Skip to main content

Connecticut’s Place in the Northeast’s Neo-Progressive Universe

Como and Lamont

If you lop off California and New England, you’ve got a pretty damn good country
– Barry Goldwater.

Governor Ned Lamont, a small businessman before he became chief executive of a state now suffering an acute identity crisis, has made it plain to both Democrats and Republicans on the left that Connecticut is not New York or California.

Lamont may have been former Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo’s fishing buddy (see pic above), but, even so, the historic differences between New York and Connecticut have been obvious to dispassionate observers for decades. In the northeast, New York was and is an advance guard of the nation’s neo-progressive movement, a slow march to a glorious future  in which we all shall be equal at last in intelligence, talent and, most importantly, in income.

Historically, Connecticut was – note the past tense -- a state that sanely maintained its head when all others were losing theirs.

There were, of course, scores of neo-progressive legislators in Connecticut, some of them with revolutionary knives in their brains, but these did not command popular assent. Political changes usually inch forward on padded cat’s feet. Here in Connecticut, there were enough historically minded politicians, reporters and news editors to prevent a headlong rush into a post-Marxian, Antonio Gramsci nirvana that would end, as most leftist revolutions do, in a crack-up in which political liberties are sacrificed on the altar of efficient autocratic governance.

In the end, of course, autocratic governments, unrepresentative of the public good and not creative, demand of the governed that they surrender essential liberties to a false security. All such governments impoverish their people and extinguish any hope of a general movement towards true self-reliance, independence and liberty. The hallmark of all quasi-socialist governments is the dependence of the governed upon a parasitic and absurdly incompetent central state that could not create a hairpin or an IPhone if its life depended on it.

There are some indications, however slight, that Lamont does not favor a revolutionary repositioning of Connecticut that would tie the state to the ideological dispositions of neo-progressive New England. In fact, if sane legislators were to follow the lead of center right Republicans and Democrats, Connecticut may well escape the undertow of New York and California, becoming once again a modest, self-abasing exception to the self-destructive tendencies of ungovernable neo-progressivism.

It is questionable whether Lamont, a neophyte politician, can long hold out against a powerful phalanx of neo-progressive politicians and an intellectually exhausted administrative state. Powerful state unions, a propagandistic pedagogy, a media blithely unconcerned with the history of the state or foundational documents undergirding our republic, yielding often to the temptation to support a left of center body of politicians, together create a force that tends to undercut the most rational and beneficial centrist positions in matters of culture and politics.

It will be generally agreed that Democrats in Connecticut are better able than Republicans to round up votes during election periods. That has been evident in urban and state elections for the past 30 years.

Democrats now claim a super majority in the General Assembly. In addition, they have controlled the state’s constitutional offices and membership in Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional Delegation during the same period, the last fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican member of the delegation being U.S. Representative Chris Shays, swept out of office in 2009 by present Democrat U.S. Representative Jim Himes.

It should be recalled that all the fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican members of the U.S. Congressional Delegation fell to socially liberal, neo-progressive Democrats. And indeed it may plausibly be argued that Connecticut has been in the grip of left leaning Democrats, especially in its murderous large city welfare trap-gates, for the last three decades.

H.L. Menken reminds us that democracy is that form of government in which the people get what they want – “good and hard.”

We do not know at this point whether Lamont’s nascent efforts to carve out an exception to the general New England rule will be successful. Within his own party, Lamont is surrounded by neo-progressives, and while his limited business experience makes him, at least temperately, averse to destructive political meddling from the left, temperament is a paper wall.

The best that may be said of Lamont is that he is former U.S. Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker without the P.T. Barnum pyrotechnic bluster. Lamont was groomed by Weicker to run against U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman in a Democrat primary. Lamont won the primary but lost in the general election after Lieberman chose to run as an independent candidate.

Connecticut is desperately in need of a push-back Republican Party rooted in sound small “r” republican principles, both economic and cultural, that have shown themselves to be far more long lasting than savior politicians.

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."

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. ...

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...