Skip to main content

After Effects, What We Can Learn From Orwell

This writer has said several times in various columns and in his blog, Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from A Blue State, that the off-year presidential election on November 6th would test whether people in Connecticut trusted the dubious claims of politicians or the obvious empirical evidence displayed right under their noses.

He has quoted George Orwell on the point, who once said that the most difficult thing for a writer to do is to see the thing that lies right under his nose. “To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle,” Orwell wrote in an essay titled In Front of Your Nose. “The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right...”

What lies under Connecticut noses that voters should be mindful of when they go to the polls to cast their votes?

The poor condition of the state, obviously. About a week before Vote Day, a staff writer for a major newspaper in Connecticut lamented the lack of optimism in Connecticut.

“I think it is a defining characteristic in Connecticut politics,” he wrote, “where the only optimism I hear comes from Democrats.” The writer may have been thinking of the ebullient Democrat nominee for Governor Ned Lamont. “Like Republicans on the national stage,” he continued, “with a dark message about immigration and demonizing a ragtag caravan of frightened Honduran refugees, I hear only pessimism from Connecticut Republicans. I know there is a financial crisis here, one that has festered through the administrations of Republican and Democratic governors and through the most recent General Assembly sessions, which were at almost bipartisan parity.”

Actually, there has been little bipartisan parity in recent General Assembly sessions.

Indeed, the one moment of real bipartisanship, the production of a Republican budget that passed the General Assembly -- in itself a near miracle, since Republicans have not controlled the legislative chambers for about four decades -- was vetoed by outgoing Governor Dannel Malloy, whose approval rating, according to a Quinnipiac poll cited by the Hartford Courant, is hovering at 15 percent.

The staff writer wrote that it is the lack of “enthusiasm, confidence, advocacy for good and fair public policy and an optimistic spirit toward this great state that will save us, not mean-spirited budget cutting, scapegoating the unfortunate, decrying diversity and providing windfall tax breaks for the wealthy.”

The political writer’s dip into pessimism was directed for the remainder of his column at President Donald Trump who, whatever his deficiencies, has been neither a Connecticut Governor nor a member of the state’s General Assembly.

The writer’s calls for optimism and confidence, in a state in which optimism and confidence would be obscenely inappropriate, are the sounds ostriches make when their heads are buried in the sand. Voltaire warned us against a destructive optimism in Candide. If things are really bad, they cannot not be made better by the optimist who tells us that ours is “the best of all possible worlds,” when we know it is not true.

Adding together Malloy’s two massive tax increases, we arrive at the largest tax increase of any administration in state history. The administration’s tax increase was meant to fix future budget deficits, but the budget deficit for the current biennium is around $4 billion, not a figure that is likely to produce enthusiasm among Connecticut taxpayers. Connecticut is one of only seven states in the union that has not yet recovered from the  Great Recession that ended way back in June 2009, not the sort of thing that tends to  boost confidence in anyone but Candide, the eternal optimist who insists, after being visited by multiple calamities, that his is “the best of all possible worlds.”

Orwell, who wrote luminously about totalitarian states in Nineteen Eighty-Four, reminds us in his essay Right under Your Nose, that politics “is a sort of sub-atomic or non-Euclidean word where it is quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously. Hence the contradictions and absurdities I have chronicled above, all finally traceable to a secret belief that one's political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality.”

Connecticut voters, one may hope, will know solid reality when they bang into it.



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."

PCBs, GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH

By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin c2007 A front-page story on PCBs in the March 9 News-Times is just wrong. The first thing to know about PCBs is that they never killed a single person nor did they ever cause cancer. The second is that although they are invariably called “cancer-causing,” that designation comes chiefly from a single rat study. The third thing is that the subject rats were exposed daily for 21 months to 100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs containing 60% chlorine. (The 100 ppm was about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by FDA in 1973.) When rats were exposed to PCBs containing less chlorine, they developed no cancers. The fourth, that when the exposed rats were allowed to live out their lives, they had fewer cancers and lived longer than the unexposed rats. PCBs is a family of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs contain chlorine ranging from 12% to 70%. They were used in two General Electric plants that manufactured electrical equipmen...

Taking The Fifth, After Esty

Whether or not U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty will serve the remainder of her term or resign immediately is very much an open question. But, in any case, the battle for Connecticut’s 5 th U.S. Congressional District has begun with a show of unexpected fireworks. For many years, the 5 th District was a toss-up proposition; both Republicans and Democrats have held and surrendered the seat. Geographically the 5 th District touches the border of New York from Connecticut’s northern-most point to Danbury in the southern quadrant and includes much of Litchfield county and parts of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties. Party affiliation is competitive, in round figures, 30 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican and 45 percent unaffiliated. Over the years, the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved from the center to the left, but the 5 th District has been a moderate preserve. During the Obama presidential election, Republican moderates within Connecticut's U.S. ...