothing. Because Democrats and Republicans alike expect something from their government. As if the government owes them something. The politicians know this. They pander to the people of either side. The problem is that we have reached the point, perhaps decades ago, that Alexander Tyler spoke of. And unless we are willing to look at an alternative solution, a solution outside of the box, nothing will change.
Kevin, I've read your posts before and while I may have disagreed with you every once in awhile, this is an excellent piece. Thank you for posting it
Would they? I'm not sure. Also, a Bush defeat could easily bring in enough Democrats to cause serious problems, as a Bush defeat means a lot of Republicans didn't show up to vote. I do fear Bush is going to end up spending September and October trying to get his base back.
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.