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.
What do you do?
That is where much of the disagreement on these threads is ultimately rooted in.
I do not believe that most Americans are centrist. Most Americans believe in limited and smaller government. My evidence is as follows:
Since 1980, there have been 2 national elections (1980 and 1994) where 'radical right wingers' were spearheading the GOP. Both of these elections resulted in massive landslides for the GOP.
Two other landslide elections occurred in the last 20 years: 1984 and 1988. 1984, was of course, a victory by the same 'radical anti-gov't zealot' who won in 1980. And in 1988, the winner was someone who ran on Reagan's record and campaigned basically as a third term of Reagan.
No avowed leftist has won in a landslide since 1980. No avowed moderate or centrist has won in a landslide since then either.
The people have also made their limited gov't views at the ballot boxes in many individual states. Consider the following cases:
A few years ago in California, regarded as one of the leftist states in the Union and virtually unwinnable by a GOP candidate, the people voted to not expend any state funds on illegals. It wasn't a close 51-49 vote. Rather it was something like 70% in favor of it. A judge overturned it.
In Massachusetts, considered one the most leftist states on tax and economic policies, an initative was on the ballot last year to abolish the state income tax. Not freeze it. Not reduce it. Not phase it out over 40 years. Abolish it. It almost passed with 47% support.
35 states have now enacted 'radical right wing' legislation to recognize the Right of nearly every citizen in their state to carry a gun on their person. These bills were not enacted in the dead of night. Many of them took years to pass, as individual legislators and governors (such as Ann Richards in 1994) were targeted for defeat. But eventually they were replaced by pro-gun politicians who signed the legislation. Even many democrats, such as Bill Richardson (gov of New Mexico) have stated their support for this legislation because they realize that most people want it. It is worth noting at this point that any candidate who wins these 35 states will have more than enough electoral votes to become President.
My point in all of this is that I believe the American people are much more pro-limited gov't and pro-individual Rights than most political pundits realize.
As such, it angers many people to see a President running to the left of the American people on many issues. Even moreso since he ran as a 'limited gov't' candidate.
But consider what if I'm wrong about all of this. What if the American people are, as you state, 'centrist'?
What exactly does that mean? In 1986, 'centrist' would have meant cutting the top rate down to 33% instead of 28%. In 1991, 'centrist' would mean you believed in raising taxes less than Dick Gephardt wanted to, but more than Bush wanted to. In 1995, 'centrist' would have meant, once again, that you wanted to reduce taxes, but not as much as Newt Gingrich wanted to. And so on.
My point is that 'centrist' is defined as being in the middle relative to the positions the two parties stake out on any particular issue.
Therefore, if most Americans are indeed 'centrists', it is even more essential that Bush and the Republicans push the envelope on enacting a limited gov't agenda, such that the middle shifted more to the right. But clearly that isn't occurring. Rather the contrary is happening. And conservatives are rightfully upset about it.
I am glad you have a tax payer paid, government position.
So, you REALLY don't have a job then. Right?
Man, you really are on the government payroll huh?
I think aggravated Rats signed on at that time with the intention of reappearing if Impeachment was successful, or failing that, if later there were a Republican president. They didn't know for sure, but planned on the contingency.
I am really skeptical of these "perfect" people.
In my everyday life, I run across many people, most of whom are either centrist Republicans or centrist conservatives.
There is no way that these people are representative of conservatives.
I think they are plants, and are trying to sway honest conservative opinion.
I thought it was first served, first come.....
Did I just type that, just damn.
I understand it as a post about illegal aliens. The question, however, was what you did for a living. You know, how do you get your pay which pays your bills. That was the question. Switching subjects didn't answer it.
Do you want a title? I can assure you I am not compensated by the tax payers.
A title would be wonderful. And I'm not paid by tax payers, either.
Oh, your SSN is not needless. Let me have it, and I'll tell you my title and where I work. Fair?
No, it's not fair. It is not needed, nor will it be given.
Again, what is it that you do for a living? What is your official job title? It's a very simple question.
Are you kidding? Thanks to this government approved invasion of millions, the American people, insurance companies, courts, etc are all losers. The American landscape is littered with victims of this government approve invasion. I guess that's job security though.
Jim, you are a man of honor and dignity! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!
BUSH/CHENEY 2004!!!!
TR
Who pays your salary? The DNC? George Soros? PETA? Unions?
WHO IS YOUR EMPLOYER AND WHAT IS YOUR TITLE????
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.