Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush
Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: gop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,961-1,963 next last
To: Antoninus
No, it is far from " axiomatic " when talking about the Clintons and their machine and Kerry and little Edwards.
241 posted on 01/31/2004 10:14:46 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Then, when you find yourself thinking like him............. CHANGE YOUR MIND !

Just because he agrees with me, doesn't mean I'm wrong.
242 posted on 01/31/2004 10:15:19 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
I have tried .. yet you still think it's okay to put a commie in office .. whether it be Kerry or Edwards

Who are you arguing with? Please point out where I said that? It's never good to put commies in office. Or socialists for that matter. Or "compassionate" conservatives (socialism via the scenic route) apparently. What I said was that I would probably hold my nose and vote for Bush, but that I wouldn't bother working for him this time around. I only work for conservatives.
243 posted on 01/31/2004 10:20:30 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
It is not the responsibility of the people to represent the will of the President. It is the responsibility of the President to represent the will of the people.?

Utter BS./ What if it is the "will of the people" to abandon the constitution? What if, as the case is now, the "will of the people" is to make the prescription drug bill even larger?. What if it is the "will of the people" that we should cede our national security to the UN? The president does NOT take an oath "to the people" he takes an oath to the Constitution to, to the best of his ability, defend and protect it. It is your congressmen and women that are bound to the "will of their people". That is why The Congress never saw pork it didn't like.

244 posted on 01/31/2004 10:21:02 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
No, it is far from " axiomatic " when talking about the Clintons and their machine and Kerry and little Edwards.

I think you've mistaken the Clintons for God. Let's just say these next seven months are going to be *very* interesting...
245 posted on 01/31/2004 10:22:30 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Yes, it does. :-)

And FWIW.........there's a new thread on FR, that I was just reading, that quotes Kerry as saying that he will continue Clinton's policy on terrorism, to treat it as a police and judicial matter. Feel SAFE now, do ya ? ;^)

246 posted on 01/31/2004 10:24:28 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever; TomasUSMC
"Who is "we"?"

I wondered that too, but I suspect the poster is Bill O'Reilly. 'President Bush must do this or.....', President Bush must do that or....'.
247 posted on 01/31/2004 10:25:37 PM PST by windchime (Podesta about Bush: "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." (TIME-1/22/01))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Interesting article, Kevin. I will be most likely be voting for another candidate in the primary (Alan Keyes?). As for the general election, I'm still leaning toward Bush...but...there's always the constitution party if Bush keeps going the way he's going.
248 posted on 01/31/2004 10:25:48 PM PST by tame (Are you willing to do for the truth what leftists are willing to do for a lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Not I, but thee.

From what I've read in your posts, you haven't a clue; not even one, regarding politics.

249 posted on 01/31/2004 10:26:00 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry; All
Lest some of us have forgotten JimRob's comments....

Will Bush solve the government spending problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse...

Will Bush defend America from those bent on destroying her? You'd better bet your sweet bippy he will.

Will any of the Democrats defend America? Hell no they won't. They'd rather turn us over to the U.N. They'd surrender to the French Foreign Legion if given the chance.

Will Bush appoint conservative judges? Yup!

Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, appoint conservative judges? Yeah, right. And hell will freeze over tomorrow.

Will Bush continue reducing taxes? Yup.

Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, raise your taxes as soon as they possibly can if given the opportunity and continue raising them until hell freezes over? Yup.

Will Bush defend the right to life? Check

Will Bush defend marriage between a man a woman? Check

Will Bush defend the right to keep and bear arms? Check

Will Bush say no to Kyoto? Check.

Will Bush say no to a world court? Check.

Will Bush say no to the U.N.? Check.

Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, remove our national sovereignty and subjugate America to world government? Just as quickly as they possibly can if given the opportunity.

Will any other person be elected to the Presidency in 2004 other than Bush (God willing) or a Democrat? Obviously not.

Doesn't make a lick of sense to me to allow the America hating, freedom hating Democrats back into power now that we've kicked them out.

Say yes to sovereignty for America and continued freedom for all Americans.

Say no to the RATS!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067935/posts

It is apparent that the sentiments of the "vanity" contradict the stated goals and position of this website.

250 posted on 01/31/2004 10:28:17 PM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Kevin I am asking again, why didn't you vote for gridlock in 2000? You knew what Bush stood for then so what is different now? Is one of the other democrats now running better than Gore was then?
251 posted on 01/31/2004 10:29:24 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; BigSkyFreeper
Anyone who advocates that Bill Clinton be put on the USSC bench is neither using common sense, or being a "principled Conservative".

Only a fool would advocate that

Well I think you described exactly that kind of "principled Conservative" non-thinking very nicely.

252 posted on 01/31/2004 10:29:33 PM PST by gatorbait (Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Polling data in '92, showed that the second choice for those that cast their votes for Perot, was Clinton. Look it up, burn it into memory. Bush lost because he was a weak candidate, and could have cared less what the base thought of him. As a matter of fact, I think he was personally embarrassed by the support of the so called "religious right", so he set out to prove he could win without these "fanatics".

I also remember the premier placement in the program of the "log cabin" conservatives, and the placement of the "religious right" anti-abortion crowd way in the back, out of sight and mind during Bob (let's make a deal) Doles run at knocking off Bubba.

The purposeful ignoring of the wants of those considered "radical right-wingers" or the "enemies of the good" is not new. It is part of the strategy of both parties. They want the votes, but don't want to heed the needs of any group that seems too strident, that may embarrass them in their peer group. After all, they are smarter than us, and they don't see any problems from their seat in the back of the limo, or from behind the iron gates. To those that gain high office, it is all casual. It is just so much hoopla, they don't worry about the country being destroyed because the opposition party wins high office. They go to the same clubs, drink at the same pubs, and slap each other on the back and talk about how they fooled them today.

The system exists for a govt that is not ruled by man, a way of doing things that required only honest people to take care to "preserve and protect". It is gone now, forever a footnote in history. It WAS a constitutional Republic, but now it is a democracy, run by the rich and corrupt, to benefit those that keep them empowered. The rich corporations and their boards, and the poor that can be bought to vote them in every time they are needed.

253 posted on 01/31/2004 10:30:09 PM PST by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Gridlock" is a holding action at best and a potential disaster in the mid term elections for those doing the grid locking.

Exactly, and with the traitorous press spewing the rats outrage, four yr's of gain down the drain. It is outrageous to even think about pulling the lever for a rat. There will be four SCOTUS appt's in the next 5 yrs. If a dim is elected and has control of these Judges, this country will have 30 years of liberal rule(after all if they cannot legislate their agenda, they just shop judges)

254 posted on 01/31/2004 10:30:44 PM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry

Sheila Jackson Lee makes more sense.

255 posted on 01/31/2004 10:31:29 PM PST by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Kevin -- What gets missed is that the system of government in the US was purposely set up to create a gridlock of sorts. There is an intricate set of checks and balances.
63


____________________________________



The constitutional checks/balances aren't working..
Kevin proposes that we try to substitute a contrarian political check on the balance of power.
Works for me..
222 tpaine


_______________________________________



It's interesting to watch Conservatives advocate supporting candidates who's main campaingn promises are to repeal Bush's tax cuts. I must assume that he support for Kerry really means these guys like Kerry's positions.
227 -Doc-






I don't see a contrarian scheme as being 'supportive' of democrats, -- Its thrust is to gridlock a bad system.
256 posted on 01/31/2004 10:31:35 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33 )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
The title of this pile of horse hockey should be Why Bush will win without Kevin Kurry and the other pouting pitchforkers"


257 posted on 01/31/2004 10:33:17 PM PST by MJY1288 (VOTE CONSTITUTION PARTY IF YOU WANT A DEMOCRAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
I'll condense it for you. waaaaah Bush betrayed us, Vote for the Democrats, life will be better, A read meat conservative will clean up.. We should be punished for our sins.waaaaaaaaaaaah.. See, no need to read the screed now.
258 posted on 01/31/2004 10:34:05 PM PST by gatorbait (Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
You nailed it.
259 posted on 01/31/2004 10:34:39 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
When Clinton won in 1992, he won thanks to conservatives who thought Bush I was not conservative enough, and voted for Perot. But the media never spun it that way -- instead of this being pointed out, Clinton's 43% of the vote was seen as a huge mandate, and a sign that Bush was "too extreme" (read right-wing). Imagine if those third-party voters had held their nose and voted for Bush -- there would be no Clinton smear machine running amok for eight years, no Al Gore as a major political figure, and no Senator Hillary.

There's a stark example of what happens when conservatives run third-party, but the stakes are so much higher now since September 11. Do you really want a President Kerry making decisions on the War on Terror (remember, he thinks the threat of terror has been exaggerated, and that Clinton's law enforcement way of fighting terror is the way to go!) Is throwing your vote away because you're angry at Bush worth that?

260 posted on 01/31/2004 10:35:41 PM PST by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,961-1,963 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson