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.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I don't want McAwful or the Clintons to "take a hike!". The Democrats should tell those three to "take a hike!". That burden shouldn't be left on the Republican's lap. If you want to save that party, you go tell them to "take a hike!".

[tpaine]

To: The New Kevin Curry

It's hard to believe you really wrote this kevin..

Sincerely, congrats.. -- Great job, and thanks..

[BigSkyFreeper]

Then you have the Chuck Baldwin rants posted from time to time by one single poster. (Baldwin of course belongs to the Constitution Party).

[Antoninus]

Hillary is not the type who wants to play "second fiddle" to anyone. Using your logic, it's like the puppeteer taking commands from the puppet. She'll run for President, it won't be in 2004. I'd wager it will happen in 2008 if she loses her senate seat in 2006.

Yeah, and everyone said, "Hillary is not the type to be just one out of 100 in the Senate." Let's put it this way, I wouldn't want to be president if Hitlery was my VP. I would be too afraid I'd find rat poison in my cupcakes...

And BTW, losing her senate seat to Guiliani is not an option. That would make her a VERY weak candidate for 2008. That's why I think the threat of a tough race in 2006 has made her re-evaluate her time-table. Better to be a VP in 2004 than out of the senate in 2007...

[NewRomeTacitus]

I feel like the breakfast-cereal square in those commercials. The pro-Bush side of me says he’s better than any Democrat alternative while the other side prefers a strictly conservative taste. The over-sweetened view sees George trying to suck up to the Kennedy-Hillary Democrats every way possible for political expedience while the wheaty, mid-America side sees the man attempting some legerdemain to maintain America’s edge. Is he fulfilling his father’s unfulfilled mission of pushing America into a U.N.-dominated New World Order or does he have our country’s best interests at heart?
I wish I had a clue.

[nopardons]

Correct...........that he is! And no one, NO ONE, but kooks still sycophanticly promote him.

[nopardons]

And in other states as well !

[TomasUSMC]

"Conservatives should desire a consistently conservative Republican president who with grace and inspiration will lead..."

Boy that sounds sooo good. Maybe Mr. Bush should try that, instead of trying to lead by using spending and granting amnesty and refusing to secure our borders - as a strategy to garner votes.

Today in Grand Rapids, I, one Freeper, shouted down Micheal Moore and 200 of his minion. It was dangerous but Conservatives from Freerepublic have been doing it consistently for years since 911.

If the Presidents and his advisers don't want to represent US, is it because they can't believe we will not vote for him? Is it because he doesn't believe there are enough of US? Is it because he believes that spending billions will fool or convince those who voted Gore in 2000? It might but it is you and I who will have to pay off those bills long after President Bush is out of office.

This Idea that the Presidency is expendable is great, it is true. But remember it is the President who is making it expendable. By his words and actions, HE is throwing away the White House.

No Borders NO Vote Seven Months

[nopardons]

Raw FBI files, little hints by goon squads, oh, a lot of wee things like that. :-)

[Antoninus]

I don't want McAwful or the Clintons to "take a hike!". The Democrats should tell those three to "take a hike!". That burden shouldn't be left on the Republican's lap. If you want to save that party, you go tell them to "take a hike!"

Sorry, but you missed the point of my post. It was basically this: "There will be no winning Democrat ticket in 2004 without a Clinton on it."

[BigSkyFreeper]

Losing to Guilani won't weaken her. She's been weakened since 1992 by her own past, yet there are those that see past that, and see her as some glorified Goddess sent from Heaven to save the day.

[honeygrl]

"Obviously you are a troll. Abuse button material."

What rule did he break?

[Mo1]

What's to keep them from telling the Clintons and Terry McAwful to "take a hike."

You REALLY think they will do that??

Check out Kerry's history in office

Is John Kerry the new Democrat Golden Boy? (Part 2: His military voting record)

[BigSkyFreeper]

"There will be no winning Democrat ticket in 2004 without a Clinton on it."

That's the point of my argument, sorry I didn't make that clear enough.

[nopardons]

Little newbie, FREEPERS have be FREEPING since FR was formed and some of us, me for one, FREEPED before there even was such a thing, as I did in the late '60s and early '70s, all alone.

If you don't want to vote for President Bush, don't; but you'll be giving aid, comfort, and moral support to the Dems.

[Antoninus]

Raw FBI files, little hints by goon squads, oh, a lot of wee things like that. :-)

And you think unscrupulous and resourceful fellows like Kerry or Edwards wouldn't have access to such things once in power? The only thing that makes the Clintons relevant now is that they own the DNC. If a non-Clinton Democrat wins in 2004, that goes bye-bye. And with Hillary facing a possible dogfight in 2006, I reckon her sense of urgency is heightened at this point.

[TomasUSMC]

Lets give President Bush some time, say till the convention. 7 months from now. From now till then we decide not to vote for Bush. If by then he has not given US something concrete, like secure borders, then we don't change our minds.

If on the other hand he does rescind and retract, then we do change our minds and vote for Bush. But it has to be concrete. Not just troops on the border, that can be recalled right after November 2nd. It must be a something that will endure, because the election will surely endure, and the decisions made -
we will have to endure.

[Antoninus]

You REALLY think they will do that??

If they follow the commie model the will. Why do you think Stalin put a hit on Trotsky? Commies don't like competition from within the party....

[Mo1]

You are a fool

[Antoninus]

Lets give President Bush some time, say till the convention. 7 months from now. From now till then we decide not to vote for Bush. If by then he has not given US something concrete, like secure borders, then we don't change our minds.

I'm not saying I won't hold my nose and vote for Bush. What I am saying is that I only WORK for conservatives....