Conn. Republican Party should secede
Like all state parties, the CT-GOP is linked to the broader national party. It supports its presidential candidate, it works to implement traditional Republican ideals, and to aid the national party. It is, by definition, a branch on the Republican oak.
Has being a part of this national party helped? The national affiliations of the party do nothing but hurt the party in Connecticut. Connecticut voters, by and far, despise the current national Republican Party. Trump lost by 13% in Connecticut in 2016. This margin may seem close. But in reality, it was because of Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity, not because voters liked Trump. In 2020, when the Democrats fielded anyone besides her, Trump lost by 20%. Twenty percent! He was so hated in Connecticut that the state voted 16% more Democratic than the national average.
The Republican Party also flops in Congressional Races. In four out of five of the House districts, Democrats won by around 20% in 2022. That same year saw U.S. Sen Richard Blumenthal re-elected, beating his Republican competitor by 15%. It has been a Democratic stronghold since 2008.
On the state level, the Republicans do little better. It barely rules a third of the Senate, and four of those seats were won by less than 1.5%. In the House, they are barely treading water, having about 35% of the seats. Five of their 53 seats were won by 2% or less. Ned Lamont won reelection by about 13%.
Connecticut despises the Republican Party. It is facing the very-real threat of having less than onethird in both houses, and losing the governor’s office. In practice, this is an extinction to the party. They would lose any-and-all governing power in the state.
Connecticut hating Republicans doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have an opposition. Every successful democracy needs to have an opposition. Political parties need to face a possibility of losing. That keeps them accountable to the voters. If a party knows that it will win every time, they have a dangerous amount of freedom in either enacting very unpopular legislation, or in enacting no legislation.
Not everything is sunshine and roses in Connecticut. Energy-and-gas prices are still through the roof; roofs that most can’t afford, as housing prices have also skyrocketed. People are leaving the state in droves, and its economy has stagnated for years. Clearly the Democrats are not perfect. They need an opposition to either force them to compete and fix things, or they will lose an election, and an opposition can have a shot at governance. That’s how democracy should work.
What benefits does the CT GOP get from remaining part of the GOP? Perhaps some state funding, but let’s be honest, it can’t be that much. The national organization cannot be giving that much to this failing, unpopular state-party. Perhaps there’s some other support, like receiving training, or positive news coverage from Republican sources. Clearly, however, this is not helping that much if the party is doing this badly.
It’s not like national Republican politics are popular here, either. Connecticut residents overwhelmingly favor of abortion, gay rights, and fighting climate change. National Republican policy is unattractive in Connecticut.
Who votes for the Republicans here? It is overwhelmingly either rural areas or the elderly. So, on one hand of their base, they are elderly who are dying out or leaving the state. On the other hand, there are rural areas which are shrinking. Associating with the unpopular national party and its unpopular policies will lead to the Republicans becoming an irrelevant party in Connecticut.
If Republicans really want to steadfastly support those policies, they can. But they will be relegated to such a small influence in the state that they won’t even be able to fight for these policies. A permanent trifecta in the state, with two-thirds majorities in both houses, will allow the Democrats to uncompetitively do whatever they want.
How do you become competitive? Well, make yourself appealing to voters; and that means not being “Republican.” Connecticut’s Republican Party should just secede from the national party. It can have the same members. But they should simply found a new, independent party, specifically just for Connecticut. One focused on policies that can actually win elections. Aggressively fighting for cost-of-living reforms and policies that are actually popular. Then, and only then, will the Democrats have competition, and Connecticut can be a competitive (and therefore functional) democracy.
JOE PISANI
I’ve been looking at photos of celebrities and famous people in history books and on websites to find the perfect hairdo for myself. I’m a guy who in the olden days was called “bald,” but in our woke society, no one uses that word anymore. Now, we unfortunates of every gender are called “hair challenged.”
So there you have it. I’m hair challenged. I said it and I feel better already. I surrender. I’ve found acceptance. It’s been a life-long struggle, especially since the few straggling hairs I have are gray. They’ve been gray since middle-age, which used to start around 40, but now begins in your late 60s, according to the Baby Boomers. Tell that to your body.
Anyway, I’m looking for a new hairdo, something a little trendier by 18th century standards. In America, we define our existence by our hair, which is a $17 billion dollar national obsession. Do you think they obsess like this over their hair in Siberia, Nigeria, or Mongolia?
The renowned haircare specialist, St. Paul, once said, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long, it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair, it is her glory …”
Maybe my bald situation is retribution for growing my hair shoulder-length in college, when I was a hippy, radical, intellectual wannabe.
Remember the Bible verse that says, “Even the hairs of your head have all been counted”? Well, it didn’t take God long to count mine. According to my research, redheads have about 90,000 hairs, brunettes 110,000 and blondes 150,000. I have 339. I counted them myself.
Since my 20s, I’ve been suffering from hair shrinkflation, but I lived in hope because every year for the past 30 years there’s supposedly been a miracle baldness cure on the horizon, even though the horizon keeps receding like my hairline. I would have gladly volunteered to be a guinea pig in those scientific tests, but nobody called … which is why I’m resorting to Plan C.
After looking at countless photos of famous bald people and their hairstyles, I wanted my wife to try something new the next time she cuts my hair. (Confidential: The problem is she always cuts my little bit of hair really short. Her own stylist does the same thing to her.)
Why do people get carried away when they have a scissors in their hand? Can’t they exercise some self-restraint? When you ask for a trim, you should be able to walk away with something left. It’s been this way throughout history. Even Samson grappled with the problem. He asked for a trim, and Delilah cut it all off.
Anyway, in keeping with the mood of our country this election year, I plan to get a presidential haircut. I tore pictures out of my American history books, and I’m taking them to a barber because I don’t trust my wife to do it the way I want.
I might call my new hairdo “The Washingtonian.” That’s right. I’m thinking about having my hair styled like George Washington’s. You know how his hair was long on the sides and came down over his ears and sort of curled up like Betty Crocker’s, or maybe it was Betty Boop’s. That’s what I want.
I also considered a hairdo I call “The Trumpian.” It would require dyeing my hair orange and having a serious comb-over. My main worry was it’d lead to political arguments with my friends and physical assaults on the street, so I ditched that idea.
Another possibility, which is more realistic, is what I label “The Eisenhower” — nothing on top and some short stubble surrounding the ears.
Do you realize there have been almost no bald presidents in modern times, partly because of the prevailing belief that being bald means you’re unelectable, which should tell you a lot about how we elect our presidents. I suppose I won’t be running for president in this lifetime.
However, before TV and social media corrupted our brains, bald presidents were the rage, and they did a pretty good job of governing. There was John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams. Baldness ran in their family, and John Q. had the highest IQ of any president. They were also early opponents of slavery. Then, there was Martin Van Buren (who wasn’t reelected because he didn’t care about America’s economic problems) and James Garfield (who unfortunately was assassinated) and Gerald Ford (who wasn’t elected because of that Nixon thing).
The presidency is about image and electability and not necessarily about competence. For my part, I’d take a qualified bald president, man or woman, over someone with a full head of hair who’s a dud.
Come to think of it, I really like the Martin Van Buren look — bald on top with bushy, curly hair over the ears, and mutton chops down the sides. I’ll call it “The Van Buren.” I even like the sound of that. It will make a patriotic fashion statement.
Someone, hand me my curling iron.
Letters should be limited to 300 words. The Stamford Advocate reserves the right to edit letters for space and clarity. E-mail: editorials@scni.com