A Strategy for Kerry

Joseph Sobran column ^ | 01-29-04 | Sobran, Joseph

[Theodore R.]

A Strategy for Kerry

January 29, 2004 After the first President Bush betrayed conservatives by raising taxes, in spite of his promise never to do so, many conservatives didn’t bother voting for him in 1992. This was one of the reasons he lost to Bill Clinton, who re-energized the conservative movement and brought about a Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections. In the meantime, Clinton’s ambitious national health-care plan flopped.

Principled conservatives should hope that history repeats itself in 2004. If John Kerry wins the presidency, Republicans may start acting a bit like conservatives again. Under the current President Bush, party loyalty has made them supporters of further expansion of the Federal Government.

This election will be a battle of the big spenders. There isn’t much to choose between Bush and Kerry (or whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be). But a Bush victory will ensure that the Republican Party will continue to betray conservatism.

Unfortunately, most self-identified conservatives don’t see it that way. For some reason, they continue to regard Bush as their guy — maybe because, like Richard Nixon, he truly annoys liberals in spite of all his efforts to appease them.

Kerry, a walking stereotype of liberalism, can probably win by simply toning down his rhetoric. If he avoids antagonizing and frightening conservatives, if he subtly resists the temptation to portray the election as a stark contest between opposed philosophies, a critical number of conservatives may simply stay home on Election Day.

Fortunately for Kerry, this shouldn’t be hard. He’s a boring fellow. How boring? Well, let’s put it this way: If you loved Al Gore, you’ll like John Kerry. When you listen to him deliver the standard litany of liberal clichés, it’s impossible to feel that much is at stake. He’s perhaps the perfect candidate to de-energize Bush’s base. That’s what he needs to do.

Democrats really hate Bush; that’s what will bring them to the polls: fear and loathing. Republicans, on the other hand, don’t hate Kerry enough to rally against him; they hardly know him yet. He should do all he can to keep it that way. He needs a strategy of ennui. Don’t give the other side a reason to turn out to vote!

A passionless campaign will be good not only for Kerry, but also, ultimately, for conservatism. Kerry may seem an improbable savior for the conservative movement, but Bush is destroying it. It would be a disaster for that movement to allow Bush to identify his grab-bag politics with it.

Bush’s only intelligent enthusiasts are neoconservatives, who might better be called pseudoconservatives. They love him for giving them the war they’ve hungered for since his father’s presidency (even if it fell short of the “World War IV” they called for), and they don’t really mind that he promotes bigger government all over the place. After all, they revere the memory of Franklin Roosevelt and other icons of liberal Democrats. They’ve changed parties without changing principles.

The Iraq war, alias the War on Terror, has ceased to be a strength for Bush. By the time the fall campaign really begins, it may have become a huge minus. The costly occupation of Iraq (and, oh yes, Afghanistan) drags on pointlessly, and Bush has already abandoned his absurd insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass murder that could threaten this country. Either his word or his judgment, or both, can’t be trusted. The country has quietly lost faith in him. For an incumbent seeking reelection, that’s very bad news.

Bush will face other discontents too, including economic ones. He has tried to change his party’s image, and he has succeeded only too well. It’s now impossible to imagine the Republicans as supplying a prudent brake on fiscally improvident Democrats; they’ve taught the country how staggering Federal deficits can be. “Compassionate conservatism” turns out to be neither compassionate nor conservative.

If Kerry wins the presidency, he’ll have his hands full just handling the mess Bush has left him. He won’t want to get us into new wars, and there won’t be much loose change to pay for new Federal programs. Besides, the Republicans will try to frustrate his initiatives.

Unless something unforeseeable happens, we can look forward to a dull campaign between a real liberal and a phony conservative. And for real conservatives, the duller the better.

[reformedliberal]

Maybe.

The Dean campaign is talking about switching from Dean to a Democrats for Congress strategy. Since Kerry has no coattails, this could give them a lock on the Senate and erode our Congressional majorities. In 2 years, w/the House and 1/3 of the Senate up for grabs and most of that will go w/the party of the WH.

Repeal of the tax cuts will hit the market in ways that erode profits of companies and of investors.

Rubin-style manipulation could create another bubble.

Whoever wins will appoint a new Fed Chairman who will be more amenable to co-ordination of monetary policy w/Europe.

Energized enivronmentalists will stop domestic energy extraction.

A national gas tax will take another 20 cents/gal out of everyone's pocket.

Txes on non-PC foods will be enacted, controlling how we eat and raising all grocery bills for anyhting except tofu and veggies imported from elsewhere.

Living wage laws will put more people out of work and fuel more inflation.

The protectionist policies being put forward as a solution to job erosion will increase inflation, which will be blamed on supply-siders, as will the ensuing depression.

Military spending will be slashed and the intel agencies will again be constrained, so the budget will appear balanced.

Gridlock is a myth. Right now, all that keeps supply-side policy continuing is the knowledge that the WH will veto. It is 2 slight majorities plus a Republican President that allows the whips in Congress to arm-twist Republicans and even then, we have tight votes and we lose major votes.

Intimidated Republicans in Congress will seek compromise at every turn.

Instant legalization of all immigrants will be in place, as will invitations to the entire world to come here and stay there until we have a situation as bad as that in Holland. It will take 8-12 years for people living in non-border states to feel the impact and they will still not be able to change it back.


Democrats will take control of more states, increasing state and local taxes and offering more of a welcome to immigrants and less co-operation w/any anti-terrorism laws.

Liberal activist judges will be elected, nominated, appointed. This will ensure that what money you have will be an effective target for theft, as we will be unarmed and judges will be afraid to incarcerate the perps. LEO will cry that they need more money to enforce the laws, so the laws will be liberalized.

The resultant terror attacks will be blamed on Bush's policies and the country wil have more areas sucking in tax monies for rebuilding while not contributing to the economy.
This money will ensure more Dems get elected to vote for it and distribute it to everyone except law enforcement and security.

The great lower-middle class will just stop voting and the intimidation of anyone in education will be intense, resulting in more Federal control of the inculcation machine called public education.

But, of course, all that matters is the feeling of wealth. The Democrats learned that in the 90s. So you will laugh all the way to the bank. And the Left will laugh all the way to the handoff of America to the UN & international taxes, wealth taxes, death taxes & taxes we haven't heard about yet.

Yeah, let's bring back the 90s. That's the ticket.

[donozark]

Ok. Next to last para-threw me-Didn't you mean to say ,"REPUBLICAN hold on House is very solid...?"

[reformedliberal]

I really respect your statistical and political analysis. I have taken to reading your commentaries regularly.

Another excellant post.

[donozark]

One should not discount the effect the NRA/GOA and gun-owners in general had on the '94 election. The AW Ban hurt Dems big time. I just hope GWB remembers this and let's it "sunset" in September...

[Common Tator]

The Gingrich revolution in '94 far exceeded the results of any gerrymander and clearly reflected discontent with Clinton's policies.

Yes I remember how discontented the public was with Clinton's policies just two years later in 1996.

What part of Clinton got relected in 1996 did you forget?

If the Clinton discontent disappeared in 1996, then the Republicans must have lost the HOUSE in 1996. But they did not. And if the Clinton discontent did not disappear in 1996, then why didn't President Dole tell us about it? All you offer is unsubstantiated opinions with nothing but your word to back them up.

Sobran is reportedly a great Brain Washer He buys Tide by the barrel.

But in your case it would only take a fraction of a oz.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

One should not discount the effect the NRA/GOA and gun-owners in general had on the '94 election. The AW Ban hurt Dems big time. I just hope GWB remembers this and let's it "sunset" in September...

You know, you could be on to something there.

If Dubyah tries to re-up the AWB, the NASCAR dads might just revolt.

Me, I can't wait to be able to put that Speedfeed pistol grip on my Mossberg without having to worry about whether somebody's gonna call me a felon...

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

For some reason, you are using a Washington Post pole that poles in the most liberal snake pits in the country. All the other poles have the President leading by a few points, which is not so bad during this stage of the election. They are the same "pollsters" who had Dukakas leading by 10 points over Reagan at this Rockland period.

This makes me question your overall intentions. For some reason, you seek to undermine our confidence or morale. In another 6 months, things will be completely different. There are things about Kerry that will come out, that will dwarf this latest Bimbo issue.

For one, Kerry covered up and shredded documents about POW sightings in order to gain trade relations with the newly formed Viet Nam government. This will be the real "shot below the water line" for Kerry!

[Arkie2]

Intelligent comment. Insults are a hallmark of small minds.

[Dave S]

You have to be as stupid as Sobran te believe what he writes.

Tell us what you really think!! Fortunately I agree with you.

[u-89]

The Democrat loss of congress was a culmination of long building discontent. If you remember there were a series of scandals, house bank, house post office, money laundering, drug dealing, historic relics being pilfered, years of fiscal irresponsibility, opposition to term limits, etc. In short years of mismanagement, scandal and arrogance. Clinton's unabashed liberalism - gays in the military, nationalized health care, Jocelyn Elders, etc, plus his all around corruption only added fuel to an existing fire.

The Republicans came out in favor of term limits, played up to Democrat weaknesses but contrary to all of Newt Gingrich's crowing the polls at the time showed an overwhelming majority of the electorate never heard of the Contract with America. The Republicans won congress only because the Dem's lost it first.

[Dave S]

But with the economy off the table in 1994 the Republicans won the House.

Republicans may have been aided by despondency in the Democrat ranks. After all the fanfare, they couldnt even get their Health Care bill a vote, they almost lost the assault weapon band, and Clinton was preparing to end welfare as they knew it. Some of the more liberal Dems stayed home in 94 like Sobran's Brigades threaten to do today.

[Dave S]

Wonder how all that Republican gerrymandering came about?

The Republicans aligned with black Democrats to give them more minority majority districts, thus eliminating seats winnable by White Democrats. Power to the people!!

[Dave S]

Seems like you don't want to believe the American people voted strongly conservative in '94 and gerrymandering is a way to make you feel good about the shellacking the Dem's took in that election.

Support for Common Tator comes from the fact that Gingrich and the House Republicans overplayed their "strongly conservative" win and lost seats in 96. In '94, the Republicans ran the table winning all the close races by small margins. If Clinton hadnt been so unpopular with his liberal base they wouldnt have done so poorly. After all they were in charge of both branches of congress and the White House but they couldnt get any of their pet programs passed and Clinton was stabbing them in the back to prepare for his re-election.

[PJ-Comix]

Bush’s only intelligent enthusiasts are neoconservatives...

"neoconservatives" is Sobran-speak for "Juden." Take anything this guy says with a big grain of salt. He's a NUTCASE.

[edsheppa]

... ever since he was kicked off NATIONAL REVIEW.

How did this moron manage to get on it in the first place?

[sinkspur]

This Holocaust-denying idiot, once a VP candidate for the Constitution Party, is a natural for a Kerry-backer.

This should be in chat, just like Chuck Baldwin's vomitus.

[donozark]

Clinton himself gave NRA the blame/credit for kicking Democrat butt in '94. While NRA may be only 4.2 million strong now and less than 3 million in '94, approx. 20 million other Americans have admitted to voting in accordance with what the NRA says. Barney Frank, Dick Gephart,etal have given credit/blame to NRA for kicking Dems out of office.

In 2K, poor algore couldn't win his home state because of gun-owners. He couldn't win Arkansas, home of Bill Clinton. Nor W.VA, a bastion of Dem power. Some will say it was a backlash by coal-miners in W.VA against algore's environmental policies. But when one ads the gun owners up as opposed to coal-miners? No question who put GWB over the top in W.VA.

Hence, the critical importance for GWB to simply let the AW Ban sunset...

[Dave S]

Clinton himself gave NRA the blame/credit for kicking Democrat butt in '94.

I'm sure it was a lot easier for Clinton to blame the defeat on the nefarious NRA than to take personal responsibility for it.

[donozark]

His actions (AW Ban) and constant attaks on NRA/GOA and gun owners in general led to Dems losing House for first time in 40 years. Was always easier for Klinton to blame everything on others. Waco? Reno's fault. Whitewater? Jim McDougal's fault. On and on.

But we in the NRA/GOA gladly accept Clinton's assignation of blame to us...Quite proud of it, actually.

[demlosers]

The Valentine's weekend poll shows Kerry leading 54-42!

What poll are you referring to?