Commentary––

Why Liberalism Has Lost Its Authority In Connecticut

By Chris Powell

Political liberalism in Connecticut, or what passes for it, seems to have lost its moral authority at the state capitol. Of course part of it may be hard times, as people are less receptive to being taxed more in the name of helping others. Corruption and incompetence in state government may be part of it, too. Who can find an economic development project that isn’t largely patronage, the public agency that serves the public better than it serves itself, or the city whose descent into depravity –– daily incidents of child abuse and street shootings –– doesn’t correlate almost perfectly with the growth of what is politely called the public sector?

But the bigger cause of liberalism’s loss of moral authority in Connecticut may be what is on display in the state budget stalemate between Governor Rowland and the Democratic majority in the General Assembly: liberalism’s refusal to make good choices. Liberalism in Connecticut seems to have come to mean only more, more, more, and thus never enough, even while more, more, more somehow fails to ameliorate the social problems constantly complained of.

Real government is more than more, more, more. To govern, as some who attempted it observed, is to choose. One might never know that by listening to the General Assembly’s liberals about the budget.

They oppose the Rowland administration’s plan to economize by transferring more prisoners out of state but won’t question why Connecticut should imprison so many people in the first place, particularly for violation of mere contraband laws, nor why Connecticut’s prison population is so racially disproportionate.

They say they want to restrain state college tuitions but not public employee salaries and benefits.

They say they want to increase state financial aid for important municipal services but not at the expense of municipal employee pension eligibility, not if anything might prevent cities and towns from offering full and immediate pensions to employees who “retire” in their 40s only to begin second careers elsewhere.

They say they want to extend state government medical insurance to the working poor but oppose means-testing the ConnPACE program’s prescription drug subsidies for the elderly.

They say they want to replace crowded and inadequate schools and build group homes for the retarded but vote for Adriaen’s Landing and sports arenas instead.

They say they want smaller case loads for social workers at the Department of Children and Families but wouldn’t think of repealing the extravagant privilege given to liquor retailers, the Sunday closing law, thereby recovering the millions of dollars in excise tax revenue forfeited every year for the convenience of that special interest.

They will skimp on appropriations for drug addiction treatment to ensure that the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women can spew political correctness permanently.

Mistaking mere piety for policy, they fail to realize that a more humane government might be a less expensive one as well and thereby command more public support. Indeed, forced to choose between bigger government and more humane government, they will choose the former nearly every time, perhaps because it is so much easier to raise campaign contributions that way. Then they will accuse conservatives of heartlessness.

That accusation does approach the big difference between most conservatives and most liberals in Connecticut: Conservatives don’t care much about social problems, while liberals pretend to care.

In hard times the conservatives may start getting the edge for honesty.

(Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester.)