Skip to main content

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

Bob MacGuffie

As Ben Franklin emerged from the Constitutional convention on its last day, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked him, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

“A republic,” replied the Doctor, if you can keep it.”

One thing is absolutely certain, my favorite cynic tells me: “Because we live in a representative Republic in which politicians stand for election by the public, the public ALWAYS deserves the politics it receives from its representatives.” Or, as Henry Mencken once put it, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

None of the founders of our country, democracy tooters may be surprised to learn, favored democracy as a form of government. Students of history, the founders knew that democracy could only be successful in small – very small – political units. The demos, the root word in our modern conception of “democracy,” and the polis, the root word in our modern conception of politics, the founders believed, might most successfully be governed through a representative republic.

Democracy, possible within town hall municipal meetings, an assembly of constituents, is nearly impossible in state political gatherings such as Connecticut’s General Assembly, a conventicle of elected representatives. Even less so is democracy possible in larger political organizations such as the U.S. Congress.

Alexander Hamilton put all this in sharp focus when he said in a speech to Congress in 1788, “It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

The five members of Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional Delegation, all Democrats, claim they are representatives of their constituents, as they repeatedly tell us, even though a sizable portion of their constituents are members of an opposition party or unaffiliateds. Because there are among the members of the U.S. Congressional Delegation no dissenters from a different party, majority Democrats are also motivated by party interests, and therefore display a double allegiance: first, they say, to their constituents, and secondly to their party, state and national.

Take, by way of example, U.S. Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut’s 4th District. We are told on Himes’ fluffy “House Government About” page that Himes is now serving his “eighth term. He serves as Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and on the House Financial Services Committee.” These committees affect national matters that extend far beyond the borders of the 4th District.

In fact, most matters considered by any and all of the all-Democrat members of Connecticut’s U. S. Congressional Delegation are more extensive than those parochial issues affecting only their constituents, both Democrat and Republican, who live in their respective Districts. U.S. Congresspersons are national representatives whose political purview is much different than that of a state or town representative.

And so, one would expect national interests – particularly representative votes on matters of national  interests such as budget expenditures, foreign policy issues, etc. – to loom large in any reelection campaign involving prospective U.S. Representatives.

However, robust discussion of national issues has rarely occurred among Himes and his Republican challengers.

That may change if Bob MacGuffie emerges from a Republican primary as a party endorsed candidate in the once bipartisan U. S. Congressional Delegation. 

Sacred Heart University Professor Gary Rose, often consulted by Connecticut reporters on state politics, suggests a robust battle may emerge –provided it is permitted to emerge -- between MacGuffie and Himes.  

“Rose stated in an e-mail interview with Patch.com,” reporter Scott Benjamin writes: “‘MacGuffie is waging a bare-knuckle campaign intended to unseat Congressman Himes. As a candidate, MacGuffie is quite unlike the previous Republicans who have sought to unseat the congressman. MacGuffie's style is hard hitting, provocative and he has conducted an impressive amount of research regarding Himes' position and votes on a variety of national issues.’

“Rose added, ‘MacGuffie's campaign updates posted on the internet are unlike anything that I have observed during my many years of following and writing about congressional politics in the 4th CD.’”

Bob MacGuffie likes to mix it up. He says of his forthright approach to things political, “I came out of Queens. I came out of the school yards. I was small. Naturally you get picked on. So naturally I developed a sharp tongue and dressed these guys down.”

A former leader of the Tea Party in Connecticut, MacGuffie last March announced he was seeking the Republican nomination to run against Himes in the upcoming 2024 election. Himes’ previous challengers, MacGuffie said, “didn’t run aggressive campaigns. They were afraid of the aggressive line of attack.”

Here is a partial listing of MacGuffie’s campaign updates:

 

Even a compromised partisan media will notice that nearly all of MacGuffie’s postings rightly relate to matters of national importance, the province of U.S. Congressional representatives.

It is rather fortunate for Himes that Connecticut’s lackadaisical media has not, so far, permitted MacGuffie to stretch himself out in their mainstream media outlets.

No surprise there. Connecticut’s media is even less interested than Himes in probing matters of national importance during a robustly contested election campaign, a rarity in Himes’ case. The opposite of a robust campaign is one smothered in acceptable party treacle churned out by media favored incumbents, one of the reasons there has been very little turnover in Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional Delegation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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."
17 comments
Read more