Skip to main content

BBC Commentary in Connecticut

When the British writer G. K. Chesterton on his American tour found himself besieged by a gang of reporters in a hotel in New England, he immediately proclaimed himself an amiable anarchist of the Henry David Thoueau variety – “That government governs best that governs not at all.” And then he was asked what form of government he thought the best. “A republic,” he boomed. “This hotel would make a fine republic.”

Sometimes it takes a foreign eye to confirm for us what is best in us. The BBC crew, now in Connecticut reporting on the state election that pits Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont in a hard fought U.S. Senate race, has performed a like service for us.

Bearing in mind Oscar Wilde’s quip that the United States and Britain are two nations separated by a common language, the questions and the commentary on the BBC site, "Up All Night," are excellent. It’s easier to adjust to the subtleties on the spot, which is why Rhod Sharp, part of the BBC crew, leapt the pond to be here. (As an aside, I may say that the BBC interviewers have cleverly wormed their way into the hearts of Americans -- BECAUSE THEY LIKE BARS.) We in Connecticut must live with the consequences of our votes; people in Europe need only laugh at them.

One of the subtleties involves an understanding of the difference between a primary and a general election. The audiences are different in both cases. Primaries are party elections to which opposition party voters and independents are not invited. Ned Lamont won the Democrat primary because his message resonated with the shakers and movers of the Democrat Party in Connecticut. Opposition to the war was the principle driver in the primary. Wars are not popular in what used to be called “the provision state,” so called because the state was known for providing munitions to the U.S. military. In the BBC broadcast on Connecticut's election, Lieberman spoke eloquently to this tradition.

As everyone interested in Connecticut’s race must know by now, Lamont won the primary, and much fun was had at Lieberman's expense by bloggers committed to Lamont.

In a general election, narrow party interests are expanded because the voting field is open to moderates and Republicans. The message that resonates with the first audience may alienate the larger audience, as appears to be the case in this instance.

Some claims made by the Lamont side were patently outrageous. Connecticut does not like political manipulation, and most people in the state have an ear for authenticity. Lieberman, however conspicuous his warts, is a polished performer and a decent man. There is no question that solid Democrats of a liberal persuasion have lined up on Lamont’s side of the barricade. These are the Democrats that ousted him in the primary.

They may not have the last word.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e...