What follows is speculation, but it is something I have thought about recently, although I have never before been one of those who have welcomed Democratic victories as “wake-up calls” to Republicans.

It might be better for true conservatism if Bush and the Republican Party were to lose in 2004, and I say that knowing how much harm would result from the imposition of a Democratic regime. Bush and today’s Republican Party are not remotely conservative, but too many people who think of themselves as conservatives or at least non-liberals do not yet understand that. Even so, many who do continue to support Republicans following the ever-more-tenuous logic that, weak as Republicans are, they are at least a bulwark against Democrats.

A Bush loss (I think it inevitable - short of his untimely demise - that he will be the Republican nominee) knocks away that last prop: Should he lose, then not only are Republicans essentially just soft liberals themselves, they are incapable of holding off the hard liberal Democrats. They are useless even as a firebreak. At that point, or after a year or two of flagrant Democratic misrule (anyone who thinks the reign of WJ Clinton is as bad as it gets has no imagination), there might finally be a critical mass of disaffected or merely flummoxed normal Americans willing to consider a conservative third party.

If the Democratic victor (victrix?) is New York’s Senator Rodham-Clinton, the flow of nominal Republicans to a third party alternative could happen fast. HRS

I’ve sometimes found myself tempted to think the same way as Mr. Sutherland, but each time I’ve ventured onto that terrain I’ve pulled back, because reality intervened. The theory reflects the justified feeling of having been betrayed. But it also manifests wishful thinking concerning the happy consequences of turning the first emotion into a political tactic.

For one thing,the 2000 election showed that the electorate is split down the middle. The American people are not, on the whole, conservatives. They’re conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Most people simply don’t think in large philosophical patterns. That’s why the old Trotskyist tactic of “the worse the better” (“they’ll learn when things get really, really bad”) is a loser. The liberals would be as delighted by a conservative defection as conservatives would be by a Sharpton candidacy.

For another thing, party loyalty has been declining for the past couple of generations, for several reasons that needn’t be rehearsed here. It used to be the case that each party could count on inherited loyalties for its core votes, and then add to those by issues appeals to swing voters. But the inherited loyalties are gone or weak (with some exceptions), and politicians have to sell themselves on all the salient issues, not just some. We’re all swing voters now (this is an exaggeration, but becoming less so year by year).

For a third thing, even a Hillary Clinton presidency (my fingers hurt even typing those words) wouldn’t wreck our society. A nation that survived Jimmy Carter and then, after a brief period of recuperation, Bill Clinton is so strong that it would take generations to destroy it. The destruction would—or should I say “will”?—come, more likely, very gradually, by the continuation of what’s happening now, the slow erosion of our moral fiber. A President Hillary might shock some complacent centrists, but the reacion would be temporary. It follows that a permanent turnaround requires the reversal of our slipping down the slope toward social chaos, the absence of moral standards, the destruction of our educational system, and associated evils. It would be great if we could call on political leaders to help the reversal, but that doesn’t seem to be possible. As I see it, what hope there is resides in grass-roots healing—and then the politics will (maybe) take care of itself.

As Howard says, “They are useless even as a firebreak.” Mr. Bush will probably make “diversity is our strength” his campaign slogan and trumpet his support of the Michigan decision.

I have been going back and forth over whether Bush will win in 2004. He may well maneuver himself to defeat by disheartening his base. Have you ever heard of a major political leader who spends 99% of his time pandering to political opponents? As several people have said on VFR, Mr. Bush is a liberal himself. Also, if Bush is reelected in 2004 he will go even more to the liberal side than he has so far.

I agree with Howard Sutherland. America run amok under the rule of Democrats just might be the elixir we need. Imagine, for example, that the recent Supreme Court decisions had come under a Democratic president. Would the popular face of conservatism in the press and on radio/TV have taken things so meekly? I doubt it.

But even more important is the issue of immigration. I’m not sure that too many people yet realize that the war for America begins and ends with immigration. Ultimately, not much else matters, not affirmative action, multiculturalism, the eclipse of Western civilization, homosexual “rights”, and all the rest of it. And the reason is that immigration feeds all the above. I simply cannot imagine that the avalanche of current popular and intellectual decay would have taken place had the majority/minority demographics of 87 percent white, 10 percent black, and three percent “other” in place in “Old America” remained intact. And on immigration, Bush and the Republicans are even worse than the Democrats. Respail’s Camp of the Saints wasn’t fiction; it was prophecy.

In response to this blog entry, a correspondent wrote:

“Yes, and this squashes some of the hope that conservatives have been holding onto, that we will continue to fight, looking closely at college diversity plans, mounting lawsuits where possible, and trying to bring anti-AA propositions to the different states.”

This is absolutely correct. This really brings it all together.

The only hope coming out of this Grutter disaster had been that now the people and the states would address the issue themselves at the state legislative level instead of waiting on the federal courts. So what happens? As soon as Ward Connerly introduces a popular referendum in Michigan to ban race preferences, Bush uses his power to stop it or at least deny it effective support.

So, not only did Bush in his pro-diversity speech and brief back in January push the politically minded Sandra Day O’Connor toward an accommodation with diversity; but now that this disastrous diversity decision has gone down (which, remember, only PERMITS states to practice race preference admissions but does not REQUIRE them to do so), Bush also makes it clear he will exert all his influence to make sure that the states will not exercise their power to opt out of race preferences.

This seals it. Bush is a declared enemy of the principle that more than any other has defined and united conservatives of all stripes for the last generation.

This is to Bush II’s presidency what the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was to Bush I’s presidency, only it’s a thousand times worse, because this is a revolutionary change in the meaning of America. Oh perfidy thy name is Bush.

He deserves to be punished for this perfidy by being turned out of office in 2004. I did not vote for him in 2000, but still preferred for him to win. Now I actively hope he will lose. The Democrats are criminal, anti-American nutcases, but at least with them in power the Republicans and conservatives will be opposing the left instead of cheering for it.

The point of a third party candidacy is not to win but to compel Bush to move to the right. With nothing but the left out to oppose him he has no incentive to do so.

I have no promising candidates but, in the meantime, a stunning victory for Connerly’s Michigan initiative in the face of lack of official GOP support would give the _GOP_ the wake up call!

The fate of the initiative is far from “sealed.” The people of Michigan support it. The campaign lacks money but I for one am willing to go to Michigan to work on it. What about the rest of you?

Working for Bush’s defeat is sound strategy for traditionalists. It seems essential for a party to get a bad leader out of the way even though in the short term the party will lose. In fact, lose seems a dysfunctional word here. The better word is retreat. A bad leader can wreck a party just as a bad general can wreck an army. An example is General McClellan during the American Civil War, where the South was outnumbered three, four, or five to one. A bad leader has the power to purge what is good about a party. So consider retreating to build a strong party with a solid leader instead of continuing with a bad leader. Concentrate on Congressional races, and urge your Congressmen and Congresswomen to abandon Bush.
It does not take brilliance to see through frauds. I am not brilliant, and I could see Bush was going to bring America to where it is now. Anyone with eyes could see he was an expert at what Matt so humorously describes with “cha cha cha.” (http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001597.html ) So I voted for Buchanan, not because Pat was wonderful but because on some critical issues, he was right. Bush is wrong about every critical issue except Islamic terrorism, which he predictably refers to as simply “terrorism” and which he would have been wrong about had 9/11 left him with no choice. (That is something to remember. Bush is doing what any president, except maybe Clinton, would have done about 9/11.) Bush is the worse thing for the Republicans since Nixon. But of course many of his voters saw this but still thought they had no choice.

Bush needs to be gone not pushed to the right. A good leader leads.

I hope others have some better ideas. We sure need them.

Instead of meaning “had 9/11 left him with no choice,” I meant “had 9/11 never occurred.”

There’s an old maxim in politics that “you can’t beat somebody with nobody.” My difference with some of the posters above is tactical, not philosophical. The biggest problem I see with the “let’s beat Bush” advice is the question “with whom?” I mean “with what Republican?” because I can’t agree with the notion that a liberal-Democratic administration would strengthen conservatives for the next election (meaning 2008 or 2012). What Republican (it would have to be a Republican) politician is on the horizon who might a) win the nomination, b) win the election, and c) be true to conservative principles, at least half the time, if elected?

To hope for a Democratic, liberal interlude is to buy the Trent Lott philosophy: be happiest in opposition and be grateful for whatever crumbs fall our way. I don’t think American political history supports the idea that being out of power would strengthen us for a future battle. To hope for Bush’s defeat in ‘04 is to intend to vote for the Democratic candidate. I’d rather leave that line blank.

Posted by: frieda on July 11, 2003 08:06 AM
“I don’t think American political history supports the idea that being out of power would strengthen us for a future battle.”

in may not strengthen, but having bush and other such ilk in office is having a weakening affect. if tranditionalists keep winning and staying in power with the likes of bush, they shall soon be defending ground no larger than a mite.

Abby has it right: While no traditionalist can wish for a Democratic regime, the current Republican Party is a snare and a delusion for voters who let themselves be persuaded that it is conservative (or at least more conservative than Democrats) and worthy of support as an electoral winner. Their support is passive acquiescence in an endless leftward shift (the cha-cha-cha, again) at only about 95% of the velocity of the same shift when we are under Democrats. Too many people think the spirit of Ronald Reagan (and how conservative was President Reagan, really?) still animates the Republican establishment. The Bushes always detested Mr. Reagan, and they have outlasted him.

Such voters will only be cured of their delusion when elections make clear that the feckless not-quite-Democrat Republicans are not only not conservators of anything traditionally American, but politically incompetent as well. If GW Bush and his associates lose in 2004, many people who have half-heartedly supported him and other equally worthless Republicans may well be ready to look elsewhere - and it won’t be to Democrats, unless through some miracle of transformation their party again becomes a states-rights, populist movement. That is about as likely as the Republican Party’s nominating Ron Paul for president, alas! HRS

The only way to make the Republican Party conservative is the same way you make an ugly woman beautiful: turn out the lights.

It has come to this. No matter who else wins. No matter who else loses. It is best for us if Bush loses in 2004. Some of us have pointed out that if Al Gore had taken the same positions that Bush is taking now, people like Rush Limbaugh would have made some noise in opposition. When Bush does it, they are muted or silent.

If Bush wins in 2004, he will take it as justification for his pro-immigration and pro-affirmative action stance. Most of the GOP will go along. Bush will have moved the country irrevocably to the left.

Mr. Sutherland wrote:
“Their support is passive acquiescence in an endless leftward shift (the cha-cha-cha, again) at only about 95% of the velocity of the same shift when we are under Democrats.”

Is it really a certainty that the overall shift leftward is slower under the Republicans? I think David’s point is a good one. Only Nixon could go to China, and only Dubya could push the entire nation (not just the lefties) this far left this quickly. It took Bill Clinton (plus a very fortuitous encounter with Mr. Kalb) to finally purge me of every last vestige of liberalism a number of years ago. How many others set down equal freedom and picked up blood, sword, and cross during the Clinton era?

Maybe the Mohammedan blasphemers know exactly what they are doing, pushing our liberal buttons in just the right way to accelerate our self destruction as they breed the replacement population.

Matt’s point is a good one, and echoes comments others have made on this site: the kind of people I was talking about swallow applied Leftism much more easily when administered by someone with a Republican label. The challenge is to help those people see that establishment Republicans are as hostile to them as Democrats.

Due to the Cold War-induced (and neocon-encouraged) confusion that leads many Americans to believe that support for large armed forces and an interventionist foreign policy is inherently conservative, a lot of liberals under the Republican rubric have succeeded in masking their liberalism behind the flag they wave all the time. There is no better example than GWB himself! HRS