The LA Times discusses why some conservatives would view a Bush defeat as good:

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.

Yeah, I’ve said a Bush defeat would be good for us real conservatives. So have Spoons and a few others.

Update: And before someone takes me to task for calling myself a real conservative, I don’t mean in the party-line-toeing sense. I mean in the sense that it refers to application of government (to apply liberally would mean to apply more). I extend my desire for fiscal conservatism to social issues as well. I don’t think the government should throw money at pet projects and silly programs on the tax payer dime. Nor do I think it’s particularly beneficial to over-regulate social issues.

Actually, some in the past have accused me of being a liberal from 40 years ago.

Posted in uncategorized on July 28th, 2004 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |