Formal endorsements
may not mean very much in the modern political theater, which tends to rely on
political hype produced by paid assassins, Twitter feeds and political Facebook
sites, but this one might prove to be the exception that proves the rule.
Reticent former
Governor Jodi Rell has fulsomely endorsed Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom
Foley.
“For far too long,”
Mrs. Rell wrote, “Connecticut has been under one-party rule
— not the balanced two-party system our founders intended. Governor Malloy,
with the support of the Democrat-controlled legislature, enacted the largest
tax increase in Connecticut history — a tax increase that has acted like a
brake on the economy.
“The overall impact
of Governor Malloy’s policies is that jobs and people are leaving the state at
far too high a rate. Many people can’t find work and many who have jobs can no
longer afford to live in Connecticut.”
Five years into a
national recovery, Mrs. Rell noted, laggard Connecticut has restored a little
more than half the jobs lost during a prolonged recession. “There are
many reasons for this,”’ she wrote, “but one is certainly the policies and
leadership of Gov. Dannel Malloy.”
It’s difficult to argue with the point. Even Mr. Malloy
would agree that taxes depress private economic growth, which is why Mr. Malloy
has provided some tax relief, in the form of governmental reprieves, to select
Connecticut companies. Only a few months ago, Mr. Malloy provided tax relief to
United Technologies, a multi-billion dollar international company, to prevent
the relocation of UTC’s home office to other states where regulations and taxes
are less punishing than those of “Still Revolutionary” Connecticut. For a
sizable reduction in Connecticut’s tax bite, UTC said its home office would
remain in Connecticut for a few years, and even before the ink was dried on the
Malloy UTC gentleman’s agreement, some cynics in Connecticut likely supposed
that UTC had no plans to remove its headquarters from the state in any case. As
a general rule, the multi-year business plans of mega-companies such as UTC are
not changed at the whim of governors – or even presidents.
On the matter of taxes, Connecticut has, within the space of
four governors, endured two revolutions: an income tax imposed against the will
of most voters in the state, and a Malloy tax boost, the largest in
Connecticut’s history. Mrs. Rell, who fancied herself while in office as a
firewall preventing large tax increases, fully understands, as did the two
Democratic governors preceding her, Governors Ella Grasso and Bill O’Neill,
that tax increases lead ineluctably to spending increases. The corollary
proposition – that spending increases lead, at least in Connecticut, to tax
increases – is no less true, as witness the many tax increases that followed
the spending spree made possible by the Weicker income tax.
There is always a price to be paid in hard cold cash for the
overheated rhetoric and the wild and improbable programs of what Henry Mencken
used to call, with a snarl on his lips, “World Saviors” such as Mr. Malloy and
Mr. Obama, two peas in the progressive pod. The knock on Mrs. Rell was that she
was no Malloy, an energetic governor bent on re-inventing Connecticut.
There may come a time, after Mr. Malloy has finished
re-inventing us, when people in the state, harried and overtaxed, long for the placid
days of Mrs. Rell. Mr. Mencken, very sparing in his praise of presidents, once said
of President Cal Coolidge, “We suffer most, not when the White House is a peaceful
dormitory, but when it is a jitney Mars Hill, with a tin pot Paul bawling from
the roof. Counting out Harding as a cipher only, Dr. Coolidge was preceded by
one World Saver and followed by two more. What enlighten American, having to
choose between any of them, would hesitate for an instant? There were no thrills
when he reigned, but neither were there any headaches. He had no ideas, and he
was not a nuisance.”
The latest
Quinnipiac poll shows Mr. Foley and Mr. Malloy in a dead heat. Joe Visconti, in
the race as an independent, appears to be drawing equally from Republicans and
Democrats. Mr. Foley maintains a slight edge among unaffiliated voters. If the
Q poll totals hold through November 4, Mr. Malloy likely will be reelected,
after which, as was the case with Mr. Obama’s reinstallation, Mr. Malloy will
be free to be Mr. Malloy – which will mean: Normalcy will be kept at bay, and Connecticut
will be treated to more fanciful ideas, more overheated rhetoric and more
headaches.
Comments
-------------
I notice that the local good government types are peeved with Nutmeg Dems over their(the pols) cute end-around their(the protectors of "our democracy") campaign finance controls. They are disappointed to find that contractors and others doing business with the State are able to contribute to Nutmeg pols through external accounts. The bien pensant never seem upset that public sector unions are active in politics, but putting that aside, I'm wondering if anyone will take the trouble to analyze the campaign contributions of individuals associated with Dan Malloy's corporate give-aways.
I love Coolidge, and not merely as a patriotic Vermonter, but at this point we need more than benign silence to reverse (all)the damage that's been achieved since his exit in 1928. We need more than Foley here in Connecticut,too, but I'll take what we can get. Unfortunately, Mencken's negative assessment of Americano society would have to be ratcheted downward were he alive now, particularly here in Connecticut. Therefor, my expectations for positive (i.e., reactionary)change in the future are not high.
------------
The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.
This brief appreciation, taken from the “Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation,” is pretty accurate:
“As governor, Coolidge’s progressive policies included urging higher teacher salaries (see speech).He was a progressive who supported women’s suffrage, direct election of senators, labor unions, curbing Standard Oil, and championing the rights of African Americans. Ironically, Coolidge’s progressive policies did not make him a presidential candidate in 1920, his strong stand against the Boston Police Strike did.(When the Boston Police tried to organize in a union, they were not allowed to do so by the city authorities. They went on strike in 1919 and left their posts. Mobs looted shops and the citizens were scared. Governor Coolidge sent out the State Guard to re-establish order.) Coolidge’s clear language can be seen in his telegram to AF of L President Samuel Gompers. “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time.” In the popular imagination, Coolidge was a strong leader defending traditional values under attack by subversives in society. Coolidge thought this telegram ended his career. He was wrong; it was the beginning of his national one. Coolidge’s national popularity started in 1919 and never stopped in his lifetime.”
I suspect Mencken “liked” him because there was not a lot of political fluff to the man. He was modest and lacked political ambition.
In 1936 his understanding of FDR's ideology led him to support the Republican Party's Landon for President. Coolidge was not an activist President (God Bless him), but of the two parties it was the Republican Party that was the party of centralized government and egalitarian social engineering.
-----------
Nevertheless, and despite all Hell's angels, I shall vote for the Hon. Mr. Landon tomorrow. To a lifelong Democrat, of course, it will be something of a wrench. But it seems to me that the choice is one that genuine Democrats are almost bound to make. On the one side are all the basic principles of their party, handed down from its first days and tried over and over again in the fires of experience; on the other side is a gallimaufry of transparent quackeries, puerile in theory and dangerous in practice. To vote Democratic this year it is necessary, by an unhappy irony, to vote for a Republican. But to vote with the party is to vote for a gang of mountebanks who are no more Democrats than a turkey buzzard is an archangel.
I think I will vote for him anyway...