Q: We haven’t talked to you in months.
A: You’ve been denying yourself a great pleasure.
Q: We are several months into the Trump presidency. He
continues to be reviled by progressive Democrats as a larval fascist. Their
effort to destroy him has been fruitless. Successive impeachments failed to
dislodge him, and some of his policies – the restoration of the U.S. southern
border, for instance -- have proven to be wildly successful and popular. Tariffs, when used as a policy instrument to
reduce unfair foreign trade practices, do not, according to most objective
observers, contribute to destructive increases in inflation. Prices, even
housing interest loans, appear to be moderating. What economists call the bones
of the U.S. economy remain strong. We’ve known for some time that the economy
does not tank when business taxes and regulations are reduced. The opposite is
true. You have sometimes said that the essential relationship between government,
state and national, and “the people” is an inverse one: the richer the
government, the poorer the people; the stronger the government, the weaker the
people… and so on. Turning to state government, you claim, rightly, that
Connecticut has been for decades a one-party state. There are a few downsides
to one-party rule, you’ve said. What is the political correlation of forces
here in Connecticut as we approach the upcoming elections?
A: Nearly everyone is dissatisfied with the status quo. Luke Bronin, the former
mayor of Hartford who has entered the Democrat Party primary lists against U.S.
Representative John Larson, the current “rock of Gibraltar” in Connecticut’s
gerrymandered 1st District, and state senator Ryan Fazio, a
Republican who hopes to displace Democrat Governor Ned Lamont, are both running
on platforms of “hope and change,” a bumper-sticker gambit put to good use by
President Barack Obama during his first campaign for the presidency. The hopes
and changes in both cases, however, are wildly divergent. Generally, Americans will tolerate
evolutionary change; that is, change in the direction of beneficial improvement.
They grow a little impatient with revolutionary politicians whose efforts are
directed towards revolutionary change, such as anti-capitalist, pro-socialist Zohran
Mamdani, the New York Democrat Party’s choice for Mayor of Wall Street. There
is no need to reinvent the American political wheel, most wide-awake, as
opposed to woke-awake, voters seem to agree. What many Democrats would like to
see in the upcoming races is a “back to Bach” movement, a return to the
sensible, standard liberal
policies of President John Kennedy
and, here at home in Connecticut, a restoration of the centrist policies of
Democrat governors Abe Ribicoff and Ella Grasso, both cultural and economic
moderates.
Q: Some people on both sides of the political barricades
have been talking about third parties.
A: Yeah, there is no political salvation outside the two
major parties.
Q: Is Zohran Mamdani a net plus for Democrats?
A: He’s a socialist political huckster. Bloomberg News tells
us that, following his call for the elimination of billionaires, he met with
the CEOs of prominent American companies
-- Mamdani Seeks to Charm NYC Business
Leaders, Including JPMorgan’s Dimon – and soothed them. The executives,
some of them billionaires, wanted “to underscore that their wealth-creating
industries are part of the city’s financial success, and that they ultimately
have New York’s best interests at heart. They also want to get a feel for the
potential mayor in a more private, personal setting.” In a “more personal
setting,” can the CEOs prevail upon Mamdani to surrender his foundational
socialist ideas in return for campaign cash? Professor of urban policy and
planning at New York University Michael Moss was quoted in the piece: “’Money
goes to power,’ said Mitchell Moss. ‘The business community has to learn how to
adapt to this guy — that’s why this [meeting] is important.’” One can only
imagine what the CEO meeting after the meeting was like. Did any of the CEOs
mention the empty grocery shelves in Russia following Stalin’s agricultural
nationalization?
Q: Is Lamont a moderate Democrat?
A: The jury is out on that one. Here in Connecticut the
media tends to gravitate towards establishment politicians – meaning
politicians who are fiscally mainstream, as were Kennedy and Grasso, but
culturally adventurous. Lamont supports the efforts of Marissa Gillett, the
head of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), who
believes price controls are necessary to tamp down the greed of Connecticut’s
energy distributors. Have price controls
ever reduced prices? Lamont’s support of Gillett certainly has not been
economically prudent. Price controls were one of the more spectacular failures
of President Richard Nixon’s administration. Many voters now understand that
the fabled distinction between state politicians who are “fiscally
conservative” but “socially liberal” (read: progressive) is a distinction
without a difference. There are no more fiscally conservative/socially liberal
Republicans in Connecticut’s U.S. congressional delegation. U.S. Representative
Chris Shays was the last of the brood. In Connecticut Democrat politics, there
are no longer any enemies to the left. Democrats appear to the rest of us engaged
in an effort to Make Socialism Great Again (MSGA). Name one prominent Democrat office holder in
Connecticut who has reproved Mamdani for having heaped praise on a politics
that is willing to “seize control of the means of production,” a canard of
Marx, Lenin and Stalin.
Q: Thanks. See you around the corner.
Comments