The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush

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.

Maybe not. If Kerry gets in and has a "do-nothing" Republican congress to win off of, Hillary might see that Kerry is going to have a good time and win the congress back from the obstructionist Republicans.

So she might take the Chief Justice spot herself. Lots could happen before 2012 and she'd be pretty old by then anyway.

Gridlock is great, but the fastest way to send American to a European hell is to let Democrats appoint judges

Not if they can't get them through. Haven't you been paying attention to Bush's attempt to get his judges through?

And Bush has only has to contend with minority opposition on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Hatch will be replaced Kevin, by Arlen Specter.

You elect a democrat as President, you get liberal courts. Thats the history and the fact. To deny it is folly.

Not if they can't get them through. Haven't you been paying attention to Bush's attempt to get his judges through?

Wow, you really believe GOP Senators will miraculously have some spinal growth.

Thanks for posting the argument, certainly is interesting to consider and the input from fellow posters is also interesting....obviously there are some base problems for the re-election of GWB. Better to get the issues into the light of day, don't be dismayed by the attacks, it only shows fear. What good is that, open the discussion, conservatism is not a monolithic creed and certainly is not owned by any political party.....oh yeah, I don't need any advice and really don't appreciate the personal attacks, but reasoned arguments are always appreciated.

Listen: this is not a good time to be a liberal Democrat in the White House. Clinton understood this, and still understands it--which is why he is trying to get Wesley Clark shaped up for the run. Clinton is vile, but his political instincts on this issue are flawless.

Hillary may pretend to--or even be--a third-way adherent, but her candidacy will bring its own hugely divisive, ugly dynamic to the fore. She will be running in 2008. Better that she run a brutal campaign against a failed Democratic incumbent in the primary and display herself in all its hideous unglory than save her game face for a fresh Republican candidate in the general election.

No, but I think he could recess-appoint someone, a move that Bush has not done and probably will not do--a sort of temporary "nuclear options." I just don't believe that the Senate GOP will ever fight judicial nominees with the same intensity that the Democrats do. The Senate GOP is trying to fight "fair." The Rats don't give a damn about "fair"--like their heroes in Soviet Russia, "the ends justify the means."

Could your scenario play out? Yep, it's plausible and well-thought-out. But the odds are, IMO, very much against it. And it's just too big a risk to throw GWB over the side at the current time, on the hopes that the Congressional GOP will grow stones, that a Rat president will act somewhat responsibly in foreign affairs, and the sheeple will see through it all. Too many long shots have to happen for it all to work.

}:-)4

There is no conservative candidate who will satisfy the conservative base because the conservative base can't be satisfied.

Precisely so. These "conservatives" that would prefer a Democratic win in 2004 are similar to the "Catholic" traditionalists who bash the Pope to bits.

This conservative was quite happy with the Bush who was elected in 2000. Since then he's gone way off the deep end, mainly because FReepers (and other Republicans) such as yourself apparently believe he should have free license to go as far left as he wants to go without consequence or repercussion.

You miss that Kerry or Edwards could easily buy her off with a promise of the Chief Justice appointment if their chances look good.

You've a very, very high opinion of the "rewards" an obstructionist Republican congress will reap too IMHO.

But at least you're presenting a coherent argument, whatever it's merits.

"You elect a democrat as President, you get liberal courts. Thats the history and the fact. To deny it is folly. "

What history are you using?

1972 Republican - Rehnquist
1975 Republican - Stevens
1981 Republican - O'Connor
1986 Republican - Scalia
1988 Republlcan - Kennedy
1990 Republican - Souter
1991 Republican - Thomas
1993 Democrat   - Ginsburg [with huge GOP approval]
1994 Democrat   - Breyer {with huge GOP approval]

This Court was appointed with GOP approval.

Let's chill a moment before counting dragons before their eggs have hatched. Let's see if the movement to write in the esteemed Representative from Colorado in the Primaries has the desired effect of reining in the President and herding the RINOs. If that fails THEN we conservatives can discuss scorched-earth strategeries.

Ginsberg's and Breyer's nominations were enthusiastically embraced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch--which is why I believe it is VERY important to replace him in that chairmanship. From a conservative standpoint, as far as SCOTUS appointments are concerned, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship may be more important than the presidency itself--especially if the president is a Democrat.

Successfully waging the war against terror, nominating conservative judges and signing partial birth abortion does not suggest "going way off the deep end" or to the left. And in a time of war, it is extremely dangerous to have a Democrat as a commander in chief.

This Court was appointed with GOP approval.

So what? Poor choices by Republicans for the courts does not mitigate the fact that liberal Presidents stock the federal judiciary with liberals. For a treatise on that I suggest you look at how many were appointed by Klink.

Oh and by the way, that history would be American history.

Good posts, I agree with all except where you state conservatives cannot be satisfied. Thats wrong, and unless you are a Republican no matter what - you know it. Conservatives vote republican because that is the party that best represents our values. When Republicans deviate from that we become dissatisfied, would you have us compromise our values for the sake of the party?
I believe that most conservatives are very happy with the way GWB has conducted himself on issues that are obvious, but even you as a republican (unless you have never been a Repub. before clinton) cannot say that you are satisfied with alot of his domestic programs.
We cannot tolerate his domestic agenda (you know the issues) because ours is a consistent philosophy of government. We have not veered off course, the Elected Republicans have.
Excuse my run-on, I hardly ever post and never without alot of for-thought to my wording.
I had great hopes for GWB, I am dissapointed - I also realize the great dangers the left wishes to unleash upon America; We are basically demoralized with no true electable Conservative canidate. We are in the position of choosing between two wrongs.
Regards, Paul

Ginsberg's and Breyer's nominations were enthusiastically embraced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch--which is why I believe it is VERY important to replace him in that chairmanship

Kevin, Hatch is term limited. Arlen Specter is next in line for head of the judiciary committee. Those are the facts.

"And Bush has only has to contend with minority opposition on the Senate Judiciary Committee."

You are conveniently forgetting 60 votes for cloture.!
Here is what we are up against.

http://fairjudiciary.com/cfj_contents/press/collusionmemos.shtmlare

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.