"Can Connecticut be Saved?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Can Connecticut be Saved?”

October 11, 2018

“Remember, you will be faulted not because you are ignorant against your will,

but because you neglect to seek out what makes you so.”

                                                                                                Saint Augustine (354-430)

Connecticut is in my blood. While I grew up in New Hampshire, I was born in New Haven. During the Second World War, while my father was overseas, my mother returned to her parents in Madison, bringing her [then] four children, including me. In December1965, my wife and I bought our first house, a cape in Glastonbury. A year and a half later we moved to Durham, and four years later to Greenwich. After two decades in that tony suburb, we bought a house in Old Lyme. Two and a half years ago – after a quarter century of idyllic living on the marshes – we moved to Essex.The State resonates with personal history. Two ancestors served as colonial governors (John Webster in 1656 and Thomas Welles in 1655 and 1658). Another two fought in King Philip’s War – Daniel Hotchkiss, a six-great grandfather, served as a sergeant and Captain Stephen Greenleaf, a seven-great grandfather, was wounded at the Battle of Hatfield (Massachusetts) in September 1677. A five-great grandfather, Captain Caleb Hotchkiss was killed during the Battle of New Haven in July 1779, during the American Revolution. Their blood courses through my veins and those of my children and grandchildren. Forefathers are buried in New Haven and Hartford. It is the State in which I was born, have lived most of my life and where I expect to be buried.

So, what has gone wrong with this State, with its magnificent Connecticut River and estuary, its hills, seaports, harbors, country churches, world-class universities, parks, meadows, beaches, towns and cities? Why is Hartford, once the richest city in the United States, on the verge of bankruptcy? Along with Hartford, Waterbury, Bridgeport and New Haven have credit ratings that rank in the bottom 10% nationwide. Why did Bridgeport, the state’s largest city, re-elect a man as mayor who served seven years in prison for corruption during his first term? Why have Hartford and New Haven landed on a list of the nation’s hundred most dangerous cities? What happened to industries like insurance and manufacturing? Connecticut is still wealthy. In terms of GDP per capita, the State ranks 3^rdin the nation and is 6^thin median household income; yet, it ranks 4th in terms of state and municipal debt per capita.

Why does Connecticut rank 4th in the nation in terms of the percent of the population moving out-of-state? Is it, as Governor Malloy would have us believe, because youth wants to live in cities, not suburbs, or is it because the State is unfriendly to business? Its corporate tax is 9^thhighest in the nation and its personal income tax is 10^thhighest. Is it because the State’s economy has shrunk at an annual compounded rate of 0.5% over the past nine years, while Massachusetts’ (formerly known as “Taxachusetts) economy has grown at an annual rate of 2.1 percent?  Or is it because of a loss of freedom? In a 2016 survey, the Cato Institute ranked Connecticut 45^thin terms of personal and economic freedoms. In 1971, when we moved to Greenwich, the State, then with no income tax and low property taxes, was considered the “Switzerland” of the region for commuters into the City. It is now a State that is shunned. 

Between 1955 and 1980 fifty companies moved their headquarters out of New York City, with many moving to Stamford, a city of 130,000, which became the third largest center for corporate headquarters, after New York and Chicago. Today there are ten States that have more S&P 500 companies’ headquarters than the entire State. In the past three years, Aetna, General Electric, Alexion Pharmaceuticals and Duracell have moved out. UBS and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) have abandoned their trading floors in Stamford. In a CNBC business ranking of States, Connecticut scored 45^thin terms of the strength of its economy, 26^thin terms of business-friendly, 43^rdin cost-of-living and 46^thin cost of doing business. Overall, it ranked 37^th, with education (9^th) being its most positive attribute. In an April 2017 analysis of the nation’s fifty states by the American Legislative Exchange Council – which looked back over the decade 2005-2015 – the State ranked 49^thin economic performance and 46^thin economic outlook. (In 2012, when the current governor Dan Malloy took office, the State ranked 36^th.) 

In bygone days, Connecticut had been attractive to business. It had some of the nation’s finest universities, an excellent public-school system, an educated and well-paid labor force, low property taxes and no income tax. Into the mid 1980s, the State continued to do well. It had weathered the outward migration of textile and rubber businesses. A September 18, 1984 New York Timesreport noted that the State was “on a roll,” led by defense spending, corporations moving out of New York City and with small, technology companies replacing brass mills and textile plants. “Most of New England is doing well, but Connecticut stands out,” said James Moor, director of economic research for the Hartford Insurance Group. Unemployment stood at 4.3% versus a nation-wide average of 7.1%. Per capita income was second only to Alaska’s. 

But things began to change. As is common, there is a pendulum-like swing to political parties. In the 1960s, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) – a union founded in 1932 – became more aggressive in Connecticut. The union had been founded to counter the patronage system that caused thousands of workers to lose their jobs every two or four years, as political parties changed. During the 1960s and early 1970s, Yankee traditionalism gave way to social revolution, with its emphasis on civil and women’s rights. (I remember attending, as an alternate delegate, the State Democrat convention in 1970 – the booze, the noise, the pot-filled air gave a sense of the surreal to those of us there.) In 1973 state workers in Connecticut were granted the right to organize, with teachers getting the right in 1975.  As public sector unions expanded in numbers and influence, the power of private sector unions waned. The 1970s recession put pressure on manufacturers, so managements switched retirement programs from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. Keep in mind, when corporations experience financial stress bankruptcy is an option. It is also an option for municipalities, but not for states. Today, according to the Yankee Institute for Public Policy, 94% of Connecticut’s 50,082 fulltime public employees are unionized, earning an average of $73,036, about the same as median householdincome in the State. Current unfunded retirement benefits amount to $100 billion, meaning each of the State’s 3.5 million residents is responsible for about $30,000. Unfunded healthcare benefits add another $10,000 to each of our liabilities.

With the intention of offsetting rising unionized labor costs, higher transfer payments and diminishing State revenues, then Governor Lowell Weicker (Connecticut Party), in the summer of 1991, signed the State’s first income tax legislation. In doing so, he violated a basic principle of governmental fiscal math – increased taxes do not result in smaller deficits. They are always used to justify higher expenditures on new projects, never to reduce debt or ameliorate the expense of existing programs. A simple flat 4.5% income tax in 1991 has been expanded to a complex – 6.99% at the high end – tax, with seven brackets. Deficits have widened, and unfunded pension and health benefits have ballooned. The only beneficiaries have been lawyers, accountants, moving-van companies and State employees.

What has been good for Connecticut’s government workers has not been good for everyone else. A report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed that personal income growth in Connecticut in 2017 was 1.5%, versus 3.1% for the nation, placing the State 44^thout of 50 and the lowest in New England, behind both Maine and Rhode Island, the traditional laggards. Governor Malloy’s tax increases have neither bettered the State’s income prospects nor alleviated its budget and unfunded pension and health liabilities.

The most attractive option for many of the State’s high-earners and wealthy retirees has been to abandon ship. According to the Yankee Institute, in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, 20,179 residents left Connecticut, taking with them $2.6 billion in adjusted gross income, or $128,846 per individual. During the year, the State accepted 18,000 migrants from outside the United States. As a rule, (and not surprisingly) immigrants’ consumption of a State’s resources, in their first two or three years, exceeds their contribution. Even excluding any costs associated with immigrants, lost tax income to the state – from those who chose to leave – amounted to about $100 million. Only New York, New Jersey and Illinois had a greater percentage of their population leaving.

Since Mr. Weicker introduced the income tax to Connecticut, the fiscal situation of the State has deteriorated, under two Republican governors and one Democrat – Republican John Rowland (who went to jail); Republican Jodi Rell, who switched her residency to Florida once she left office, and the current Governor Democrat Dan Malloy, who raised taxes more than all other governors combined and who has the dubious distinction of bearing the lowest approval rating of any governor in the Country. While neither Republican governor stemmed the bleeding, there has been, throughout this period, one constant: A Democrat-controlled legislature. The last time the State had both a Republican Governor and a Republican Legislature was 1976. Forty-two years is a long time for one-party rule. Should Connecticut elect a Republican Governor anda Republican House and Senate there is no assurance that sanity would return, but it is the best shot we have to emerge from the darkness that has enshrouded the State. To travel with Ned Lamont down the road paved by Dan Malloy would be to do “the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”[1](A vote for the third-party candidate Oz Griebel, with his poll numbers barely out of single digits, is to vote againstyour second choice.) The decision, when one walks into the voting booth on November 6, is easy – vote for Bob Stefanowski and the Party that has not had a majority for half a century.

Contractual agreements with unions have starved other programs badly in need of assistance. A recent report cited by CNBC ranks Connecticut the 4^thworse in terms of infrastructure. Sixty-two percent its major roads are in “poor or mediocre” condition. Eight percent of its bridges (more than 300) are considered “structurally deficient.” Eleemosynary institutions, which serve physically and mentally disabled and disadvantaged children and adults and that depend on State support, are being starved for funds, forcing them into the competitive world of private solicitations. Can Connecticut be saved? The State needs a re-boot and its unions and leaders must face the consequences of what they have wrought. Bankruptcy may not be an alternative, but Venezuela serves as an example of what happens when socialistic, business-unfriendly progressives, on empty promises, seize power. Everybody loses. 

As I wrote at the start of this essay, Connecticut has long been my home and I would prefer to have it remain so. It is also home to two of our children and seven of our grandchildren. I wish them the same love for its history and its natural beauty. I want them to look upon the State not only for its past achievements but for what it can accomplish in the future. Be proud of its education system – its public and private schools and its public and private universities. The State was once the region’s Mecca for freedom, economic growth and universal wealth creation. There is no reason it cannot be so again. We grow most confident and we look forward most assuredly when we have, as mole said in The Wind in the Willows, “…the special value of some anchorage in one’s existence.” Connecticut has served that purpose in the past. Now, it is up to the voters to let it fulfill its promise for the future.    

            

---

[1]A quote generally attributed to Albert Einstein.

"The Month That Was - November 2017"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

The Month That Was

“November 2017”

December 1, 2017

“November’s sky is chill and drear;

November’s leaf is red and sear.”

                                                                                                Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)

                                                                                                “Ettrick Forest in November,” 1808

November is a month for memories. We think of the Pilgrims who celebrated their first year in the New World, in 1621 – and try to make sense of the hardships they endured, all for the cause of freedom to worship as they chose. We give thanks they succeeded. On the 11^th of November, we remember the 18 million soldiers and civilians who died in World War I – a day commemorated as Armistice, Poppy, Remembrance and Veterans Day. Sadly, it was a war that did not “end all wars,” but served as prelude to a bigger conflict. But, in the end, freedom prevailed. On November 22^nd, 1963 at 12:30PM President John F. Kennedy was assassinated – catapulting the nation into a struggle to understand, why? For us who were young and free, it was as though we also had been struck down. And, that most iconic of American films, Casablanca, premiered in New York City on November 26, 1942 – Thanksgiving Day. It was a movie with relevance today – a story of refugees trapped by events beyond their control, with a majority of the actors and actresses, either foreign born or refugees themselves – all seeking freedom.

The beacon of freedom, more than anything else, defines the world’s conflicts. That was so this month. Some who live in democracies are unappreciative of freedom’s rarity and fragility; for others, it is a distant siren, a promise. Islamic extremists, who despise the concept of freedom – individual, religious, political and economic – were relentless during the month. According to Wikipedia, more than 600 died at Islamists’ hands. Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, a native of Uzbekistan now living in New York, drove a truck down a bike lane in lower Manhattan, killing eight cyclists. Before being caught, he shouted Allahu Akbar! God is the greatest! He had left a note pledging allegiance to ISIS. In a mosque on Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, ISIS gunmen murdered 305 Sufi Muslims, a sect they consider heretical. On the Korean Peninsula, a North Korean soldier, identified only by his surname, Oh, escaped to the South, carrying with him five bullet wounds from North Korean soldiers, who shot him as he slipped across the border. What motivated Oh? Perhaps he had heard President Trump speak in Seoul of the “dazzling light” of South Korea versus the “impenetrable darkness” of the North – “the glories of freedom versus the toll of tyranny.”

Freedom, or the lack thereof, was at the center of the decision to elevate Xi Jinping last month. It is the crux of the debate between Brussels and London over Brexit – between the vision of Europe articulated by Margaret Thatcher almost forty years ago of a region based on nation-states that cooperate in trade and defense, versus the bureaucratic and liberty-challenged monolith preferred by those like Jean Claude Junker – an unaccountable and under-representative government that serves the needs of bureaucrats, not the wishes of the people – the populous. (Populism has been redefined by European politicians and media, and has assumed a pejorative connotation, to include all those – from nationalists to lovers of liberty – who threaten the comfortable lives led by arrogant elites in Brussels.) In the U.S., freedom lurks behind the debate raging between those who want government to do more, and those who would have it do less – to determine where on the spectrum, between anarchy and tyranny, one would prefer our politics to lie. Freedom is at risk in universities and colleges where conservatives are banned and debate is stifled.

Tales of unwanted sexual advances gripped Hollywood, Washington and the media. The sins of Harvey Weinstein unleashed a torrent of similar stories, some true, others fabricated; some incredulously denied, others admitted to with “crocodile” tears. The consequence, we hope, will be a society more respectful, but which will maintain due process[1]. Off-year elections proved a boon to Democrats, as they did well in state elections and won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. In a bad year for his Party, John Curtis kept Utah’s third Congressional District seat in Republican hands. Twenty-six people were shot and killed in a Texas church, including the pastor’s fourteen-year-old daughter. In Thornton, Colorado, a man carrying a handgun walked into a Walmart and shot three people dead. And in the northern California town of Rancho Tehama a maniacal gunman killed five people, including his wife. As ubiquitous as mass shootings have become, the problem is not, in my opinion, guns. It is a system that allows the mentally disturbed to purchase weapons. Border agent Rogelio Martinez was stoned to death in an attack along the Big Bend Sector of the Texas-Mexico border, abetting the call for stronger border security.

The House version of the tax bill was released, along with misinformation from what purports to be a responsible press, especially as it pertains to the deductibility of state and local taxes. Republicans would have been smarter had they explained that this bill would drive economic growth by reducing corporate and low and middle-income tax rates, but would raise taxes on high-income people living in high-taxed states.

Richard Cordray stepped down as chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an agency set up by the Obama Administration, which receives funding from the Federal Reserve, not Congress. It is a rogue agency, essentially the handwork of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) who hand-picked its director, Mr. Cordray. It is unaccountable to Congress and designed to be independent of the Executive. It has shaken down banks for tens of millions of dollars, giving them no chance to appeal. The proceeds have been used to fund groups that support the CFPB’s mission and policies. Mr. Cordray’s resignation set off a storm between the agency, the President and Senator Warren. Before leaving, Mr. Cordray anointed his assistant Leander English as interim director. Mr. Trump appointed OMB Director Mike Mulvaney, an outspoken critic of the CFPB, for the same position. Courts sided with the President. The federal bribery case against Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) ended in a hung jury. Adding fuel to the fires that consume political intrigues in Washington was Donna Brazile’s new book, “Hacks.” In it she disclosed an agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC. In return for needed cash, the Clintons got a right of first refusal over the party’s communication director and final say on all staff.

President Trump made a ten-day trip to Asia, visiting Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines. The purpose was to attend an Asia-Pacific Economic Council (APEC) meeting in Danang, Vietnam, where he chatted informally with Vladimir Putin. He argued for fair trade practices: “…we seek robust trade relationships rooted in the principles of fairness and reciprocity.” But, the real purpose was to garner support for further isolating North Korea. Later, Air China suspended flights to North Korea, and the Friendship Bridge, which crosses the Yalu River, was closed, if only temporarily. Perhaps in response, North Korea launched its first missile in two months – a missile capable of reaching the U.S.

Syria signed the Paris Accord, joining a list of other climate-responsible nations, like Afghanistan, North Korea and Zimbabwe. Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Muhammed bin Salmon seems determined to bring his country into the 21^st Century by restoring moderate Islam, limiting dependency on oil and lessening the role and influence of the royal family. Despite the fact that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers who attacked the United States sixteen years ago were Saudi citizens, the Prince spoke of his country’s fight against Islamic terrorism. He was quoted in the November 27^th edition of The Financial Times: “Today, we began tracking down terrorism…We will pursue it until it disappears completely from the face of the earth…The greatest danger of extremist terrorism is in distorting the reputation of our tolerant religion.” It is a given that Islamic extremism will never be defeated until moderate Muslims join the chase. Perhaps they have. Germany still has not formed a government, but a grand coalition may be in the offing. In October, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) won just over 30% of the vote. Second, were Social Democrats (SPD), led by Martin Schulz, with a little over 20%. Failure to form a minority government had Mrs. Merkel making the case for new elections. But such a prospect worried the SPD because of fear that the far-right AfD Party, which had been third in the elections and is anti-EU, may be gaining support. In the meantime, Britain stumbles towards Brexit, hamstrung by elites in London and Brussels who have created their own form of “resistance.” Robert Mugabe resigned as President of Zimbabwe, after a terror-filled thirty-seven-year reign that caused his resource-rich country to become one of the world’s poorest. His former Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa, a man Mugabe had fired, was sworn in as President. A $10 million dollar-settlement and immunity from prosecution were offered to placate the 93-year-old Mr. Mugabe.

Jerome Powell, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, was named as the new chairman. Third quarter GDP growth was revised up to a positive 3.3%. General Electric cut its quarterly dividend by 68%, to $0.10 per share. The current yield places the stock above the midpoint for all S&P companies, on a yield basis. Going forward, GE will focus on healthcare, power and aerospace. Softbank offered Uber, a private company, a price 30% below last year’s valuation for a 14% stake. Uber, a disruptive technology unpopular with the Left, has been a bane for unionized taxi drivers and fleet owners, the latter who benefit from regulation that limits the number of medallions. Nevertheless, progress persists. Volvo received an order from Uber for 24,000 self-drive cars, to begin production in 2019. As manifestation of the decline in cable television viewership, ESPN lost two million subscribers this past fiscal year. They are now 88 million viewers versus 100 million in 2010. The price of Bitcoins soared above $11,000. In a column in The Wall Street Journal, James Mackintosh noted that in May 2010 a programmer paid 10,000 Bitcoins for two pizzas, or the equivalent today of $7 million a slice!

The Houston Astros beat the L.A. Dodgers to win the World Series. For the first time in forty years, an American woman won the New York marathon, with a time of 2:26:53, a minute ahead of last year’s champion, Mary Keitany of Kenya who was second.

In other news, Prince Harry, fifth in line to the English crown, announced his engagement to the beautiful Meghan Markle, a mixed-race, divorced American actress. Leonardo da Vinci’s painting “Salvator Mundi” sold for $450.3 million at Christies. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was physically attacked by a neighbor. The release of Bin Laden’s documents show that he was still in charge and had ties to Iran. A 7.3 magnitude earthquake along the Iraq-Iran border left 330 dead. A Texas trooper was shot and killed during a routine road stop. Anthony Weiner reported to a federal prison in Massachusetts and Oscar Pistorius had his prison sentence doubled when he appealed his six-year term. The Pope made a politically sensitive trip to Myanmar. President Trump put a hold on the Department of Interior’s decision to allow the importation of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia, referring to trophy hunting as a “horror show.”  American rapper, Swoop Dogg’s new album cover showed the body of Trump in a morgue with the album’s title: “Make America Crip Again!” I don’t think Mr. Broadus likes Mr. Trump.

Actor and singer David Cassidy died at age 67. Liz Smith, queen of the tabloid gossip columnists died at 94. Jim Nabors, aka Gomer Pyle, died at 87. I lost a cousin – a first cousin once removed – Caroline Blake who died at 102, and a friend from Old Lyme, Bob Adams died at age 87. And my youngest son’s brother-in-law Tom Comer suffered a heart attack and died too young at age 54.

Today marks the first of December, the last month of the year. As we age, time rushes by at an ever-increasing pace. An hour is still an hour, a day yet a day, and a month a month. We cannot slow time down or speed it up, but we can and we should appreciate its value and extract all we can, from each minute, week and year. Despite our differences, whether racial, religious, economic, cultural, or political, and no their intensity, we should respect one another. May your holidays be merry. May love and peace reign throughout the world.

---

[1] I will have more to say on this subject in Monday’s Thought of the Day.

"Moderation in the Realm of Politics"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Moderation in the Realm of Politics”

November 13, 2017

“Moderation in all things, especially moderation.”

                                                                                                Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

When considering moderation in politics, we must differentiate between outcomes and process – ideologies versus behavior. The French political philosopher Montesquieu claimed humans naturally migrate toward the center – that policies are best that accommodate the greatest number. On the other hand, Adam Smith, in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, suggested it is moderation in social interactions, regardless of political opinions, which allow people to relate to and understand one another.

Most Americans believe in a mixture of government and personal independence – an equilibrium allowing the country to prosper, while preserving the obligations society demands. Politics is the search for that balance, but it is a Sisyphean struggle that never satisfies everyone. Polarization is today’s political nemesis. Mainstream media argues that extremism, especially from the right, has made people yearn for moderation. As well, blame is laid on social media that gives expression to myriad views and inspires populist politicians to take advantage of the resulting (seemingly) broken system. Blame is also attributed to media outlets like C-SPAN, venues for posturing politicians playing to their ideological bases.

Those desirous for moderation in politics often hark back to the 1950s, a period seen as relatively quiet – a time of normalcy, to borrow a word from the 1920s. But that era of uniformity, in the long history of our country, was atypical. The number of newspapers had declined, and was still falling. Talk radio did not exist. Television was in its infancy, with only three network television stations, each with fifteen-minute or half-hour news segments. There was little difference between John Chancellor of NBC, Walter Cronkite of CBS and John Daly of ABC. There were no forums for alternative views. We were trapped in a monolith, with little option but to conform. But that is not as it always was. Pamphleteers and writers of broadsheets, in the early years of our republic, provided thousands of people the opportunity to vent individual opinions, much like bloggers today.

Five years ago, David Brooks wrote: “The moderate tries to preserve the tradition of conflict, keeping opposite sides balanced…that most public issues involve trade-offs.” But he added, “Being moderate does not mean being tepid.” I agree. It is not moderate outcomes we need, but moderation in the way we present and debate ideas – we should be civil, but should never underestimate the rarity and value of freedom. It is fundamental to our being, as Senator Barry Goldwater made clear when he declared in 1964: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

In the years since Goldwater spoke, our government has become more bureaucratic and, consequently, less free. Those who support more government search for opportunities that give breath to their desire for more bureaucracy. We saw it in the last Administration, from the environment to healthcare to education. The internet, its ubiquity, the memes it creates and its unwitting promotion of extremism, is another example. Claims that Russia hacked our election has given legitimacy to the demand for more regulation of the internet and social media. “The Economist” jumped into the fray this past week, with a title story sub-headlined, “Once considered a boon to democracy, social media have started to look like its nemesis.” The article referenced the disinformation campaigns of Vladimir Putin’s Russia into Ukraine, France, Germany and the U.S. They quoted officials from Facebook who claimed that Russian-paid ads reached about 40% of our population. But, keep in mind, Facebook has said that Russian ads added $100,000 to revenues last year, while total fourth quarter 2016 ad revenues were $8.81 billion. In the scheme of things, Russia was not that important to Facebook. Social media has allowed millions to express themselves, some in polarizing fashion, with many – perhaps most – making unsupported allegations. But, legitimate opinions, based on facts and solid work, are also expressed. (I could not write and publish as I do, without the internet.) Separating fact from fiction is difficult. In 1971, the economist Herbert Simon warned: “A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.” With knowledge doubling every twelve months, the amount of data readily available has vastly increased and methods of communication are more varied and numerous than forty-six years ago. But, we restrict it at our peril.

Attempts to control or regulate social media lead to bigger concerns. Who, for example, will watch the watchers? Could not this become Orwell’s Big Brother in Oceania? The problem is not dissimilar to attempts to control campaign finance spending. Those in favor may be well-intentioned, but consequences are not always as intended. Well-funded candidates with smart lawyers find loopholes. I am not an anarchist, but I do know that every regulation imposed diminishes someone’s freedom. As a paid-up citizen of the U.S., I appreciate the need for government and regulation, but I also know that authoritarianism can descend from a bureaucratic administrative state.

In his recent book, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in the Age of Extremes, Aurelian Craitu, Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, wrote that Plato defined moderation as “the virtue that allows us to control our passions, emotions and desires.” He noted that democratic institutions depend on politicians acting with “self-restraint, common sense and moderation;” yet “we live in a world of hyperbole and political intransigence.” In such a world, “moderation appears as a bland, incoherent and undesirable virtue,” unlikely to succeed in a political campaign. (Think of Mitt Romney – smart, decent, but unexciting.)

Political extremism does cause people to yearn for moderation. But, we should be careful, less moderation leads to uniformity. Many want the balance of which David Brooks wrote. But, do we arrive there with moderate-thinking politicians? Or, are we better off with those who believe passionately in their causes, but are flexible and pragmatically inclined to accept what they can? Like Stuart Little’s quest, the search for perfection in government goes on. We are a diverse nation, with multiple ideologies. We can and should debate issues, but in a forum of civility where principles are not sacrificed and where moderators (and the media) are impartial. It is compromise that is missing in Washington. When selective colleges put together freshmen classes they don’t seek the best all-round high school seniors; they look for the best musician, the best athlete, the best artist, the best math, science, history and literature students – all ‘extremists’ in their fields – to compose, in composite, a class that reflects the ideal they desire. Should not Washington have the best legislators, men and women who are principled but not inflexible?

Professor Craitu added: “An able politician…resembles a good funambulist: he or she needs balance in all respects, must be prudent, alert and quick to react…He or she must have the courage to go against the grain when needed, and should always demand the other side be heard on any controversial topic.” Self-righteousness and partisanship have become common in Washington. The moderation we need is in behavior, not policies. One should not be moderate in one’s views toward liberty, freedom and democracy.