"Connecticut: Does it Have a Future?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Connecticut – Does it Have a Future?”

September 24, 2019

“I’m just a Connecticut country boy. The people I’ve known,

 the changes of the season, the call of the Blue Jay – when I’m away, all of them haunt me.”

                                                                                                Gary Burghoff (1943-)

                                                                                                American actor

The title of this essay is silly. Of course, Connecticut has a future. The question is, will it be one that strengthens economic development and reassures residents, especially the retired, to continue to live within its borders. Will it still have, as Mr. Burghoff asks, “the people I’ve known,” or will my family and friends move to more favorable environs. Connecticut has been in the vanguard of those states marching to the tunes of “woke” progressives, who put identity politics and income and wealth distribution ahead of personal liberty, opportunity and individual responsibility. The consequence has seen an exodus of people and businesses, a slow-growth economy and per-capita state debt that is fourth highest in the nation.

Hatred permeates the political landscape: The ugly language of those in the media who have called for the decapitation of the President; elected Representatives who use their office to pursue personal vendettas against Mr. Trump and their influence to enrich themselves; presidential candidates who call for an end to all fossil fuels; the promise of free college, a basic income and socialized medicine – in short, President Obama’s 2012 “Life of Julia” – all to be paid for with a wealth tax and higher income taxes, which would stifle innovation and hamper economic growth. Is it possible progressives have overplayed their hand?

There have been signs of spring’s renewal against this bleak, wintery landscape. Michael Bloomberg recently penned an op-ed in the New York Post, “Rage is Destroying Us”: “…political rage seems to be crowding out political engagement.” His column concluded: “Restoring the ability to disagree without becoming mortal enemies is a new and urgent civic imperative.” Richard Cohen, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, wrote a week ago that he felt “marooned” within the Democratic Party, that he was “…stuck with a party that would replace the segregation of the past with the segregation of the present.” He wrote of his ideal: “My political party would embrace the uniqueness of every individual and not consider him or her (or any other pronoun)[1] a member of a group first, an individual second and use the excuse of past prejudices to create a racial or ethnic patronage system.” My sentiments exactly; yet both he and Mr. Bloomberg are liberal Democrats who have soured on the progressive tilt of their Party.

……………………………………………………

There are other reasons for optimism. Twenty years ago, in Colorado, a group of citizens, concerned about the direction their state was headed, formed the Leadership Program of the Rockies. Its purpose: to train emerging leaders in America’s founding principles – why those principles were important then and how they apply to the challenges we face today. Over two decades, fifteen hundred men and women have graduated, serving their communities in political office, on school boards, but most importantly as well-informed, articulate, influential citizens. That movement has now come to Connecticut.

Last Friday I was invited to attend and observe the inaugural meeting of the Charter Oak Leadership Program for Connecticut. Forty-two invitees, ranging in age from late 20s to late 60s, from twenty-eight Connecticut towns and cities (and two towns in Massachusetts) spent a full day listening to instructors, including former U.S. Congressman Bob Schaffer from Colorado Representative; Thomas Krannawitter, author, professor of history and Director of Defenders of the Declaration; and Michael J. Williams, Director of Defenders of Capitalism.  The meeting was led by president of Leadership of the Rockies, Shari Williams Feese, who I had met in Vienna last April, at a conference organized by the Hayek Institute and the Liberty Fund of Indiana. 

The purpose of the meeting was to instruct the class on the timeless principles that underlay the work of the founding fathers, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence: that individual, natural rights are inherent in our humanity, not derived from government; that government power comes from the consent of the people; that to ensure the limitation of power, the Founders created a government of three separate and equal branches; that the people, in order to fulfill their responsibilities, must be educated, active and engaged; that “refereed” free-market capitalism works best for the people; that property rights, rule of law and mutual respect underlie person-to-person, business-to-business and person-to-business relations; that family is the most important unit in American society; that moral precepts, derived from Plato’s four virtues – justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude – are necessary to maintain our Republic. The premise and the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was explained in intense, word-by-word detail. The role of slavery, at the time of the founding, was discussed in depth. That it was a blight on the founders there is no question, but it must be considered within the framework of the time. That it was even debated and recognized as a concern at the time was unique – and exceptional. For, at the time, slavery was common in all other parts of the world. But in no other country was slavery seen as a problem to be addressed.

We were told that the focus of the Charter Oak Leadership Program must be on the long view. For over eighty years, the United States has moved away from Republicanism – a limited government where ultimate power is embedded in the people, with property rights and rule of law, where minority rights are protected and where the primary role of government is to ensure the sanctity of our natural rights. As society has become more complex, government has assumed more responsibilities, some of which may be necessary. But we must never forget that each time we grant government an additional mandate, we excise some personal freedoms. How much individual freedom are we willing to relinquish? In its desire to be compassionate, government has trivialized the concept of family. In the modern politician’s desire for power, he has given up civility. In our desire for equality of outcomes, we have given up meritocracy. We accept, as we should, immigrants from all cultures, but in our desire to woo them we have embraced multiculturalism rather than values based on cardinal virtues and on our Judeo- Christian heritage. In our rush to be accommodative, we forget what it is about America that attracted immigrants in the first place. 

The fate of our state (and the nation) relies on citizens being knowledgeable of our past – the founders and the form of government they created – and a willingness to assume the responsibilities that come from self-government. In his recent memoir A Republic, If You Can Keep It, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote: “Self-government is a hard business and republics have a checkered record in the court of history.” Ours has lasted almost two and a half centuries. Education is the foundation on which it stands. “Education,” in a quote often attributed to Socrates, “is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” Without the ability to think for one’s self and without knowledge of history and civics, that foundation risks crumbling. The Charter Oak Leadership Program, like the one it replicates in Colorado, is a keystone in the bridge that connects the past to the future and allows our Republic to persist. We cannot allow it to become a haunting memory. We must all do our part. The first thing we must do is consider these issues when next we head to the ballot box.

                                                                                                -

---

[1] The parenthetic phrase struck me as gratuitous, but then tigers never completely lose their stripes.