Skip to main content

The Open Primary Trap Door


Someone – could it have been the ghost of Tom D’Amore? – has suggested that the Republican Party should open its primaries to unaffiliateds. An unaffiliated is someone who, for reasons not perfectly understood, does not wish to   formally affiliate with political parties.

Tom D’Amore, now entertaining Jacob Javits Republicans in Heaven, was Senator Lowell Weicker’s majordomo when Mr. Weicker was in Washington DC fighting the good fight against Reagan Republicans. For a time, Mr. D’Amore, at the insistence of Weicker, was the Republican Party Chairmen in Connecticut. As Chairman he pledged he would not preside over the destruction of the Connecticut GOP and then introduced the idea of permitting unaffiliateds to vote in Republican Party primaries, an idea that went over like a lead balloon,  once thoughtful Republicans had discovered that the idea would prevent Ronald Reagan conservatives from making inroads into the Connecticut GOP, perhaps heaving Mr. Weicker on the ash bin of history. As it turned out, Mr. Weicker was given the heave-ho by state Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliateds who preferred a real liberal Democrat, then Attorney General Joe Lieberman, to an uber-liberal Republican senator.


In 1984, the state GOP changed its party rules to allow unaffiliateds to vote in primary elections, but only for certain offices. This proposal, which ran afoul of the state’s primary law allowing only enrolled party members to vote in primaries, was challenged by Democrats. After having wended its way through various courts, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that Connecticut’s closed primary law was unconstitutional.

The following year, the General Assembly constitutionalized the primary law by making certain alterations: unaffiliateds, under the altered provisions (PA 87-509), would be permitted to vote in primary elections; however, the parties would be able to decide whether unaffiliateds would be able to vote for primary candidates in all or only some of the contested offices, and no unaffiliated voter would be permitted to participate in more than one party primary on the same day. Currently, major party rules do not permit unaffiliateds to vote in primaries. For a short time, during the rule of D’Amore/Weicker, both the Republican Party and “A Connecticut Party,” the independent party under which Weicker ran for governor, permitted unaffiliateds to vote in primaries. Within the Republican Party, the permit was quickly revoked. 

Just as no good deed ever goes unpunished, so no bad idea is every totally expunged. On the face of it, permitting unaffiliateds to vote in Republican Party primaries would seem to be a bad idea for the best and most obvious of reasons: Unaffiliateds are not Republicans and therefore not bound to the party by ties of affection, reason or self-interest. The admission of unaffiliateds to the state GOP raises goose-bump questions:  Beyond voting in primaries, one cannot expect much help from party averse unaffiliateds in party building activities. Why should party slouches be permitted to drink the wine drawn from grapes others have toiled over? Since a primary is the principal means of appointing Republican defenders in general elections, why should Republicans permit unaffiliateds to affect their choices? Then too, allowing unaffiliateds behind the teller’s window exposes the bank vault to all sorts of chicanery. How many of the voting unaffiliateds would be, in truth, Democratic sappers trying to undermine Republican campaigns?

It’s one of those suicidal notions that ought to have been dead on arrival. Shortly after Mr. D’Amore laid the proposition before state Republicans, it WAS dead on arrival. But perhaps to amuse everyone or to satisfy the inordinate demands of Connecticut’s left of center media, Chairman of the Republican Party Jerry Labriola has now decided to submit the notion to a study committee, usually the graveyard of bad ideas.

A rule change allowing open primaries may weaken the Republican Party, perhaps fatally. It was generally thought during Weicker’s long reign in the Congress that people who drifted into the unaffiliated slot did so because both parties had become radicalized; to people like Weicker and D’Amore, unaffiliateds represented a vast pool of untapped moderates. But the whole nature of politics – especially in Connecticut – has changed in the intervening years. Within the state Democratic Party, progressives have pushed moderates out of office, while the activist wing of the Republican Party has been clipped by progressive proponents and their facilitators. An open primary system would simply cut the buds of a conservative alternative in Connecticut that a) has never been tried, and b) has never been found wanting. The chief problem with the Republican Party is its thoughtless timidity . To vary a phrase of Barry Goldwater’s – timidity in the face of utter dissolution is no virtue. In the future, the Connecticut GOP will either develop organically along conservative lines that have been successful in other states, or it will remain the party of Weicker, D’Amore and trembling quislings among the commentariate


Here’s hoping the committee will lend an ear to the open primary trap door and give the proposal a quick and respectable public burial.

Comments

peter brush said…
Our Principles More Individual Freedoms, Less Government Interference - See more at: http://www.ctgop.org/about/#sthash.KByzZzRX.dpuf
----------------
The principles of the Party are generally laudable. They hearken back to Ronald Reagan more than to Prescott Bush. The problem, perhaps, is that at this point, fifty years after our new Nutmeg Constitution and fifty years into the 1960's cultural revolution, it's not enough to stand athwart history demanding a generalized stoppage. The welfare state and its maleffects, including especially fiscal irresponsibility, have to be relentlessly exposed so that the electorate may go along with counter-revolution. Such a hoped for reactionary movement will only develop, if at all, in the context of closed primaries allowing the party to respond to the interests of its base; the conservative remnant.
-----------
Prescott Bush was politically active on social issues. He was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947....
He was a key ally for the passage of Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System,[12] and during his tenure supported the Polaris submarine project (built by Electric Boat Corporation in Groton, Connecticut), civil rights legislation, and the establishment of the Peace Corps.[13]

On December 2, 1954, Prescott Bush was part of the large (67–22) majority to censure Wisconsin Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy after McCarthy had taken on the U.S. Army and the Eisenhower administration.

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...