CT Blue

Last night I attended the Ritter-Formica State Senate (CT -20th) debate. I find attending debates a frustrating experience, and this was no exception, for the reasons I'll get into. We were there (my wife and I), to support Betsy Ritter, a good friend, true progressive, and excellent legislator.

But I'm not here to talk about Betsy. This post is about Connecticut style Republicans, as exemplified by Paul Formica, Betsy's opponent.

Let me start with what should have been the lead (but goes unmentioned) in the article about the debate in the New London Day. Formica had no idea that there is a measure on the ballot this year to change our constitution to allow the legislature to implement early voting, easier absentee ballot access, etc. Right now, the constitution defines the criteria for absentee balloting and voting, and any changes require a constitutional amendment. It's a frankly ridiculous provision. The League of Women Voters asked each candidate for their views. Formica implicitly accused the audience of sharing his ignorance by suggesting that the League rep read the ballot question,allegedly for the benefit of the audience, but really for his. They did, but that still wasn't enough for him to understand what the question was about, or craft his usual “I think we should talk about that” answer. One would think his ignorance of this very important ballot question would give the New London Day's Editorial Director (Paul Choiniere) pause before giving Formica the Day's endorsement, but Formica has that endorsement in the bag. The Day will cite his business experience, (he runs a fish market) and tell us all that we need that valuable experience in the legislature, despite the fact that there is really no good evidence that business people do much in the legislature other than look after their own interests. After all, that's what they're taught to do.

But let's get to the Republican modus operandi, as practiced by Mr. Formica.

Connecticut is not a crazy state. See, contra, Texas, Alabama, Missisissippi, …oh, heck, pretty much all of the old Confederacy and a few other states thrown in. Flat out crazy does not sell here. Nonetheless, we have our share of crazies, be they gun nuts, “libertarians”, John Galt worshippers, religious cranks, or racists. Some of these people may be Democrats, but if so, no one has found one. The rest are Republicans, and though they are not a majority of the state by any means, they are rapidly becoming at least a plurality of Republicans in this state, as the non-crazies become more and more repelled at the monster that the national Republican Party has become. So, folks like Formica have a problem. Crazy doesn't sell, but if you go full bore sane you risk alienating the only remaining loyal Republicans. What's a not totally insane person to do?

The answer, at least the one adopted by Formica and many others, is to say nothing while implying you are for everything and also against everything. As with Schrödinger's cat, your true state is discovered only when the box is opened (if then). Formica's answer on the gun legislation was a classic example. (I can't quote verbatim, I can only give the gist). Betsy was quite clear that she supported the gun legislation as written, though she felt there might be some areas in which it can be strengthened to protect victims of domestic violence. Formica felt we should discuss possible alterations to the bill. The details? What details? He felt we shouldn't criminalize law abiding citizens, which is an oxymoron, of course. If a person breaks the law by possessing an illegal gun, they are not law abiding. But in the end, he gave not a hint what he would actually do if he were in office, other than saying that he was willing to talk about guns and everything else. In fact, it's fair to say that he did not give a single direct answer in the entire debate. Now, I must be truthful and say that there was one question that I thought Betsy danced around. It's something politicians do, but when it's all they do, you have to wonder.

One question that Formica evaded was particularly interesting, and particularly telling. It is a standard Republican talking point that the John Galts of the world are being stifled by excessive taxes, regulations, and other various governmental impediments that prevent them from delivering the capitalist nirvana and good life for all that would otherwise exist without the nefarious government. Choiniere actually used a question (see below) which asked for specific examples of government regulations that were stifling business. Now, given Formica's endless repetition of this Republican trope (a variant of it appeared in almost every one of his responses, you'd think this was a softball question. But no. Formica's response was to start to dance again, and then make the mistake of mentioning the newly enacted requirement for paid sick days as an example of government overreach. He said that he himself paid sick days to his employees, but it was something that was none of the government's business. So that's the best he could do on the question, and you could tell he realized he had put his foot in his mouth when he let that detail slip.

Let's take a little side trip, for this example exposes another fundamental problem with the Republican “philosophy”, quote marks used because it's hard to call something so incoherent a philosophy. To his credit, Formica pays his employees for sick days. Undoubtedly, most small business owners do (my law firm does, for example). It's hard for even a low level psychopath to look someone in the eye and tell them that they have to work sick or their kids will have to go hungry. But the folks at McDonald's don't look anyone in the eyes, and it appears to be easy for them and their Walmartian ilk to view human beings as expendable production units, whose dignity as human beings need not be considered or respected. It follows that it is Formica's “philosophy” that these psychopaths should have an economic advantage over people like him that treat their employees like human beings. It would never happen, considering the format of these debates, and Choiniere's question selection, but should't this be asked: why isn't it the role of the government to assure that every worker is treated with a certain level of respect and assured a decent days wages. In a nutshell, why shouldn't the government establish terms of employment below which the psychopaths cannot go?

The examples of incoherence abound. We heard in response to every question that taxes are too high and spending is out of control, yet we were never told precisely where this out of control spending is taking place. We were also told, in fuzzy generalities, that we need to have great schools, good health care, etc., but we were left to wonder how we were going to pay for these things after we cut taxes. Magical thinking abounds on the right.

When asked what he thought about non-profit hospitals turning into for-profits, Formica responded that he felt the market should decided these questions (before catching himself and reverting to generalities, but he didn't retract the magic of the market comment). We hear this a lot from Republicans. Yet, when it comes to cases, particularly when it comes to throwing money at corporations, the acts don't seem to be consistent with the words. After telling us that we should be at the mercy of a for-profit corporation when it comes to our health care (Our local hospital is clearly headed in that direction), he told us that one of his greatest accomplishment's as first selectman of East Lyme was his support of a Joe Courtney initiative to develop rail transportation to New London's harbor. (Sort of ironic coming from Joe's 2012 opponent) But, one must ask, if that rail transport is such a good thing, shouldn't the market have already taken care of it? Indeed, why support any government program that supports any business (as Formica surely does), for isn't the government getting in the way of the market's all knowing, always beneficent, invisible handian operation? In actuality, the Republican philosophy, as implicitly advanced by Formica, is this: The market should decide whenever the market's decision benefits our overlords, but when they want to put their snouts in the trough, by all means we should fill it with goodies.

I suggest that Formica is not unique; he is typical. Foley, for instance, is much the same. These folks run for office without giving us the slightest hint of what they intend to do when elected. Mostly because they know we wouldn't like it if they told us. That's why, in the case of people like Foley, it's so useful to catch them in unscripted moments when they let their guard down (usually in front of their fellow plutocrats) and give us an idea of what they really think, when they, for instance, start talking about “Wisconsin moment[s]”.

Now, a few word's about the New London Day. Paul Choiniere, head of the Editorial section of the Day, selected the questions from among written questions emailed to the Day, or submitted by the audience. But that was a total farce. Besides the obligatory gun question (the Day is ever anxious to appease its right wing detractors (they who cannot be appeased)) the selected questions all reflected the Day's obsessions, with the possible exception of the very first question, propounded only by Lawrence and Memorial Hospital, a self-serving question asking whether the candidates would commit to relieving hospitals of the hospital tax. I know that at least two people submitted questions about climate change, but those questions, along with any other question that did not involve “economic development” or taxes, went unasked. This is standard Day practice; it did the same thing at the recent debates involving the state representatives that represent the Groton area. Wait, I must correct myself, there was also a question about the common core. But the essential point stands; the Day's solicitation of questions is a farce. Your question will be asked so long as it is a question that Paul Choiniere would have asked anyway.