Radiofree West Hartford - THE DEMOCRAT CONFIRMATION SIDE SHOW by Tim Siggia

CONNECTICUT CONSERVATIVES' QUANDARY

By Tim Siggia

February 04, 2006

Mid-term elections are coming up this year, which for many, if not most, states, means gubernatorial races. In certain parts of the country, it also poses a dilemma for conservatives: the question of whom to vote for. These days that is seldom a problem in national elections, where there is usually a clear choice not only of candidates, but of political philosophies. But in mid-term elections, it becomes a problem in places where one ideology so totally dominates the political scene that it renders all other viewpoints irrelevant.

Connecticut, firmly ensconced in the liberal Northeast, is one of those places. This year, the Connecticut gubernatorial contest pits current governor M. Jodi Rell, who succeeded the disgraced John G. Rowland as governor when he was forced to resign his office, against two Democratic contenders, one of whom will emerge as that party's candidate: New Haven mayor John DeStefano and Stamford mayor Dan Malloy. Which of these two eventually does get the nod is immaterial, for the similarities among these three contenders far outweigh the differences.

You read that last part right: the three contenders. For Governor Rell is every bit as liberal, especially on social issues, as either of her two Democratic rivals. Just don't tell her that, as she will insist that she is not liberal, but moderate. In this part of the country, only Democrats are liberal. Republicans are always moderate, even if, in fact, there is no difference whatsoever between their stands on the issues and those of the most liberal of Democrats.

Consider, for instance, some of what has transpired since Jodi Rell left the lieutenant governor's office to assume the governorship. Connecticut is now one of the few states granting civil unions to same-sex couples. Like Bill Clinton's ill-starred "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military, the apparent compromise has satisfied no one. With state representative and gay-rights champion Michael Lawlor leading the charge, gay-rights activists insist such unions relegate gays to second-class citizenship. They still hold out for gay marriage. Conservatives and family activists, on the other hand, counter that the civil unions are in fact gay marriages in everything but name, not only forcing employers to extend the same benefits to these couples as those in traditional heterosexual marriage, but tending to erode and redefine the very concept of marriage itself.

Staunchly pro-abortion, as is practically every office holder of either party in Connecticut, Rell gave the green light to embryonic stem cell research, which uses the stem cells of aborted fetuses. Such research is strongly condemned by most major Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, in which many, if not most, Connecticut residents claim membership. Governor Rell has also pushed for and achieved a campaign finance reform law at the state level similar to the McCain-Feingold law which has proven not only ineffective, but in fact unconstitutional, as it places limits on political free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Under the provisions of the Connecticut law, contractors and lobbyists are barred from contributing to political campaigns -- this obviously in reaction to the Rowland scandal which involved contractors who provided gifts to Rowland in exchange for political favors.

Connecticut, like the rest of its Northeastern neighbors, is a state sworn and committed to the doctrine of liberalism. None but that one political viewpoint has any validity in Connecticut. Political party affiliation makes no difference because, as noted above, both major parties are equally liberal. Governor Rell has, in fact, even publicly criticized her own party's national leadership for being "too conservative." This does not mean, however, that Connecticut's residents are all as liberal as their leaders, for this is not the case. The existence of web sites like Radiofree West Hartford and organizations like the Family Institute of Connecticut bear this out. So how does one go about the process of reconciling a Red State ideology with a Blue State address?

One obvious answer is get out of the Blue State, one which the liberal majority here would no doubt love to see conservatives take. Indeed, the idea of moving to friendlier ground is a tempting one. This, however, is easier said than done. Too many of Connecticut's conservatives have lifetime investments in Connecticut in the form of homes, property, mortgages, and jobs. Uprooting and relocating is a difficult enough process even when your employer is helping you with it in terms of expenses and, of course, a guaranteed job at your new destination. Doing it alone is so daunting a task that few, at least of pre-retirement age, would care to undertake it. But a second consideration, even more important than the first, is that to these people, conservative though they may be, Connecticut is home -- their home, not merely that of the liberals. They do not want to leave, even as they realize that in retirement they may be forced to do so by Connecticut's high taxes and exorbitant cost of living, both the results of long-term liberal dominance.

So what's a conservative to do if he lives in Connecticut, or, for that matter, in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, or any of these other liberal-dominated states? Well, there are options, though admittedly none of them is ideal, to say the least.

1. Vote for The Enemy. Let's face it, in a state like Connecticut, where there is nobody but liberals to vote for, many would consider that the only option. Currently enjoying approval ratings of 78 percent, Jodi Rell is all but guaranteed to be elected anyway. Of course, taking this option means not merely compromising your conservative convictions, but scuttling them altogether. Those with strong religious tenets especially will find it difficult to vote -- and by so voting, give their approval to -- a governor who sees nothing wrong with the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, or with sexual relationships described in the biblical Book of Leviticus as "an abomination."

2. Don't vote at all. Once again, a tempting option for many. If neither of the candidates truly represents you or your way of thinking, why even bother to go to the polls at all? But then, too many of us will pause to remember the great and many sacrifices made by those who went before us just so we could have this right. Withholding a vote also implies that the non-voter has no problem with whoever does get elected -- and conservatives obviously will have numerous problems with liberal leadership. As the old saying goes, if you didn't vote, don't complain.

3. Make yours a protest vote. If a candidate's name isn't on the ballot you can still vote for him -- even if he hasn't officially made himself a candidate. The write-in process allows us to do that, and those who exercise this option can leave the polls satisfied that they have done their civic duty, and they have voted for someone in whom they truly believe, not merely the lesser of two evils. They must also realize, however, that the one for whom they voted not only has no chance of winning, but that they, by voting in this manner, may have actually helped the one they didn't want to get elected.

As stated previously, none of these choices is obviously the best over the other two -- but for conservatives in the liberal Northeast, as well as those in other liberal enclaves, they are the only choices available.

Back in 1964, the late senator Barry Goldwater offered us "a choice, not an echo." The American people made their choice, and buried Goldwater in an historic landslide. But at least they had that choice. Perhaps one day, even if it comes a century after Goldwater's unsuccessful run for the presidency, that choice will finally be available in Connecticut and its neighboring states.