Skip to main content

Corruption in Corrupticut

                            


Corruption occurs in politics when no one is watching and God sleeps. In a nation in which the Christian God is mercilessly being exiled from the public square, what John Adams and other founders of the Republic called “virtue” does not rule in the hearts of men and women. Private interest is king.

“Our Constitution,” Adams said, “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.”

The founders were not on good terms with groveling. It is doubtful in our day, when the separation of church and state has become a Berlin Wall, that Adams would have been able to find a post in any of our public schools. He would not have been mustered in to pedagogical service by former U.S. Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker, whose operative belief was that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provided a right of freedom from religion. In fact, the Constitution provides a right of freedom of religion; prepositions are important, here as elsewhere, in interpreting texts. 

In a secular culture overseen by what Jacques Maritain called “practical atheists,” and what we have come to call “cultural Christians and Jews,” Christian and Jewish virtue must take a backseat to practical morality, and the practical morality of politicians is not, most of us realize through painful observation, invariably practical or moral. Perhaps more important, the ethics approved by political commissions designed by designing politicians do not always concur with the practical ethics of the community both politicians and such commissions are sworn to represent. On occasion, the opposite is true. Sometimes – one hopes rarely – a narrow political constituency is less moral than representative politicians. How else to explain the reelection to office in Bridgeport of former felons, such as the present Mayor, the Honorable Joe Ganim?

Actually, the reelection to office of Ganim, who spent seven years in the clinker repenting his felonious activity, is easily explained. There is and has been no effective opposition party representation in Bridgeport for the last thirty years. The longest serving Mayor of Bridgeport was the Honorable Jasper McLevy (1933-1957), a socialist.

Connecticut is now a one party state, somewhat like Bridgeport – meaning, the Republican Party, as an operational entity, barely exists at all. The Governor’s Office, all the state’s Constitutional offices, all the members of Connecticut’s U.S. Constitutional Delegation, and gatekeepers in the General Assembly, effectively shut down during the Coronavirus plague, are all Democrat led.

In an era in which Adams’ “virtue” lingers as a ghostly presence in Connecticut, there is little robust contrarian opposition, and very few journalistic watchdogs unconnected to the reigning power, capable of arousing the uncorrupted virtues of a protesting public. Political interests, as we all know, should never be confused with public duties. Some politically connected watchdog groups exist only to keep the lid tightly closed on a political Pandora’s Box of corruption.

Asking the question qui bono – who benefits? – lifts the lid on corruption a bit, but never enough to expose the special interests swarming inside.  An Inspector General’s office, free of political entanglements and armed with subpoena powers, authorized to act against public agencies on complaints from citizens, would tear the lid open and allow disinfecting sunlight to rout the smelly little secrets of the politically privileged. Clever politicians have had a good deal of practice in using ersatz watchdogs to sit – sometimes for years – on the lids of the box.

Courant commentator Kevin Rennie, a former Republican state senator and representative, is responsible for first noting that the state of Connecticut – i.e. Governor Ned Lamont, who had been adorned with plenary powers by a timorous Democrat controlled General Assembly -- had “awarded a contract to a company (Sema4) where Gov. Ned Lamont’s wife’s venture capital firm was invested. The contract was awarded despite warnings from The Office of State Ethics that contracts between Annie Lamont’s firm or any associated companies and the state of Connecticut could present a conflict of interest.” Those words were written by Bob Stefanowski, who many expect will be the Republican Party nominee for Governor.

So the cat, to mix metaphors, is out of the Pandora’s Box. But it took Rennie two years, Stefanowski reminds us, to wrest through the Freedom of Information Commission what should have been public information from the Lamonts. “King Ned”, as some in the loyal opposition have styled him, has been a plenary force for two years. The governor has asserted his family has made no profit from the deal and that, if in the future Sema4 should enrich the Lamonts, he will turn over any profits to charity.

 


Comments

Cheryl B said…
Hi there, I have enjoyed your blog/posts on many occasions , thank you. I would like to bring to your attention a brilliant young lady , who worked very hard researching the Lamont’s .. spring of 2020. Her Facebook is public , she was the one to “share” her “findings”… ( without expecting recognition ) . However , I feel somewhat obligated to at least inform others when I see fit. As I had also helped to get her research “ to the right people”…, it had seemed to “fall on deaf ears” until the publication mentioned in this column.
https://www.facebook.com/7815396/posts/10106549962948619/?d=n

I hope the link I am sharing works ! Thank you for your time,
Cheryl ( Litchfield CT)

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