Skip to main content

A Common Sense Guide For The Politically Perplexed, Part 3

Lamont to DeLauro's right -- CTPost

Connecticut’s Democrat Party Hegemony

On the Sunday following the conclusion of the off year elections in Connecticut, Chris Keating of the Hartford Courant raised the following question: How did Dems do so well in state?

The short answer to the question is: The Democrat Party hegemony won because hegemonies most often win. The more interesting and illuminating questions are: How did Connecticut become a one party state? When did the erosion of competitive politics begin? And is there a turning point at which formerly Republican strongholds in the state – Greenwich and West Hartford come to mind – will revitalize Republican Party ranks?

The extent of the Democrat Party hegemony was most accurately depicted by Dr. Eric Ostermeier in a short piece, Connecticut Democrats Set New US House Electoral Record, that appeared in in Smart Politics five days after polls closed in Connecticut. 

“Since 2008,” Ostermeier wrote, “Democrats [in Connecticut] have now won 40 consecutive U.S. House elections, not only adding to their party record but also setting a new record in the Nutmeg State for the longest partisan winning streak for the office since the founding of the modern two-party system in 1828.”

Journal Inquirer columnist Chris Powell struck a sour note following Connecticut elections in his column, Can competition in politics ever return to Connecticut?

However sour, the note rings true alarm bells: “Governor Lamont and the renewed Democratic majority in the General Assembly have won a great mandate that will feed desires for more government programs that only employ more Democrats, erode the private sector, and make more people dependent on government.”

Whether it will be possible for Lamont to strap himself to a “moderate” main mast and, like Odysseus, stuff his ears with wax to silence the bewitching song of progressive sirens in his state remains a doubtful but still open question.

Not even former Governor Lowell Weicker, the father of Connecticut’s income tax, was able to curb the progressive Democrat appetite for improvident spending. At the present time, Connecticut’s often scratched spending itch has increased its state budget from $7.5 billion when Weicker first assumed office in 1991 to $24.2 billion today – not that anyone is counting. And the state’s indebtedness is among the largest and most debilitating in the country at $79.5 billion. Even Weicker knew that improvident spending fuels inflationary fires – not that millionaires in the state clustered in Connecticut’s “Gold Coast” need worry overmuch about state taxes and spending.

Rather than cry over spilled milk, let us attempt here to address one of above important questions.

How did Connecticut become a one party state?

The slow and agonizing destruction of Connecticut’s Republican Party through gradual attrition began long before 2008. At the risk of disappointing half-baked “moderate” Republicans – i.e. GOP’ers who have long claimed to be “fiscal conservatives” but “liberals” on social matters – this writer has more than once pointed out that such an artificial division between economics and culture is a fraudulent dichotomy, useful chiefly for campaign purposes. Politics is downstream from culture, and the way to change politics, postmodern Marxists such as Antonio Gramsci (read the link, will’ya?) have rightly pointed out, is first to -- change the culture.

Connecticut is now “the abortion state,” “the casino state,” “the pot state,” “the deficit state,” the “repeal the second amendment” state, the “who needs energy?” state, the “rule by executive fiat” state, the “I’m aboard, tow up the lifeline” state, the “crumbling large cities” state, full of empathetic, wall-eyed Democrat politicians who genuinely feel that the best way to help the struggling poor in Connecticut’s state-dependent cities is, first and foremost, to help themselves to large gobs of middle class taxes so that, when the recession promised by progressive Democrats finally washes up on Connecticut shores, state government, its lips firmly fixed on a withered middle class tax teat, will survive the battering in good order.

Weicker, the progenitor of Connecticut’s continually expanding state taxes, who once referred to himself as “the turd in the Republican Party punch bowl,” noted little of this in his ghost written biography, “Maverick,” an oversight perhaps.

An answer to yet another pressing question – To what extent is Connecticut’s non-contrarian media responsible for the state’s dominant, progressive, status quo hegemony? – must await further status quo non-developments.

Democracy in Connecticut

In the meanwhile, we may all rejoice that Democrat democracy, somewhat different from Republican democracy, has in our state survived the presumed depredations of former President Donald Trump, largely because Connecticut Democrats have artfully used Trump as a foil in their campaigns, even though the former president has been politically unplugged and out of office for the past two years. And the insistence of Connecticut Democrats that a Republican governor may overthrow a statute that affirms Roe v Wade is preposterous, given that The Supreme Court’s most recent decision affirmed and strengthened the right of states to regulate abortions.  

In a one party state, right reason, when it does not conform to a party line, is easily – even gratefully – overthrown by an agitprop state apparat and an army of enablers.

Comments

Unknown said…
BRAVO !!! Another brilliant piece. Sad and a nightmare for the beleaguered Conservatives and Republicans that will only find their solace in a southern state.

Marty

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