Posted on 08/01/2004 5:39:30 AM PDT by TomDoniphon68
One of the secrets of conservative America is how often it has welcomed Republican defeats. In 1976, many conservatives saw the trouncing of the moderate Gerald Ford as a way of clearing the path for the ideologically pure Ronald Reagan in 1980. In November 1992, George H.W. Bush's defeat provoked celebrations not just in Little Rock, where the Clintonites danced around to Fleetwood Mac, but also in some corners of conservative America.
"Oh yeah, man, it was fabulous," recalled Tom DeLay, the hard-line congressman from Sugar Land, Texas, who had feared another "four years of misery" fighting the urge to cross his party's too-liberal leader. At the Heritage Foundation, a group of right-wingers called the Third Generation conducted a bizarre rite involving a plastic head of the deposed president on a platter decorated with blood-red crepe paper.
There is no chance that Republicans would welcome the son's defeat in the same way they rejoiced at the father's. George W. is much more conservative than George H.W., and he has gone out of his way to throw red meat to each faction of the right: tax cuts for the anti-government conservatives, opposition to gay marriage and abortion for the social conservatives and the invasion of Iraq for the neoconservatives. Still, there are five good reasons why, in a few years, some on the right might look on a John Kerry victory as a blessing in disguise.
First, President Bush hasn't been as conservative as some would like. Small-government types fume that he has increased discretionary government spending faster than Bill Clinton. Buchananite paleoconservatives, libertarians and Nelson Rockefeller-style internationalists are all furious -- for their very different reasons -- about Bush's "war of choice" in Iraq. Even some neocons are irritated by his conduct of that war -- particularly his failure to supply enough troops to make the whole enterprise work.
The second reason conservatives might cheer a Bush defeat is to achieve a foreign-policy victory. The Bush foreign-policy team hardly lacks experience, but its reputation has been tainted -- by infighting, by bungling in Iraq and by the rows with Europe. For better or worse, many conservatives may conclude that Kerry, who has accepted most of the main tenets of Bush's policy of pre-emption, stands a better chance than Bush of increasing international involvement in Iraq, of winning support for Washington's general war on terror and even of forcing reform at the United Nations. After all, could Jacques, Gerhard and the rest of those limp-wristed continentals say no to a man who speaks fluent French and German and has just rid the world of the Toxic Texan?
The third reason for the right to celebrate a Bush loss comes in one simple word: gridlock. Gridlock is a godsend to some conservatives -- it's a proven way to stop government spending. A Kerry administration is much more likely to be gridlocked than a second Bush administration because the Republicans look sure to hang on to the House and have a better-than-even chance of keeping control of the Senate.
The fourth reason has to do with regeneration. Some conservatives think the Republican Party -- and the wider conservative movement -- needs to rediscover its identity. Is it a "small government" party, or does "big government conservatism" make sense? Is it the party of big business or of free markets? Under Bush, Western anti-government conservatives have generally lost ground to Southern social conservatives, and pragmatic internationalists have been outmaneuvered by neoconservative idealists. A period of bloodletting might help, returning a stronger party to the fray.
And that is the fifth reason why a few conservatives might welcome a November Bush-bashing: the certain belief that they will be back, better than ever, in 2008. The conservative movement has an impressive record of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Ford's demise indeed helped to power the Reagan landslide; "Poppy" Bush's defeat set up the Gingrich revolution. In four years, many conservatives believe, President Kerry could limp to destruction at the hands of somebody like Colorado Gov. Bill Owens.
When the British electorate buried President Bush's hero, Winston Churchill, and his Conservative Party, Lady Churchill stoically suggested the "blessing in disguise" idea to her husband. He replied that the disguise seemed pretty effective. Yet the next few years vindicated Lady Churchill's judgment. The Labor Party, working with Harry S. Truman, put into practice the anti-communist containment policies that Churchill had championed. So in 1951, the Conservative Party could return to office with an important piece of its agenda already in place and in a far fitter state than it had been six years earlier. It held office for the next 13 years.
I understand your pain, but assuming that the Congress remains Republican, at least a Kerry victory would give Congress something to vote against and maybe reign in some spending!!
Claptrap.
I have seriously considered letting my Chronical subscription run out. I did actually stop paying last month but I changed my mind. I decided I still wanted to check out the movies & also see who had died.
I certainly don't hope for a Kerry victory or for bungling the war, which as you said, would cause American deaths. I'm simply trying the find the silver lining in a dark cloud.
Until he changes his mind, say on Nov 3 2004.
That election win is frequently credited to the womens' vote. Food rationing was still in place and Churchill campaigned saying something to the effect that we won the war so why are you having to still mess with ration books, coupons etc...
I forgot to mention, I don't believe a word of this.
Now, you can yell and scream and insult them, but I don't think that's gonna change their minds.
Twisted Bump.
Could it be those pesky Constitution Party shills??????? They have hit the christian forum I participate in full force (for them, you know like 4 posters). This is the tripe they are spewing.
Yup. I clicked on the article to see if it might agree with my reasons for voting for Kerry.
Hey, wait a minute, randog! You aren't actually thinking of actually voting for Kerry are you?!
As a mental exercise I looked at what it would mean for the US in general and conservatives in particular if Kerry was elected. I think we could assume that his 4 years in office would make Carter look like Reagan. Even liberals don't like Kerry, and he's proven since Vietnam that he has zero leadership qualities. Our military would be demoralized, our stature would actually decrease in the world because he would be seen as a tool of Euro-leftists ("Chiraq's Boy"). He would dole out paybacks to the "first responder" unions so that bright, shiny firetrucks would be destroyed in the next terrorist attack. In the end Americans would see what a horrible choice liberals are to take care of anything....if we make it through, that is.
I also suggest "My Escape from Slavery" (I think that's the title) which is available for download. Google should find it.
It's a very stirring read. Every several months or so I re-read it for inspiration.
I wish we had statesmen like him alive today, rather than the hucktsters and opportunists that have taken over every aspect of modern statescraft.
I might agree with you on most of your statement, but that's a pretty unfair comparison. After all, the nominee wasn't a Reagan; the annointee--and it was an annointment, not nomination--was a hack with proven campaign incompetence, few principles, and nothing else except the title "tax collector for the welfare state". Hardly a good comparison.
The possibility of Supreme Court appointments is reason enough not to lose this election.
That's why we must make sure Kerry does not get near the White House!
For that matter, why didn't they return the sporting arms LENT them (for "the home guard") by American civilians?
I'm afraid I have to go along with Winston on this one.
The only "blessing" in a Democrat Party victory would be that it will move us closer to the time period for the 2nd war between the States, and the Federal Government.
Do the name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ring da bell?
Another bunch of tripe, indeed. Who posted this? For what reason? Bush is great.
You have the title correct. It can be downloaded here.
Douglass was a truly remarkable man.
Cajun, I don't know about CP shills. In this case, however, I would highly doubt it. This comes across more as an intellectual conceit like our former poster named OWK.
Your mileage my vary, of course.
However, the damage being done by the RINO senators from Maine, Rhode Island, Arizona and Pennsylvania is serious and has to be stopped. Their loss, even at the expense of a RAT would be welcome, but only if it means a conservative moves in. For example, getting rid of RINO Al D'Amato was a great thing even if it meant Chuckie Cheese Schumer took his place, but the NY Republicans have rolled over and given up so totally that Schumer is running unopposed for re-election.
The real place to get rid of RINOs is the primaries, not the general election. That's why it hurt so much when the White House turned their back on Pat Toomey in favor of Scottish law expert Arlen Spector. With the conservative coming out of the primary as the nominee, the party is working the conservative message and for the conservative --unless you're Bret Schundler running in the People's Republic of New Jersey.
So yes, there is a lot to be said for wanting to take down RINOs, but when we're talking about our survival, there is no room for losing this election. It's George W. Bush all the way.
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.
