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.
>>>>>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.<<<<<
That makes sense too.
That's the first thing I thought of when I read the title of the thread.
what can i say??? best to - ahem - put it bluntly... the authors of this opinion are about as smart as a box of rocks.
The article views all relative to the constricted lens of what it does for political conservatism; if Delay (questionable, but irrelevant to my idea here) actually said that back in '92, then where would presumably his - or any conservative's - remarks be on the ensueing 8 years? How to consign one's comments of glee for the expected "crash'n'burn" of what was then a liberal-panderer in Clinton to the reality that followed, or to the seeds of disruption that today have us fighting the islamist and other tyrannies?
There is only one way to defeat them, and that is here and now.
J
I disagree. While I would not welcome a Kerry administration, I am open-minded enough to see the author's points.
A two-fer hitpiece, on the President and on conservatives, crudely attempting to divide and conquer.
I think the Left and their mouthpieces are years behind the curve understanding the political sophistication of the Republican coalition.
Net effect of this sort of tripe? Zero.
"Trouncing"? Jimmy Carter got about 51% of the popular vote. What nonsense!
More Leftist nuance and wishful thinking. Just another indicator of their desperation in my view. The fate of this nation hangs in the balance with this election. We can't afford to play political parlor games in the present based on what might be for the future of the GOP in 2008 and beyond. Besides, I see a strong bright future for conservatives long term. Members of the X/Y generations are deeply committed and involved in the war on terror. They are more conservative than the dems give them credit for. 10-15 years from now, we'll see some of these folks in the halls of Congress and other key political positions at the state and local level.
Post-convention doubts? Expect full-panic mode by November. Not gonna feel their pain. Bush: 60-30-10.
It was the Jimmy Carter screw ups in both foreign and domestic areas. It was 20 percent inflation, 15 percent interest and 12 percent unemployment and Iran hostages that lead to Ronald Reagan.... not the Defeat of Ford.
It was the defeat of Bush 41 that led to the moral break down in the Clinton years. It was the defeat of Bush 41 that lead to the boss getting bJs from interns being termed proper behavior in our culture.
It did not lead to Bush 43. Bush 43 was the result of a very good campaign. On election day 2000, Clinton was more popular than Reagan on election day 1988. Gore should have won. Bush should have lost just as Dukakis lost trying to follow Reagan. It was the great campaign of George W. Bush that won the 2000 election. It was over the best efforts of Clinton Gore that he won.
What we can say is the Defeat of McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis does not prevent a Kerry from getting the Democrat nomination.
Defeats are defeats.
The article is based on a fallacy.
Pre 9/11 liberal drivel, pandered to a post 9/11 electorate... awakened by an EVIL ATTACK!
I ain't buyin' it!
LLS
I am jealous!!! I wish I could have been there cheering beside you!!!
That slogan is cutting through the bullsh*t. It may seem quaint to you, as your presence here indicates a much deeper cognizance of current events. This is language that connects with "prime time viewers".
LLS
"The only reason I can imagine that a Kerry win might be a good thing is when he bungles the war on terror with his indecisiveness and ruins the economy with his socialist policies he'll probably be the last Democrat president elected in this century".
I heard this tripe before both of klintoon's PRESIDENTIAL VICTORIES. It is a loser attitude, and we have NO place for losers, Post 9/11!
LLS
Some say payment was made by sending Watson-Watt to the US in 1941.
The point is, Kerry straightjacketed by a conservative, principled, GOP congress could do less damage than Bush is apt to. And lead to a bigger GOP majority and a future conservative prez.
The GOP would've stopped a Gore prescription drug benefit just like they did HillaryCare. And the No Educrat Left Behind garbage wouldn't have seen the light of day.
Bruce Bartlett made the case much better than this in NRO (has he been fired by Jonah the Whale yet?)
Disagree, but this piece is not "liberal".
I'd rather slide down a razor blade into a bucket of alcohol.
The next president could pick up to 4 Supreme Court Justices, who will likely sit on the court for the next 20 to 30 years. Anyone who is believes that it would be good for conservatism for Bush to lose needs to think about that.
Wonder if the Chronicle will ever carry an how the a Kerry loss might be a blessing in disguise for the left.
He got less than that. In 1976, Carter won with 50.08% of the popular vote.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.php?year=1976
Of course, no Democrat has gotten that high a percentage of the popular vote since then (Clinton never managed to get 50%), so I suppose in their minds that is a "trouncing."
"The possibility of Supreme Court appointments is reason enough not to lose this election."
This is about the only thing I ever post, so forgive me:
Specter is in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. When faced with a conservative challenger, Bush and the GOP hacks pulled out all the stops for Specter. He will never allow a conservative judge out of committee.
So, what's the point? The best we can hope for is a Kennedy / O'Connor type.
What liberal tripe! It's a RAT ploy to undermine the Puubies. Ignore it!
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.