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 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 1,961-1,963 next last
To: Kevin Curry
Of course it's possible that he could lose.

You want him to, I don't.

Was your life better when Clinton was president? If so, I pity you, honestly.
541 posted on 02/01/2004 9:32:52 AM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Great writing, Kevin.

Bush and his advisors toss the conservative base an occasional bone when they hear the grumblings of unrest.

For example, Pickering's appointment after the illegal immigration bedacle and his "budget reduction" makeover after additional funding to the NEA.

He got a free ride from mounted criticism about CFR and his Education Bill because of 9/11.

Now watch what happens in the next few weeks when he extends unemployment benefits...we can expect another bone to be tossed our way. The Bushbots will eat it up, forgive and forget, and say "see, he's a conservative".
542 posted on 02/01/2004 9:35:20 AM PST by dmzTahoe (1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Ka-rist! I wasn't the one who cited the damn poll! This site did! Not me! Geez. I just followed the trail provided through a Google search and landed on that site.
543 posted on 02/01/2004 9:36:33 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Okay, you can come out of the corner.
544 posted on 02/01/2004 9:41:01 AM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: FSPress; BigSkyFreeper
That's a mighty fine liberal ya bagged there. Did you use an EEEVVVVIIIILLLL 223 on em.

Oh please... BSF is no liberal.

Dang, don't tell me you're one of those hunters that caps a friend because he thought he saw antlers? ;-)

545 posted on 02/01/2004 9:42:20 AM PST by Tamzee (W '04..... America may not survive a Democrat at this point in our history....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
I thought we agreed not to talk about why Ralph didn't come back from the hunting trip.
546 posted on 02/01/2004 9:43:45 AM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Bush has said that he would sign a renewal of the AWB. - Correct?

You asked:

" -- 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."

161 posted on 01/31/2004 9:00:15 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper


Now you claim that you are against the renewal of the AWB, right?
-- Thus, you disagree with Bush, correct?

Can you explain your own confusion?
547 posted on 02/01/2004 9:44:38 AM 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 537 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Bush has said that he would sign a renewal of the AWB. - Correct?

Credible sourse link, please.

548 posted on 02/01/2004 9:47:09 AM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
"Google [to quote texforever] is your friend."
549 posted on 02/01/2004 9:49:08 AM 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 548 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I'm not confused, nor am I liberal. Have you ever had one of those times where you were trying to edit your post and it got posted before you had a chance to edit? Well, this was one of those times.
550 posted on 02/01/2004 9:49:32 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
only cement the moniker of the "Stupid Party"

True, the Democrats being the Dangerous party and the third parties collectively known as the Suicide parties .

551 posted on 02/01/2004 9:50:11 AM PST by gatorbait (Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
And I always use it to back up my claims.

You should do the same thing.
552 posted on 02/01/2004 9:50:28 AM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Bush has said that he would sign a renewal of the AWB. - Correct?

I don't know, if you can cite an article, that would help.

553 posted on 02/01/2004 9:50:51 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
It's not a 'claim'.
Entire threads have been posted about Bush promising to renew the AWB if it crosses his desk.
554 posted on 02/01/2004 9:53:36 AM 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 552 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Then it should be an easy matter for you to find one.
555 posted on 02/01/2004 9:54:07 AM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; Texasforever
Show us the truth, O Diogenes of the superrich

Oh good God, it's not enough you semi-parrot Democrat shibboleths, you parrot the class envy line as well. Well, you've surely convinced me of your deft feel for the body politic.

556 posted on 02/01/2004 9:57:38 AM PST by gatorbait (Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
it got posted before you had a chance to edit?

Arrrggg... HATE that :-)

Just the other night I wound up hollering at my computer...."no.... NO... WAIT... NOOOOOOO!!!!"

557 posted on 02/01/2004 10:02:33 AM PST by Tamzee (W '04..... America may not survive a Democrat at this point in our history....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
You are too inept to do a search on Bush renewing the AWB? -



First hit of several thousand:


-- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer conducted an early afternoon briefing. Here is an excerpt:

"Q: Let me ask you something about the assault weapons ban. I realize the President was for the reauthorization back in 2000. Why does he support that?

"MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President thought, and said so at the time in 2000, that the assault weapon ban was a reasonable step. The assault weapon ban was crafted with the thought that it would deter crime. There are still studies underway of its crime deterring abilities, but the President thought that was reasonable, and that's why he supported it. And that's why he supports the reauthorization of the current ban.

558 posted on 02/01/2004 10:05:20 AM 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 553 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
No, I'm not inept, and I don't do others "homework" either.
559 posted on 02/01/2004 10:07:26 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Bush has said that he would sign a renewal of the AWB. - Correct?


You asked:
" -- 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."

161 posted on 01/31/2004 9:00:15 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper


Now you claim that you are against the renewal of the AWB, right?
-- Thus, you disagree with Bush, correct?

Can you explain your own confusion?
547 tpaine

______________________________________

I'm not confused, nor am I liberal.

Have you ever had one of those times where you were trying to edit your post and it got posted before you had a chance to edit? Well, this was one of those times.
550 -big-






Leaving the question;
- Why didn't you explain your mistake in posting when you first realized you were being 'misunderstood'?


Sorry kid, your defense of your post went on a little too long for the 'edit mistake' to wash, imo.

560 posted on 02/01/2004 10:16:55 AM 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 550 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 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