|
The best traditionalist conservative scenario of a Bush victory
Assuming that Bush wins, what would be the best possible outlines of this victory from a traditionalist conservative point of view? We can imagine a scenario that mitigates the worst aspects of a Bush re-election, along with several other other problems that have been dogging America and conservatism. 1. Both in the nationwide popular vote and in the electoral vote, Bush wins by the tiniest possible margin. This weakens any notion of a messianic mandate for Bush’s second term, whether to democratize the world by arms or to open America’s arms to the world. It also shows the lack of popular support for his disastrous Iraq policy, and will compel him to think of something better. At the same time, as a result of Kerry’s losing the popular vote, the air is taken out of the Democrats’ noxious complaint from 2000 that the presidency has been stolen from them, soothing the furies that have roiled American politics these last four years and that have damaged our ability to conduct a serious national debate on vitally important issues such as the war. 2. In the states that Bush wins, the popular vote margin is large enough to discourage any Democratic legal challenges, thus preventing a repeat of the national nightmare of 2000. Note that because the presidential election consists of 50 separate state elections, a healthy popular-vote margin in the Bush states is not necessarily precluded by a small popular-vote Bush margin nationwide; it’s possible to have both.
3. In the Senate and House, Republicans win crushing gains over the Democrats. (Remember, this is a scenario, not a prediction.) As a result, Republicans no longer feel under the constraint of maintaining a lockstep unity out of fear of dividing their ranks in the face of the left. Genuine conservative voices are liberated in the GOP regarding social and spending issues, racial quotas, immigration, and so on. Increased GOP numbers not only strengthen conservatives in relation to the Democrats, but in relation to the president. The fact that the congressional Republicans did very well, while Bush barely scratched out a victory, means that the congressional Republicans no longer feel compelled to go along with Bush’s various leftward moves. In more and more instances, Bush has to follow the increasingly conservative congressional Republicans rather than the other way around. So, for example, when Bush puts forward the liberal-leaning Alberto Gonzalez as his first Supreme Court nominee, the Senate Republicans tell Bush they don’t want another Supreme Court Justice who supports racial preferences for minorities. Comments
Agreed. The hope that I have been expressing to family and friends is that Bush wins narrowly, while conservatives gain in Congress. I cannot cast my vote for Bush (not that he needs it in Virginia anyway) because I cannot be complicit in his efforts to destroy the country, even if he destroys it more slowly than Kerry. That is not enough to earn my vote. I recognize that either Bush or Kerry will win, and prefer Bush to Kerry given that fact. Note that the scenario you endorse above is not the outcome endorsed by Spencer Warren. I take it you were only agreeing with his criticisms of Bush, not his desired outcome of a Kerry victory expressed in that same letter. The really unfortunate thing about Iraq from a purely domestic point of view is that it ruined the very real prospects of a crushing conservative victory in Congress. Imagine if we had not gone into Iraq, and instead of all the “1,000th casualty” and “WMDs not found/stolen” headlines, we had front page photos of Bush attending the first Afghan elections in person. The conservatives would win by a landslide, and Kerry would be guaranteed a great deal more time to pursue his duck hunting. Posted by: Dan on November 2, 2004 2:13 PMMr. Coleman, as I’ve admitted before, I am a divided being on this election. Maybe what I’m about to say makes no sense, and I am willing to take people’s criticisms over it, but I am describing what is true for me. On an emotional and gut level, I would be shocked and disturbed by a Kerry victory, as I am convinced it would mean short term disaster for the country, unlike anything we’ve had before, not just because of his leftism and pacifism, but because of his utter undecisiveness, staggering dishonesty, monumental self-centeredness, and disdain for America’s interests and basic values. However, intellectually, my “official” position is that I want Bush to lose, as I think, whatever harm Kerry may cause in the short run, in the long run a Bush defeat will be better for the country. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 2, 2004 2:14 PMMr. Auster’s comments have made me feel better and encouraged me to work harder to change things. I hope others will also work harder. Posted by: Paul Henri on November 3, 2004 9:41 AM |