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 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 1,961-1,963 next last
To: BigSkyFreeper; PhilipFreneau
PhilipFreneau wrote;

"You are wishing, and pretending to believe. I was a strong Bush supporter before the 2000 election, and remained a strong supporter until recently. I gave him a pass when he extended federal control over education. I gave him a pass when he gave away billions of tax dollars to the victims of 911. I gave him a pass when he voted for so-called "Campaign Finance Reform". I even gave him a pass for doing nothing to stop the flood of technical jobs leaving the country. But immigration was the last straw for me.

News, of late, regarding his support for the so-called "assault weapons ban", and his support for the NEA, have convinced me I made the right choice. If you want to let that usurper off the hook, go ahead. Not me.

158 posted on 01/31/2004 8:55:03 PM PST by 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.
161 -big-





In fact, if your exchange is reviewed in context, it is obvious that you knew Phil objected to Bush renewing the AWB.. - And asked everyone why that was so bad..

You've been 'outed' by your own words, kiddo..
561 posted on 02/01/2004 10:30:58 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 161 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
But earlier BSF posted that he did not support the AWB and that he wholly supports the repeal of the NFA...
562 posted on 02/01/2004 10:34:27 AM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: FSPress; BigSkyFreeper; Texasforever
Isn't it amazing how the trolls on FR just keep multiplying? - Some are quite adept at hiding their true agendas on gun freedoms, etc..

Others, see how successful their 'leaders' are, think it's easy pickings. Fat chance..
563 posted on 02/01/2004 10:43:23 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 562 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; BigSkyFreeper; redlipstick
For the keyboard impaired:

Google Search, "George W Bush" "Assault Weapons Ban"

About Two thousand, Three Hundred Hits.

564 posted on 02/01/2004 10:43:55 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
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.

Deja Vu.

565 posted on 02/01/2004 10:47:01 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Only 2,300 hits? Just damn, I found fifty-nine thousand four hundred. Course I refined my search.
566 posted on 02/01/2004 10:50:52 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Yeah, narrowing the terms would bring the hits up..

Either way, there's a wealth of information on this subject dating back to (apparently) the Primary.

567 posted on 02/01/2004 10:56:53 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
So you think that tPAIN should force others to do his homework?

Go on and dig through all 2300 - there's lots of hysteria by special interest groups on one side linking to other interest groups.

I'm seeing quotes, but I'm not seeing the actual transcripts the quotes come from.

This morning, I heard Howard Dean - who despises President Bush and doesn't want him re-elected say that President Bush will not renew the ban.
On FR, I see posters who despise President Bush and don't want him re-elected say that he will renew the ban.

Why should I - not despising President Bush and wanting him re-elected - believe anti-Bush hysteria from either side?
568 posted on 02/01/2004 10:58:02 AM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe; jeremiah; Kevin Curry
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.

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.
253 jeremiah



______________________________________



Deja Vu.
565 roscoe






Meaning what roscoe?
What is you reaction to Kevins vanity?

569 posted on 02/01/2004 10:59:14 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 565 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
Near total denial.. - Sad.
570 posted on 02/01/2004 11:02:09 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 568 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
If you want to play obtuse, be my guest..

But the fact of the matter is this is common knowledge and has been discussed and driven into the ground, both here on FR and all over the internet.

Frankly, given your complete ignorance on the subject and your demonstrated unwillingness to even do something as simple as click on a hyperlink, I'm amazed you don't demand Tpaine deliver the information via bicycle courier.

I now return you to your (ahem) *debate*

571 posted on 02/01/2004 11:04:34 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Link the actual transcript.


572 posted on 02/01/2004 11:04:34 AM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
I don't take your orders, hotshot.
573 posted on 02/01/2004 11:06:40 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 572 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
http://www.onelook.com/
574 posted on 02/01/2004 11:08:03 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
And I don't believe a word you type.
575 posted on 02/01/2004 11:08:04 AM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization

- Seek to Work with President to Swiftly Reauthorize Ban, Close Clip-Importation Loophole -

April 16, 2003

Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which is set to expire in 2004.

In an article published this weekend, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultweaponsbush.htm

576 posted on 02/01/2004 11:13:26 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
I don't care.
577 posted on 02/01/2004 11:14:04 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 575 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Cute.. --

--- What is your reaction to Kevins vanity?


578 posted on 02/01/2004 11:18:56 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 574 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
In an article published this weekend, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

Where's the article, Roscoe?

579 posted on 02/01/2004 11:20:20 AM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick; Roscoe
Obsessed with trivia? Ask Roscoe.
580 posted on 02/01/2004 11:22:17 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 579 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 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