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.

[Kevin Curry]

We need to start discussing these things now. There is always a terrific lag between the shaping of the political debate and its influence on the positions of the candidates.

The earlier we discuss these thing--the more debate that is ignited among Republicans--the better chance we have of getting the right result both now and in 2008.

The right result could include a chastened George W. Bush, recommitted to conservative principles.

Sitting on our hands will accomplish nothing but will merely ensure we are unprepared for the worst. The US is like the Titanic. There is precious little time to start braking or changing course. Instead waiting to see whether collision is inevitable, we would be wise to start mapping our a contingency plan post-iceberg now.

Maybe Captain Bush and First Mate Rove will hear the angry, agitated debate, wake up, and start steering right.

[motzman]

You elect a democrat as President, you get liberal courts. Thats the history and the fact. To deny it is folly.

Then, these justices will legalize dope, and then KC will have to kill himself...

Careful what you wish for!

[Tench_Coxe]

What gets missed is that the system of government in the US was purposely set up to create a gridlock of sorts. There is an intricate set of checks and balances.

[the invisib1e hand]

The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush

Don't believe conservatives would want to.

[DManA]

Excellent essay.

[olliemb]

Please--do you really think that we conservatives would do better with a democrat president? Were we better with Clinton? Do we want to lose the partial birth abortion ban, do we want to lose tax cuts, do we want to lose the ability to appoint supreme court judges, do we want God to be removed from school, do we want affirmative action, do we want Hillary and Bill in the White House again, do we want Kyoto treaty, do we want the world court to rule over the United States, do we want the US security to be based on what the United Nations says? Imagine we would not be arguing about Iraq if only 3 countries had said yes--imagine, all the democrats would have been happy if Clinton ;bombed Iraq without UN permission and happy if the 3 elite countries who were being bribed by Saddam had voted to bomb Iraq?

Why is is that the democrats want the power to run their agenda and they don't eat their own? Why is it that the democrats blame the repubs for welfare refrom, Nafta, trade going over seas even when Clinton was the one who signed it. Why???"? Because a good democrat knows that they can push their agenda if they are in the White House and also in the congress/senate. We voted Bush 1 out because he raised taxes and CLinton came around and he increased the taxes even more including the social security. Did we complain as much with Clinton as we did with Bush 1?


Please, please--work with the republican party and with the president--voice your concerns and voice your worries, but for the sake of the unborn child, for the sake of God, and for the sake of our country's security, DO NOT allow the democrats power again in the White House.

The proposals that Bush 2 has put out NEA, MARS, immigration are just that proposals--begging the democrats to come up with their budget to counter. Don't fall into the trap of eating our own b/c the democrats will certainly eat us if they are in control.

[DManA]

Try it. Be interesting to see if this really is a conservative site.

[jwalsh07]

Federal Judicial Appointments
(Indexed by President)


PRESIDENT SUPREME
COURT U.S. COURT
OF APPEALS U.S.
DISTRICT
COURT TOTAL PERCENT
OF
ACTIVE
JUDGES
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) 0%
Harry S. Truman (1945-1952) 0%
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1952-1960) 0%
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) 0%
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1968) 0.131%
Richard M. Nixon (1969-1974) 0.919%
Gerald R. Ford (1975-1976) 0.787%
Jimmy Carter (1977-1980) 6.430%
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) 22.047%
George Bush (1989-1993) 22.047%
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) 47.638%
George W. Bush (2001-Present) 0%

[chickenlips]

Ruth Vader was confirmed 97-3? Wow, that is scary!

I always said the she may look like Yoda, but she really is the master of the dark side of the farce!

[olliemb]

Pish--conservatives tend to feel sorry for themselves. Do you really think that the liberal left would leave Clinton after he signed Nafta or after he signed welfare reform? Do you really think that the liberal left would leave their president to allow a republican president win--whether he be left of middle, middle or to the far right?

Democrats never leave their party out of meaness to their president to try to punish him. They leave their party because they are forever leaving the party not leave their party for the sake of punishing. They want power and unless we are ready to fight them tooth and nail and with all our vigor we will always succumb to the democrats running the agenda.

Ler us work with the president and with the republican party. Imagine what President BUsh would do in a second term when he would not have to pander to the left because he was not facing reelection.

Medicare drug, reform of social security, millions of illegal immigrants are problems that need to be tackled. Health care is coming up. Do you really want the democrat president to be in charge of veto power even if their is a republican congress? You must be in lala land if you think we can accomplish more with a democrat president.

Posh

[e_engineer]

Excellent posting Kevin.

[olliemb]

"Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship may be more important than the presidency itself--especially if the president is a Democrat"

Either you are in lala land or you are very dangerously trying to convince conservatives to dump the president and allow the democrats to win. You should be so angry about not being heard that you should fight for what you want but to cower and allow those people who most oppose what you believe in does not make you any better than the liberals out there.

[Kevin Curry]

Please--do you really think that we conservatives would do better with a democrat president?

With a Democrat-controlled Congress? No. With a Republican-controlled Congress? In light of Bush's boneheaded leftward course, yes. That's the whole point of my essay. Did you read any of it beyond the headline?

You need to carefully think this through. Let the lib Dems knee-jerk their way to an answer. Conservatives ought to have better sense. Bottom line: any liberal Democrat will have a terrible time working with a Republican-controlled Congress.

The ldeal solution is to have a consistently conservative president leading a Republican-controlled Congress in 2004. Unfortunately, Bush has decided that consistent conservatism on his part is either optional or wrongheaded, which has created the current strained state of affairs.

I am prepared for a Bush defeat. With intelligent commitment and consistent dedication to the task at hand, conservatives can not only survive a Kerry adminstration and its almost certain gridlock-they can come out of it far ahead of where they would be had Bush finished a second term.

Lastly, I firmly believe for reasons set forth in my essay that Hillary's best chances of winning in 2008 hinge on an unrepentant George W. Bush winning in 2004. Do you want that?

[joesbucks]

I've never done that to a poster.

I've always thought it to be quite childish. I'd rather let a post or comment stand with some sort of override that the site does not recognize that type of post, but it should stand.

[Republican Wildcat]

You make a lot of comments that indicate you don't follow the news very closely at all. Forgive me if I don't take your opinions seriously because of this.

[section9]

Paradox my ass.

You don't value a Conservative Supreme Court, do you?

Your solution is tailor made for a banana Republic.

Jesus, some people are so brilliant they're clueless.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[arrow107]

Can't imagine where in my post that I indicated Conservatives would like to see a Dem. in the White House.
If you are so blindly Republican that no matter what a Repub. POTUS does, you vote for him - your party is in trouble. I was simply stating our disafisfaction with him, in hopes that you die-hard Repubs. would recognize the danger you court. You lose us, you lose the White House. It is my greatest hope that GWB would make his stand against the Liberal agenda - so far he has not.

[olliemb]

Did you scream about the increase salaries of congress every year? Did you scream about the increase taxes in 1992? Did you scream about the pork barrelling added to bills?

Remember the war, recession, corporate wrongdoing, and the effects of 9/11 affected the deficit. And remember the surplus was in projected monies, it was not money held in escrow or in an account or in savings--it was projected monies. The economy is improving, jobs are picking up and we have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11 and we have not cowered in Iraq or AFghanistan. A few more years the effects of the tax cuts and the success in the war will be evident but if we vote for a democrat, it will be the democrat that will ride that wave of success and believe he will do a bill clinton and take credit for it.


Remember the president does not have a line item veto. The president does not have 60 votes for cloture either.

[deport]

(it would help immensely if the spineless, Kennedy-appeasing Orrin Hatch were replaced as Committee Chair).

---

I havent' read the thread but the above part of your wish happens in Jan. 2005 regardless of who wins the election... Senator Hatch is out as Committee Chair and in steps Specter if the Republicans hold the Senate...

Now you assume they but why would the populace vote for the Democrat for President and not vote for the Democrat for Senator? My guess is if they are motivated enough to change CinC then they are motivated enough to change the control of the Senate.. If so then you have set your conservative agenda back at least another 30 years with the Judicial nominations that will occur. My opinion, yours may differ.... ain't life grand.

[Zipporah]

1st paragraph -> that is why I voted for Bush

2nd paragraph-> that's a reason to vote for again for Bush..concerns about who will take credit?

3rd paragraph-> maybe gridlock would be a good thing