Rowland Down the River

The debate on hiring former governor John Rowland to a quasi-government economic development company centers around the propriety of having a convicted ex-con in such an important position. On the one hand he's the former governor but on the other hand he just got out of prison not too long ago, humm. Boy are we torn.

We say let him have the job. The job as well as the organization itself, in spite it's many names and purposes doesn't develop economies nor communities. It is merely a facade for well meaning politicians that merely transfers taxpayer dollars to projects and businesses that may or may not fail. If it were 10 times its size it still wouldn't be an engine that grows, reforms, builds anything that has to do with economics or communities.

What we would like to see is that if the organization is going to exist then it ought to be more of a think tank that organizes conferences on local economics and questions of development. Certainly discussions on ideas in such matters would go farther towards the stated purpose then being an organization that is a mere conduit handing out money to projects of questionable viability

The Difference

It is an interesting contrast of Republicans and Democrats when it comes to how it is they regard their respective political philosophy's. Democrats never categorize themselves as liberals or have within their debates disagreements on just who is the true liberal and who is not. Certainly the question would've been redundant because from the start pretty much all candidates in the primaries were true blue liberals. But the tag of "liberal" is not a designation Democratic politicians want to be associated with or would want to demonstrate that such credentials in each were superior to that of other candidates. The word itself is seldom if ever used. On the contrary there are times when a Democrat will say they are a fiscal conservative or "conservative on some issues" which may or may not be the truth but never would a Republican say that they are liberal in anything at anytime. The irony is that Republican candidates look less and less conservative when each of their careers are scrutinized but Democrats seldom miss a beat in how they govern and govern or vote just as they say they would. It seems to be a liberal takes little to no effort but conservatism is something politicians are when running for office and not when in office.

Certainly politicians must compromise and ideological purity is all but impossible if a government of two parties is to get anything done. Conservatism may resonate well with the public with limited government and free market solutions but do we really want to re-elect the guy who says 'you know what, I did as little as I possibly could do in my first term and plan on doing little less in my next term'? Conservatism as a governing philosophy must be a dismantler of things, an un-doer hence the promise of cuts and de-regulate or dismantle, de-fund, scale down, eliminate, while the liberal is building new, expanding, creating, mobilizing, investing, increasing.

If a Democrat wins we would hope for someone aloof and lazy and for a Republican someone who can prove that government doesn't work and ineffective ,above all we would want the next president to have a boring uneventful job with no crisis to deal with no problems to solve