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.

[MJY1288]

Good Night EV, No hard feelings :-)

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks for the kind words, by the way.

[EternalVigilance]

Likewise. :-)

[Texasforever]

LOL. It is amazing how confused the Internet can be. I don't know what made me think that but I am sure glad I changed "love" for "respect" in that post. Geeze is my face red.

[EternalVigilance]

*grin*

[Fearless Flyers]

Great post Kevin, you put a lot of effort into it. I don't expect to see the Congressional Republicans becoming more conservative though. From my view they step further to the left with every election.

I believe we should let the liberals have the Republican party, the Democrats will become more irrelevant and a new conservative party can take over to bring them both down. Failing that let the Nation burn, and the revolution begin.

I haven't abandoned the Republican Party, the Republican Party slapped me in the face and threw me out the door. Any remnants of conservatism within the party are far up the members posterior and I’m not interested in pulling them out.

I love the way Republicans say my vote for a conservative 3rd party will give the election to a Democrat, as if its my fault Bush is such a bleeding heart liberal and abandoned his grassroots support.

[joesbucks]

That was a tongue in cheek reply. I've seen Kevin's posts here for a long time and I know he's sincere. But he's posting material that is quasi critical of Bush and I know that seems to raise the dander of the "bushbots".

I honestly think there's too many hitting the abuse button and frankly would like to see it go away.

[b9]

This is not just a debate over ideology, this is a debate over lives of our citizens here and our military personnel abroad...

Thank you!

When the ranters graduate from selfish philosophy to reality, from dreamers to Todd Beamers, this country will truly be Ready to Roll.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> OK, let me ask you why you're against banning the sale and use of assault weapons? Anyone who disagrees with Bush on this issue is welcome to answer that question. I'd really like to know.

The mere fact that you question this leads me to conclude you are either a leftist, or an ignorant fool that trusts government with distributing "rights". Get real.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The mere fact you've taken it upon yourself to insult me three times in one post, leads me to believe you lack the basic skills of debate. OK, so you can't even answer a simple question. Figures.

[billbears]

Why don't you share with us exactly where you got that information? Why don't I help you? The same site you got that information from also happens to have a page of Free Republic as well. Not a very nice site to say the least. Pulling from neo-communist sites for your argument now are we? Plenty of pictures on there. SW and sauropod, I ping you because I happen to notice your picture on that page referenced

[Phaedrus]

Excellent, insightful, penetrating piece, Kevin. Gridlock IS preferable to unified progressive control.

Here is the solution to a Republican President that has run amok giving away the store in an orgy of progressive "spend and elect".

[BigSkyFreeper]

Interesting isn't it? I wasn't the one who cited an whacked out immigration reform poll. It happend to be the first site that I Googled when I sourced the source of the poll. If you had read through the thread you would have noticed that I didn't take stock in that site, and the cited poll. The poll itself was suspect, the site well, let's just say I don't buy into that conspiracy theory crap, or fringe whacko codswallop.

[Phaedrus]

Gridlock is good, period. Every new law is a constraint upon our freedoms because it applies to all of us, not just the criminals. Few, unfortunately, seem to get this. We've got more laws than Carter has little liver pills.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Bush did not vote for CFR.

Huh? Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law.

>> Were you just as surprised when during the election he talked about education and reform? Were you not expecting him to follow thru?

Of course I was expecting him to follow through. But I expected him to be bright enough to know that the downturn in education began when the federal government got its grubby hands into it. I expected him to reduce or eliminate central control of education, which is the pro-conservative, anti-marxist position.

>>I am not sure what you are but if you were a conservative you would be applauding Bush for the defense, war on terrorism, banning of partial birth abortion, opposing affirmative action. Sir, that is what core conservative views are.

Since when? Core conservative values include those, but those are not the most important. The most important, in general, is limited government, without which we have none of the others (eventually).

>> As for the growth of government--tell me in what ways did it grow?

Huh? You are kidding, right?

>> Patriot act was a must during times of war.

I have no problem with the Patriot Act during times of war.

>> Illegal immigration--someone needs to address this problem--Bush has opend the discussion--now time to address this problem.

Nonsense? Bush has failed to enforce current law, and instead has compounded the immigration problem.

>> Medicare, social security reform are a must as well.

Reform? Bush has created another massive new entitlement that will only make seniors more and more dependent on the labors of the younger generation. Instead of looking seniors in the eyes and telling them their COVETOUS ways are disgraceful and threaten the financial security of our nation, he kisses their butts. Bush claims to be a Christian, but he loves to suck up to the COVETOUS. Paul said, "... for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children." And that was the case throughout history, until recently. Modern socialists, like Bush, has turned that upside down.

[PhilipFreneau]

The mere fact you've taken it upon yourself to insult me three times in one post, leads me to believe you lack the basic skills of debate. OK, so you can't even answer a simple question. Figures. Anyone who has as little respect for our constitution as you deserves much harsher treatment than mere ridicule. I was being kind.

[Phaedrus]

Excellent post, Kevin ... Just excellent.

I second this motion!.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> The mere fact you've taken it upon yourself to insult me three times in one post, leads me to believe you lack the basic skills of debate. OK, so you can't even answer a simple question. Figures.

My reply lost its formatting so I will repeat:

"Anyone who has as little respect for our constitution as you deserves much harsher treatment than mere ridicule. I was being kind."

[BigSkyFreeper]

What does my question have to do with disrespecting the Constitution? I respect the 2nd Amendment and even the 1st Amendment more than you do.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Ridicule me, dodge the simple question, reformat your post. You still lose.