A few weeks ago, Governor Dannel Malloy said that people in
Connecticut would have to wait until May to discover whether he would run again
as governor. He then surprised everyone by tossing his hat into the ring during
a recent bond hearing meeting. In fact, the campaign had begun much earlier;
the cake was baked even though it lacked the cherry on top. Before his official
declaration, Mr. Malloy had said he was much too busy running the state to
engage prematurely in a political campaign. He told one reporter that it would
be inopportune for him to engage in a political campaign before Republican
gubernatorial aspirants had an opportunity to beat up on each other? The
pretense was a great tease, strategically necessary but still an obvious
imposture.
The Republican gubernatorial field has now been fully fleshed
out. Martha Dean, who previously had engaged in campaigns for the Attorney
General, was a little late, but she got in before the door closed.
Many commentators feel that Ms. Dean and Joe Visconti, who
once ran against Democratic fixture John Larson for the U.S. House, are second
tier candidates in a crowded Republican field that includes Danbury Mayor Mark
Boughton, former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley, Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti,
and Senate Minority Leader John P. McKinney. A recent Quinnipiac University poll shows Mr. Foley leading the pack by wide margins when matched against Mr.
Malloy.
Questions concerning campaign sustainability have arisen in
connection with the candidacies of Ms. Dean and Mr. Visconti.
Mr. Visconti has vowed not to disappear. Ms. Dean said she
might maintain her campaign beyond the nominating convention depending upon her
support. Essentially, both have said, “We’ll see.”
Their campaign boats have been pushed from shore by three
groups: Tea Party folk, gun owners and constitutionalists. In addition, they may
expect to receive support from libertarians, who are chiefly interested in
individual rights, and some establishment conservatives, who are interested
chiefly in economic issues. Among all these groups, there are overlapping political
interests. If it were possible to speak of them together as an alliance of
interests, they very easily could decide a gubernatorial election in
Connecticut. But, of course, there is an uneasy alliance among these separate
groups. The trick is to bring them together somehow.
Democratic campaigns generally are better organized -- for
obvious reasons. Democrats have conducted more successful campaigns than
Republicans and now are strategically placed on what may be called “the
political heights”: The governor’s office, both Houses of the General Assembly,
all the constitutional offices and the entire U.S. Congressional delegation
have been moved into the Democratic column. In addition, Connecticut’s media is
temperamentally allied with the Democrat’s progressive putsch.
For all practical purposes, Connecticut has now become a one
party state. In the past, the Connecticut Republican Party had relied upon so
called “moderates’ to attain a place at the political table. But in recent
years, Republican moderates have been replaced by Democratic progressives. When
then U.S. Congressman Chris Shays lost his race to U.S. Representative Jim
Himes, he was the last remaining Republican moderate in New England – which
suggests that the moderate Republican message is no longer persuasive. In the
U.S. House, Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons also lost office. Moderate Republican
campaigns were centered upon economic issues alone; which is to say, moderate
Republicans ceded half their campaign ground to their opponents before a single
shot in the campaign had been fired.
Mitt Romney surrendered a good deal of ground in his presidential
campaign against President Barack Obama. This has not been a winning strategy.
It did not take Dannel Malloy, the first Democratic governor elected since Governor
Bill O’Neill, to absorb the message that Republicans were of no account. His
first budget was constructed without any Republican input.
The steady, long term retreat on so called “social issues”
has weakened Republican campaigns.
Retreat is defeat. Nationally – and especially after the
Obama-Romney campaign – Republicans seem no longer inclined to allow
progressive Democrats to define social issues. But it would appear that the
glad tidings have not yet reached Connecticut, once the land of steady habits, many
of which have been radically altered by an aggressive progressive juggernaut. Connecticut
Republicans have permitted extremist progressives to define social issues in a
very narrow way that suits their political objectives.
But in fact politics – most especially bill writing – is
inescapably tied to “social issues” in the broadest sense. There is not a
single piece of legislation written in Connecticut, or in the nation either,
that has no social repercussions. All bills shape the social sphere; and if
they did not, they would be redundant. Why is abortion and not the economy a
“social issue?” In Connecticut, “socially moderate” Republicans have simply
abandoned the field to progressives. This is a defeatist strategy. If you’ve
surrendered half the political battlefield to the opposition, why should you be
surprised when the war turns in their favor? Abortion on demand during the late stages of pregnancy, except to save the life of the mother, is an extreme position. It is
not at all unreasonable for politicians to insist that abortion facilities
should have on hand a doctor who has admitting privileges in nearby hospitals;
neither is it an extreme imposition for the state to require that abortion
facilities meet the requirements for Ambulatory Surgical Centers. Surely a
“moderate” position on abortion would fall short of infanticide? Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, whose seat upon his retirement was taken by Hillary Clinton, said he
could not support partial birth abortion because it seemed to him a form of
infanticide.
And Mr. Moynihan also had some ideas, considered politically
risky at the time, concerning the effect that the disappearance of the father
from the black family would have on social dislocations and urban poverty.
Mr. Moynihan was a prophet unloved in his own party – but,
for all that, a superb social analyst.
Most fair-minded people would call him a “moderate” Democrat. His kind
has completely vanished in Connecticut. It is now considered the greatest
impertinence to talk sensibly about the effects that progressive programs have
had on the marginally poor in cities, and those who do make a correlation
between social programs and the disappearing traditional black family are
shouted down as obscurantists at best, racists at worst. These are the “social
issues” moderate Republicans have abandoned to Democrats, along with issues of public
safety. Is public safety a social issue?
In urban areas in Connecticut, where Mr. Moynihan’s
prophecies have gone unheeded and come true, mothers and children sometime
worry about the public safety, the quality of education in cities, and the
difference that life without a father can make on young boys – all social issues.
In Chicago, where unemployment among African American boys is ninety-two
percent, the city is considering an increase in the minimum wage from $8.25 to $15.00 an hour.
It is not likely that unemployed African American boys in Chicago seriously
suppose that artificial increases in the price of labor will increase their employment
rate. In the long run, the absence of jobs may be a worse social curse than
poverty. People can elevate themselves from poverty by getting jobs, keeping
them, improving themselves by degrees through education, delaying childbirth
until they are married, staying married; that is the usual route out of
poverty.
But what if there are
no jobs? What then? What if most urban schools are underperforming? What then? What
if marriage as a live option has all but disappeared in cities among African
Americans? Then what? These are the prevailing conditions in many cities in
Connecticut. What if, further, much of what a progressive government has done
to ameliorate conditions brought on by poverty has only worsened the problems?
What then? It was possible nearly fifty years ago, in the age of Moynihan, to
ask such questions and expect a reasoned debate on social issues.
But not now. Audacious questioners are shunned, most
especially by the establishment media. This is the social fire that has singed
the pants of Republicans. Such topics are whispered in private. They flee the
field, and leave the poor and dispossessed to progressive Democrats. The
Republican Party is a ghostly presence in Connecticut’s largest cities. Hartford,
Bridgeport and New Haven are one-party cities and have been such for decades. Are
the poor less poor in one party cities? And why should anyone suppose that a
one party state would be more successful than major cities run for decades by
single parties?
Democrats in the General Assembly just voted to raise the
minimum wage to $10.10 by 2017. The governor – and President Barrack Obama, who
has been fulsome in his praise of Mr. Malloy's energetic embrace of Mr. Obama’s failed programs -- argues that the wage increase will trickle down to businesses in the state
because those making a minimum wage will spend the increase immediately, thus
stimulating Connecticut’s economy.
We don’t know exactly how many people in Connecticut make
minimum wage, or who they are. The rhetoric coming from Malloyalists suggests
the governor thinks most of them are women. An increase in the minimum wage
therefore will help to mitigate the baleful effects of the Republican Party’s alleged “War On Women.”
Now, let’s just pause here to examine these few
propositions. First, the “War On Women” is little more than Orwellian Newspeak.
Much of the data suggests that an increase in the minimum wage adversely affects African
American teenagers in cities, yet no Republican in Connecticut running for
governor has yet said that by supporting an increase in the minimum wage Mr.
Malloy and the mostly white Democratic caucus in the General Assembly have
declared war on urban African American boys. The majority of working women in
Connecticut draw salaries above the minimum wage. As such, they are in the same
economic boat as most working men in the state. Does Mr. Malloy believe that these women – all victims, like men, of
the largest tax increase in state history – would be conducting “a war on women”
should they, on sound economic grounds alone, resist the Malloyalist urge to
buy votes by artificially increasing the price of labor?
The most efficient way to stimulate the economy is through
payroll tax reductions. A tax reduction, because it leaves the salaried worker
with more of his own money, has the same simulative effect as a state mandated
salary increase. Why then does Mr. Malloy suppose that only some increases in disposable income are
returned to the economy as economic stimulators? Mr. Malloy has given millions
of dollars in tax receipts taken from middle class workers to multi-billion
dollar companies. He has given low interest loans and tax rebates to companies
he feels might bolt Connecticut without such tax relief, a grudging admission
that companies flee both the regulatory state and high taxes. And it has been Mr. Malloy’s tax increases on
nail salon owners, among other female entrepreneurs, that has made it possible
for him to generously dispense tax funds to companies he believes are worthy
“investments.” Investing money in companies is essentially a stock marketing
function best done by people whose business it is to pick winners and losers in a
competitive marketplace. Sometimes they make good choices, and sometimes not.
But the money they invest does not come from nail salon owners they have taxed
for the purpose of crafting tax reductions, rebates and low interest loans for non-profit entities such as Jackson Laboratories.
These are all social issues; they all effect the future
social, political and economic configuration of Connecticut. And the state will
not be directed towards a more just and equitable path if the Republican Party
lacks the courage to confront Democrats on pressing social issues of the day.
Comments
-------
What ought to unify the Right and the Center, if there were one, is concern for, fidelity to the Constitution(s). The Progressive Egalitarian Party's democratic, not to say demagogic, agenda disregards the Constitution and the rule of law in favor of the engineering of social justice. A return to a government limited in its scope and powers would address the concerns of the various factions of the Constitutional Liberty Party.
I've never shot a gun in my life, but am a paying member of the NRA.
------
“[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor
----
Liberty Counsel is a non-profit public interest law firm and ministry that provides free legal assistance in defense of "Christian religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family."[1] Liberty Counsel is headed by attorney Mathew D. Staver, who founded the legal ministry with his wife, Anita, in 1989 and currently serves as its Chairman. Anita L. Staver, his wife, serves as President of Liberty Counsel. A close partnership exists between Liberty University, which was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell...
----
http://justiceforjustina.com/