BONNIE ERBE Should conservatives hope for Bush defeat?

Two writers for the Economist magazine last week posited five reasons why conservatives "might cheer a GOP" loss in November. They're partly right, partly wrong and missed a major point.
Their first reason: "President Bush hasn't been as conservative as some would like" says much about zealous American religious conservatism. This president has done more to convert religious mores into law than any president in recent history. Yet the religious right salivates for more. In a second Dubya administration, evangelicals want Roe vs. Wade to be overturned, gays humiliated back into the closet and the entire nation praying to Jesus along with them each Sunday.
Granted, extremists on any side of a given issue, left or right, are rarely satisfied with less than complete victory. But progressives gleefully sign up partial sympathizers while evangelicals want no part of semi-believers.
Foreign policy missteps
The Economist writers' second reason: A Bush defeat could help conservatives "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." "Tainted," they say? Yet another masterly minimization. How about cannonaded? Americans are growing as restless with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team's unfailing ability to fabricate and fail at foreign policy as most of our former allies. Even this past weekend's Orange Alert on terror seemed ginned up to boost the president's lagging poll numbers. That said, it's highly improbable (as the Economist writers claim) conservatives would look to Kerry for salvation.
Thirdly, the Economist writers claim a Bush defeat would lead to government gridlock. Conservatives, they say, adore gridlock. With the Democrats controlling the White House and Republicans running the House (and the Senate too close to call) budget battles would reign supreme and federal spending would stall. OK, but the fiscal conservatives I know don't wish for limited government spending by default. They want it by design. In that sense, this president has failed them miserably and many of them resent him for it. A very few will sit out this election. Most will vote for Bush with reservations, rather than rely on what they see as a "tax and spend liberal" to trim the size of government.
Big-government conservatism
The Economist's fourth reason is regeneration. "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?" Frankly, the concept of big government conservatism is a new one on me-- not that it exists, but that conservatives might actually own up to being bigger spenders than the Democrats they so despise.
Today's deficit breaks all records. The last president to balloon the deficit was Ronald Reagan -- another conservative hero. The Bush-Reagan conservative approach to government is slash taxes, grow spending and deficit-be-damned. But you'll never hear them endorse big government or even admit it's their illegitimate progeny. No, they paint it as a temporary phenomenon or a war necessity or anything but purposeful. Even though conservative presidents spent government into two record deficits, they'll never embrace big government nor accept that they bested the Democrats as big government proponents.
Their 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." Hmm, perhaps. But that was the rationale in '92 and it brought them not four but eight years of Clinton. There's no conservative heir-apparent waiting to replace Dubya. Sen. John McCain is too moderate; Rudy Giuliani way too liberal; Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run for president absent a constitutional amendment, and he's no right-winger in any event.
Here's my take. No conservative I know would be "cheering" a GOP loss in November. Several I know are supporting Kerry, either because they're distraught over Bush's mishandled war or his mishandled economy. But if Dubya were to lose, most conservatives I know would mourn the lost opportunity to have revitalized conservatism. They'd still love Dubya, because flaws and all, he's as good as it gets for them.
X Bonnie Erbe, TV host, writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service.