Why I Want to Counter-Intuitively Keep Congress
My ideal legislative conservative (little-"c") is Edmund Burke. Burke was the only voice for tradition in his time, supporting the Amerivan Revolution, but opposing the French Revolution. He is often pictured by conservatives I know as the lone "voice in the dark," and is widely recognized as the father of Anglo-American conservatism. Burke was the minority in his party, and certainly in Parliament. This model of the Burkian conservative legislator, the minority of minorities, works because he is in the minority to begin with, and because of the structure of England's governmental system.
Currently in America, there are conservatives in Congress. Most (if not all) of them are in the Republican Party, which was, in 1980, 1984, and 1994, at least, the 'party for conservatives.' However, Congress has strayed from the path, and under some guidence from the Bush Administration, voted for massive spending increases and has not protected our homeland.
This has led to many conservatives eagerly anticipating the widely predicted shift of the House to Democratic control (I have my doubts it will happen, but that doesn't matter right now). They think that having at least one branch of Congress in opposition control will allow for more gridlock, and the Republicans not having to compromise. I predict this would have the opposite effect than they hope for.
One, even though the House Republicans could refuse to compromise, having a Democratic majority means that they have the ability to pass bills by themselves. Two, there are enough moderates in the House on the GOP side that would work hand-in-hand with the Democrats. Three, the Senate would then compromise with the House version of the bill. Considering those in the Senate feel that the House immigration reform bill is bad because it does not offer "citizenship oppurtunity," also known as amnesty, the prospects for holding a conservative Senate are zero.
Three, I have my doubts Bush would veto all that many bills, epescially those that pass the House and Senate, under control of two different parties, and therefore constituting 'bipartisanship' on everything that gets to his desk. This explains his assertion that if the Democrats win, they will raise taxes.
Fourth, losing in 2006 will only make the RNC more liberal. Because the RNC sees itself as conservative, and by being conservative, loses elections, and therefore needs to be less conservative. Ths is combined with the Spector/Chafee Effect, in which the national organization supports liberal Republicans for the sake of seat count:
Currently in America, there are conservatives in Congress. Most (if not all) of them are in the Republican Party, which was, in 1980, 1984, and 1994, at least, the 'party for conservatives.' However, Congress has strayed from the path, and under some guidence from the Bush Administration, voted for massive spending increases and has not protected our homeland.
This has led to many conservatives eagerly anticipating the widely predicted shift of the House to Democratic control (I have my doubts it will happen, but that doesn't matter right now). They think that having at least one branch of Congress in opposition control will allow for more gridlock, and the Republicans not having to compromise. I predict this would have the opposite effect than they hope for.
One, even though the House Republicans could refuse to compromise, having a Democratic majority means that they have the ability to pass bills by themselves. Two, there are enough moderates in the House on the GOP side that would work hand-in-hand with the Democrats. Three, the Senate would then compromise with the House version of the bill. Considering those in the Senate feel that the House immigration reform bill is bad because it does not offer "citizenship oppurtunity," also known as amnesty, the prospects for holding a conservative Senate are zero.
Three, I have my doubts Bush would veto all that many bills, epescially those that pass the House and Senate, under control of two different parties, and therefore constituting 'bipartisanship' on everything that gets to his desk. This explains his assertion that if the Democrats win, they will raise taxes.
Fourth, losing in 2006 will only make the RNC more liberal. Because the RNC sees itself as conservative, and by being conservative, loses elections, and therefore needs to be less conservative. Ths is combined with the Spector/Chafee Effect, in which the national organization supports liberal Republicans for the sake of seat count:
With that fear to motivate them, national Republican Party groups are spending $1 million (€780,000) or more to save the notoriously independent-minded Chaffee from defeat in Tuesday's primary. They are attacking his conservative challenger, former investment banker and broker Steve Laffey, now the mayor of the town of Cranston, with a gusto usually reserved for Democrats.I'd rather run a principled conservative than lose than have Spector or Chaffee win another election. Keeping the House will not make the Republican Party more conservative, but it will keep it from swinging farther left.
| Permalink | 
