Kerry's a better choice for some conservatives

[Dan Scanlan <dscanlan@xxxxxxx>]

The Right Wing's Deep, Dark Secret

  Some hope for a Bush loss, and here's why

 By John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge

(Los Angeles Times, July 28) -- 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 preemption,
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.

------------------------------

     John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, writers for the
Economist, are co-authors of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in
America"
--
---------------------------
IMPEACHMENT: BRING IT ON NOW!
NOVEMBER COULD BE TOO LATE.
--------------------------------------------------

END OF THE TRAIL SALOON
Alternate Sundays
6-8am GMT (10pm-midnight PDT)
http://www.kvmr.org

--------------------------------

"I uke, therefore I am." -- Cool Hand Uke
"I log on, therefore I seem to be." -- Rodd Gnawkin
"I claim, therefore you believe." -- Dan Ratherthan

Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube:
 http://www.coolhanduke.com