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.

[FSPress]

But tell me, what to do with the millions that have set up homes, had children in the USA, pay taxes, work, etc but are illegal immigrants? No one wants to touch that aspect of immigration. At least President Bush has opened it up for discussion. The same way he brought up defense and terror war and his Bush doctrine. Brought it up for discussion.

Deport them as fast as you can find them, kids, grandparents, mom, dad, dogs, cats and goldfish all of em. They lose everything!

[Phaedrus]

And you and all the other third-party folks gave us Clinton, because of your personal dislike of Bush. Thanks for nothing.

A third-party vote is not recommended here. Take another look at the article.

[FSPress]

I want you if you want to discuss to tell me what is it you did not want to grow and we can discuss what you mean by growth

If he does not name it then he wants to grow it, is that what you are saying?

[olliemb]

Deport the goldfish, too? What a nice conservative christian you are!!lol Makes me want to be just like you instead of like Jesus.

[FSPress]

Okay, we can eat the goldfish. The go back across the border proto.

[FSPress]

Okay, we can eat the goldfish. The rest of them go back across the border proto.

[olliemb]

"If he does not name it then he wants to grow it, is that what you are saying?"

No, pick a growth of government you didn't like and then we can discuss the specifics. But to make general statements that all that Bush has done is bad, is too general for me. If I am to defend and if you are to make your point, let us discuss it.

Some on this forum (I don't know if that is you) are here to cause trouble and to stir and cause dissent. Well, fine, if that is it or if you really are a disenfranchised conservative, then let us have a decent honest discussion without the superlatives and without name calling.

Either you want to debate or just spout off. Just let me know so I won't waste my time defending Bush against generalities of which if you can't come up with the specifics then your arguments are just that--generalities.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Kevin, long ago on this forum you and I used to communicate on occassion, I respected you and I *thought* you respected me/us.

Please, look at these links and tell me we don't need this President to remain exactly where he is. Not only as Commander in Chief to the troops who overwhelmingly respect him and want to serve under him, which we feel we OWE them as a nation. But because he IS winning the war on terrorism. A war that had grown out of control. I am not going to go into great detail, because I truly do have the flu. But I can, later, and in great detail.

http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html

Then when you are done with that, take a look at this link which addresses the economy (Feb. 2003, but you will get an idea of what we are looking at deficit wise, when comparing past Presidents):

http://www.taxfoundation.org/2004budgetperspective.html

[jmstein7]

"I long for the days of gridlock."

You mean the days where the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg got appointed to the supreme court?

Idiot.

[FSPress]

Explain why Bush wants to spend my money on his new prescription drug plan.

[honeygrl]

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

You are likely right about that. This needs to be discussed now though, not when it's too late. I'm still hoping Bush does something to win back conservatives before November, but if he doesn't, I will be prepared for the worst. I just don't think that a Bush loss is a dire as some make it out to be. We made it through Clinton, and we'd make it through whichever of the dwarves scratches his way to the top too.

And you need to remember your sarcasm tag on posts like the 1st one I replied to! :)

[jmstein7]

People weren't flying planes onto buildings back then.

If Bush loses, and a Democrat is in the White House (shiver), America will become a terrorist Disneyland.

Forget the Patriot Act.
Forget Homeland Security.
Forget the FBI.
Forget draininig the swamps in the middle east.
Say hello to a bomb a day going off in random American cities.

Don't think it would be that bad? I suggest looking at the records of Kerry, Dean, and Edwards on defense.

Any Conservative who sits home on Election Day 2004 WILL have American blood on their hands.

[honeygrl]

I don't *support* any of the dems. But right now, I don't really support Bush either. There is a good possibility I just won't vote at all and let the cards fall where they may. I don't like the idea of voting for evil, even if it is the lesser of two. If Hillary runs, I may drag myself to the polls to vote for Bush just to vote against her... otherwise, I just don't have much motivation to vote for him.

[olliemb]

I will try one more time to explain to you--I did this already, you know.

Medicare poor patients cannot afford their meds. They will go see the doctor b/c medicare pays for it. But after their medicine samples run out they cannot afford to pay for the blood pressure, diabetic meds with the glucose monitoring strips and machines, heart meds,etc. They will come back to see the doctor and the sugar is out of control, the blood pressure is high and they are in congestive heart failure or have angina. So far patient pays nothing and government pays for office visits with xrays and labs. Now the patient either gets admitted to the hospital b/c of stroke, heart attack, renal failure, diabetic coma and now patient pays nothing but government now pays for the stay in the hospital plus the food plus the meds and labs and xrays and doctor fees. And if the patient cannot go back home b/c of their stroke, etc, then they go to the nursing home. Again patient pays nothing, medicare pays for all the above. And if the patient does not go to the nursing home, nurses make home visits and again patient pays nothing and government pays it all.

That is the present system. But-- if with education (ergo the education bill), the more educated the patient, the more money they make and the more they understand about their medical care then the better would be the outcome.But--if meds are supplied to the patient, the high blood pressure is controlled and renal failure and dialysis is not as high as a complication, same with diabets if better controlled, then less amputations and less hospital stays, if heart meds are taken, less hospital and nurse visits as outpatient.

Surely, you would agree, with maintenance a car will go further than if you wait til the engine burns up.

This is the big picture, change the medicare system the way it is run with piling on more stuff the government does for you but change it to the patient taking control of his illness b/c they can now take the meds and the costs of hospitalizations and morbidity are decreased. I guarantee you that will happen.

[olliemb]

Tell your comments to the soldiers who died so that you could vote and be free. Such apathy is unbelievable. Perhaps,you are right, let socialism, communism come your way or better let the chips fall wherever and let the terrorists attack us. What a dumb idea!!!

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I just don't think that a Bush loss is a dire as some make it out to be. We made it through Clinton, and we'd make it through whichever of the dwarves scratches his way to the top too.

Good grief!

What are you smoking?

We *made it* through Clinton? Do you know what the DotComs were? Do you know what Enron and the others were? Do you know what happened to the stock markets and have you talked to people who lost their entire savings accounts, or who were forced out of retirement BACK to work? Do you even *remotely* understand what happened because of all the corporate corruption that happened because of all that, all which took place under the Clinton administration and his JUSTICE Department?

NOT TO MENTION the MOST horrific attack on American soil, all which was planned and plotted while Clinton was in office!!

Please see my post POST #608

Then I'll discuss a tad more with you AFTER you've viewed the two links in it. K?

But not until you have!

Because to discuss anything else with you at this point, would be like dueling with a person whose gun isn't loaded while mine is FULLY loaded.

[jmstein7]

How about this for motivation:

A member of your family blown to shredded bits in a twisted, bloody terrorist massacre - which occured because an Anti-Defense Democrat waltzed into the White House by the apathy of yourself and other so-called "conservatives".

People like you make me sick.

(honeygrl -- not you, olliemb).

[gatorbait]

I don't like the idea of voting for evil, even if it is the lesser of two.

Try coming back with something less trite. Sounds like a DNC talking point. You're foolish at best to sit home and let the chips fall, but then, you might prefer a Kerry administration, lots more to whine about.

[olliemb]

"We made it through Clinton, and we'd make it through whichever of the dwarves scratches his way to the top too."

Besides more taxes, more abortions, less God, what makes you think that the Clinton years were better? Oh, yes, Clinton, allowed increased illegal immigration and now the democrats are ready for complete total amnesty--not brazero work program and get on the waiting list, and oh, yes, Clinton allowed the terrorists to attack the Cole, the WTC, the army barracks in AFrica and the African embassies. And oh yea, Clinton was an amoral man who had a blow job in the middle of the oval office while talking to a general about the Kosovo fight with soldiers dying. And yes, Clinton, I forgot--scrambled out of Mogadishu so fast that the rebels and the terrorists felt as if they won !!. I am so happy that people like you call themselves conservative. Sheesh!!

[FSPress]

And the answer to my question is...........