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.
So? Attacks aside, my two boys are compensated by the taxpayers, and they keep the criminal element down as Dallas police.
Scorning all goverment employees is ignorant, Joe.
If we don't have the majority we don't control who comes out of the Judiciary Committee. Once the nomination is on the floor, unless we also use the filibuster (which I don't like) we are toast.
I fail to understand why you seem to think that the presidential election doesn't affect other races. Many people are single ticket voters...all Pubbie or Rat. It concerns me that the pull the all Pubbie lever...not the Rat one.
You are very cavalier in the risks you want us to take. I am not about to encourage such a foolish course of action. It would be suicide for conservatives.
You're preaching to the choir.
You should be pinging those paleocon and libertarian lunkheads.
That's an insult to all of them.
And the only one's that work for their keep are in the military. Have you ever seen what these government employees make? Have you ever seen their pensions? Please Howlin. The government has grown into an all encompassing monster, and we are all paying for it.
But I'm not surprised that you think this is just dandy.
Bush is engaged in foolish gambles and game playing with his recent leftist initiatives. Far too many conservatives agree but are unable or unwilling to call him on it. Bush is ill-served by such people.
I am preparing for a possible Bush loss because of his bad gambles and gamesmanship. I don't expect him to lose--he's got enormous sums of money to shape the election in his direction and he faces a woefully inept and comedic group of stooges who want to replace him--but it could happen.
I am very familiar with the argument that a flawed Republican president is better than any Democrat on the issue of judicial appointments. In the run-up to the 2000 presidential election I posted one of the first--if not the first--post that dealt with that issue at greater than superficial depth. I recall it because at the time you were bitterly opposed to Bush's election, and some of us were trying to persuade you that the alternative was far worse because of the power of judicial appointments.
The argument had power and found resonance here at FR, and it soon it defined the general tenor of debate. You came around quickly, fully 180 degrees.
In retrospect it was an overly simplistic and inaccurate argument. Worse, it contained within itself an almost unbreachable defense founded on raw gut-clawing fear. It is irrational fear that we are contending against now. It is high time we banished fear and took a fresh look at the issue in the sharp light of reason.
The fact is, neither party has the punch or ability to put a "ringer" after its own image onto SCOTUS presently. The only candidates that could survive a Senate Judiciary Committee vetting today would likely be candidates common to both lists. Until and unless one party gains a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, you are not likely to see another Ruth Bader Ginsberg or an Antonin Scalia appointed to the Court.
Lesser courts are subject to the same dynamic.
We elected Bush in part so he could redefine the federal judiciary in a more conservative image. Has he succeeded? He has failed miserably. Why? Because the Democrats are willing to fight him to the death over the issue!
There is still plenty of fight left in that wretched beast.
If Bush is re-elected, he will face the same filibuster-capable Democrat minority that he faces now--even if Republicans pick up all the good breaks in the races they hope to win. Bottom line: Bush will have four more years to fail. What was the point, especially if we must inherit the burden of record-breaking deficits and social entitlements as a cost of that failure?
There is a way to break the stalemate. It is to add to Republican strength in Congress and use that power to redefine by law the jurisdictional reach of SCOTUS. It is time to think outisde the proverbial box.
Your comment about our needing a competent commander-in-chief is a fair and important one. Again, you must steel yourself for the possibility that Bush is not re-elected. Again, you need to address that risk clearly and rationally--not from bone-aching fear.
Regardless of who the commander-in-chief is, he will not be alone in commanding the troops. Uniformed commanders are the first line of defense and will continue to take care of business. As awful as Bill Clinton was (and I was in uniform while he was still comander-in-chief), there was only so much evil that he could do--most of it was tempered and dissipated into harmlessness. His attempt to integrate homosexuality into the ranks was so ill-recived that the public reaction to it contributed in large part to the Democrats' resounding defeat in the 1994 elections. The president does not lead the military in a vacuum void of public opinion--as Bush has discovered in spades. His every act and nuance is scrutinized for its effect on morale and effectiveness. Public scrutiny is a powerful control on presidential power over the military.
What do you do?
In my (not so) humble opinion, this is their entire point. They know for a fact that their 3rd party can't win. So, then, everyone on the Right must suffer for their Phyrric victory.
For this reason alone, I have gotten back in the saddle. For those who would question my apparent preference for safety over freedom know that I still recall Ben Franklin's words, "Those who would give up a little liberty for security, deserve neither". I have not forgotten. The keyword above is "current". We ARE in a war.
That said, I hope that you will continue to allow the conservative base field their concerns and work toward moving the GOP back to its conservative principles. The California Republican Assembly and many others are trying to get the attention of Bush/Rove & Co. and apparently have had some success, as witnessed by his new interest in fiscal responsibility (after this years outrageous budget proposal and the outcry it has created).
Enjoying the Superbowl, I hope.
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.