The cure for progressive overreach is for voters to marry an older woman

“The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections,” Ben Franklin wrote to a friend in 1745, “none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy .... [and Lastly] They are so grateful!!”

The Republican Party in Connecticut has for a long while been the old wife voters do not wish to marry. Registered Democrats in the state still outnumber Republicans by a ratio of two to one, and Democrats are outnumbered by party averse Independents, who, hopping from bed to bed, apparently do not believe in political marriages. This may be changing. Republicans will be very grateful if it does.

The change, if any, will be brought about in part by the mistreatment suffered by voters at the hands of their contractual spouse, the Democratic Party. Gov. Dannel Malloy’s fling with Connecticut voters certainly changed radically after Malloy’s first honeymoon campaign was over.

Economically, everyone in the state but for those receiving tax payouts is poorer following the largest and second largest tax increases in state history. But the radical changes among Connecticut’s cutting edge progressives may best be appreciated when viewing social rather than economic issues.

The operative economic principle of progressivism is that laisse faire government is inherently unjust for reasons stated by Woodrow Wilson, whose view on the prerogatives of the state was, well… different.

Prior to the advent of the Wilson presidency, said Wilson, “the ideal of government was for every man to be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else; and that the best government was the government that did as little governing as possible.” However, this arrangement, Wilson felt, leaves defenseless citizens at the mercy of predatory corporations.

Limits on government should be expanded, Wilson thought, so that the “sphere of the state may reach as far as the nature and needs of man and of men reach, including intellectual and aesthetic wants of the individual, and the religious and moral nature of its citizens.”

Government overreach under both outgoing President Barack Obama and Malloy is proof, if any were needed, that a government without limits that does everything will do everything poorly.

Is there ANY area of life into which the state may not intrude in order to redress perceived injustices? Apparently not, according to the modern progressive. Wilson, a Princeton professor, had an aversion to Big Business; but the modern progressive has an aversion to anyone seeking to escape molestation by an omnipresent and omniscient state.

Connecticut has been for the past few years a vanguard progressive state. It provides sanctuary to undocumented aliens, college educations to some of its convicted criminals and its governor has proudly marched with union strikers, some craven few would say, to garner union votes during elections. Such was the case before Malloy very recently detected retrograde conservative tendencies in his approach to governance. “Who is the most conservative governor that any of you have worked with in the last whatever period of time you’ve been here?” Malloy recently asked Connecticut’s media. The media, dumbfounded, could make no answer.

Malloy’s messaging is purposely confusing. Is his government fish or fowl, progressive or conservative? It cannot be both.

Malloy is quoted most recently in Politico to this effect in defense of sanctuary cities: “I am not a shy individual; I have opinions, and as long as people ask my opinion I will lend it.” No kidding.

And he continues, “There are these states that are progressive that have benefited from that progressiveness, that are going to be examples of restraint and voices of responsibility. I would urge right-thinking individuals who’ve benefited from the advances our society has made to not be quiet.

We’re going to continue to do the things we can do, and the things we can afford to do. We’re certainly not going to backtrack on refugees. We’re certainly not going to backtrack on gay, lesbian, transgender rights. We’re certainly not going to give up on making sure our citizens have health care.”

Sure, sure. Progressivism is the opposite of a doctrine of governmental restraint, and progressives in Malloy’s administration have been boisterously progressive, in word and deed. Connecticut is suffering from progressive overreach, the corrective for which is a large dose of conservativism or, as President Cal Coolidge might have insisted, a return to normalcy, economic and social.

That is the message that was delivered by voters during the late lamented national elections. This unsatisfied longing for normalcy very well may deliver the political heights in Connecticut to Republicans in the near future. To be sure, Donald Trump, infested with some dangerous conservative tendencies, is no “silent Cal,” but neither is Malloy.

Government overreach under both outgoing President Barack Obama and Malloy is proof, if any were needed, that a government without limits that does everything will do everything poorly.