Skip to main content

Lamont, Lightweight or Heavyweight?

Tyson, pugilist philosopher

"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth"
– Mike Tyson]

When he was 40 years old, way past prime for a fighter, Tyson was asked how the quote attributed to him originated. "People were asking me [before a fight], 'What’s going to happen?'" Tyson said. "They were talking about his style. 'He's going to give you a lot of lateral movement. He's going to move, he's going to dance. He's going to do this, do that.' I said, "Everybody has a plan until they get hit. Then, like a rat, they stop in fear and freeze.' "

Was that his favorite quote?

No. His favorite quote, unattributed, was this: “A man that’s a friend of everyone is an enemy to himself.”

Both quotes have political applications and, in fact, politics and boxing are euphemistic twins.

Is Governor Ned Lamont a political lightweight or a heavyweight? Likely a lightweight; his background in politics is slight. We would call President Pro Tem of the State Senate Martin Looney a heavyweight. Years in politics weigh heavily upon him. The troop of progressives, mostly young Turks, swept into the General Assembly after the 2018 elections are lightweights. Their nominal boss, incoming Speaker of the House Matt Ritter, is a heavyweight. Following the recently concluded elections in Connecticut, Democrats gained two seats in the Senate and seven in the House. Majority party Democrats, 24-12 in the Senate and 98-53 in the House, are heavyweights. Republicans, always more interested in governing than campaigning, are lightweights. Before getting hit in the mouth, two Republican heavyweights, Senate leader Len Fasano and House leader Themis Klaradis, announced they were throwing in the towel.

What is it, precisely, that makes a politician a heavyweight? Important are: the years that experience and practical training in the field make; an ability to read the minds of constituents; a degree of modesty that puts the prosperity and wellbeing of others above selfish political considerations; a proper understanding of the limited role of government in the lives of the governed; an ability to dodge with agility and humor the punch in the face that makes lesser politicians stop in fear and freeze; and a certain philosophical coolness towards the notion that one must be a friend towards everyone and consequently, an enemy to oneself.

Who knew Mike Tyson, pugilist, was also a philosopher?

Lamont is largely untested. A year and a couple of months after he was sworn into office, Coronavirus made its way from China to the United States. And Coronavirus, a political steroid for governors, has put muscles on many northeast governors who, in the absence of two co-equal branches of government, the legislature and judiciary – both palsied by fear after Coronavirus had punched them in the face -- became plenary chief executives like, well, Louis XIV of France, the king who boasted ““L'étatc'est moi” (“I am the state”). Lamont has been the state for nearly a year.

But, under the surface, politics, the unending scramble for status and power, is roiling. A coming vaccine will likely knock the Coronavirus crowns from the heads of northeast governors, including Lamont and his political tutor, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. The herd immunity produced by the vaccine likely will turn the herd back in the direction of republican -- note the small “r” -- governance.

At this point, Lamont must handle Republicans, in the most recent past very easy to eject from a budgetary conference table; his predecessor former Governor Dannel Malloy used to separate Republican tares from Democrat wheat whenever an important decision was at hand. But Lamont also must handle a Democrat Party riven by ideological strife. The crown sits dangerously on the head of the sovereign when he finds himself closeted in a room full of plotters every faction of which thinks it is the state.

Thomas Breen of the New Haven Independent has given us a perfect snapshot of the coming struggle for the soul of the Democrat Party in Connecticut. No longer content to remain on the outside looking in, the sizable progressive contingent within the General Assembly has released a manifesto that calls for a steeply progressive income tax. The group was addressed by New Haven progressive Looney, who reminded progressives that the progressive movement in Connecticut has made considerable advances through cautious baby steps. The Weicker flat rate income tax has been made much more progressive over the years, Looney said. The state legislature, fast in the hands of Democrats, “was able to pass a bill in 2011 that provided in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented immigrants. In 2012, state Democrats successfully pushed for the repeal of the death penalty. And in 2019, the state legislature passed an increase in the minimum wage as well as a paid family and medical leave bill.”

“There are significant ways that we can make our tax structure more progressive still,” Looney advised. The top rate of the income tax could be increased, or progressive might want to throw their weight behind a move to impose “a separate tax on very high-level income from capital gains, dividends, and interest.”

Then Looney delivered his punch line: “Having a Democratic governor aligned with the legislature makes all the difference when trying to enact progressive policy.”

The punch line was an invitation to punch anti-progressive opposition in the mouth. It is not at all certain that Lamont, receiving the blow, will stop in fear and freeze.

Looney walked away from the gathering with an award, a clock, the progressive’s equivalent of a well-deserved Oscar in appreciation of Looney’s past service to the progressive cause.

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."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p