The Con-Con Con

October 30, 2008

Someone needs to explain the concept of “situational awareness” to the people lobbying for a constitutional convention in Connecticut.

Question 1 this year -- “Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?” -- is put before voters every two decades. A clueless band of right-leaning activists has seized on this go-around, hoping that a “yes” result will finally create a citizen-initiative process for the state.

The group’s effort recalls physicist Wolfgang Pauli’s reaction to the subpar paper of a young colleague: “This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”

First, there is zero chance that the delegates appointed to a convention by the far-left Connecticut General Assembly will approve citizen initiatives. A much likelier scenario is that the collectivist policies not yet enacted by the legislature would dominate the convention’s agenda. Taxpayer-funded “universal healthcare”? More state funding of K-12 schools under the guise of “property-tax reform”? The “right” to “free” preschool and college? All might be given constitutional imprimaturs by delegates friendly with the likes of Donald Williams and Christopher Donovan.

Second, even if, by some bizarre warping of reality, the constitution is amended to allow initiatives, it’s doubtful that any pro-liberty questions would be approved -- at least not by Connecticut’s electorate as it exists today. There’s a greater chance that measures designed to make government even costlier and less accountable to citizens would pass.

Leaders of the Constitution Convention Campaign (CCC) seem blissfully ignorant of these two obvious truths. And that brings us back to situational awareness. Mica Endsley, a pioneer in the field, calls it “the perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future.”

CCC’s situational awareness can’t be described as keen. The organization has deluded itself into thinking that not only can it convince Nutmeggers to vote “yes” on Question 1, but then influence the legislature to appoint delegates who will sign off on citizen initiatives. Then it’s time to get voters to approve the con con’s direct-democracy amendment. Then it’s on to drafting the measures that refuse to be considered by what CCC’s chairman calls an “unresponsive state legislature.” (We’re told that among these proposals will be a property-tax cap and a ban on Kelo-style land grabs.) Next up, the expensive campaigns to win “yes” votes for the initiatives. Remember, all this will be accomplished in what is probably the most liberal state -- a place where many GOPers think tax hikes are smart, and government-employee unions spend tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars each election cycle. The notion that CCC and the groups affiliated with it have the talent and resources to prevail in each stage of the process they’re pursuing is so laughable, it doesn’t warrant discussion.

So is all hope lost -- is Connecticut so mired the depths of crazed moonbattery, it’s not worth fighting for? No. After all, the most heavily taxed state in the nation is arguably the best place to launch a serious, professional crusade against Big Government. Currently, most citizens aren’t receptive to such a project. But there are signs that a portion of the population is waking up to some fiscal and economic truths. For example, conservative talk (both national and indigenous programs) dominates Connecticut’s AM dial. Someone is listening to right-wing gabbers, or their shows wouldn’t be on the air. In addition, more and more taxpayers are shooting down big-spending budget proposals in their towns. Grassroots activists with strong situational awareness can capitalize on these and other opportunities, and use them to perform what’s sure to be a time-consuming and often thankless task: build an infrastructure of liberty in the Nutmeg State.

Skeptical? American history is replete with examples of states that underwent remarkable transformations. As Michael Lind notes in his anti-George W. Bush screed Made in Texas, several decades ago, the Lone Star State enthusiastically embraced “progressives” such as Sam Rayburn and Lyndon B. Johnson. Now it’s one of the most conservative states. More recently, New Hampshire, New England’s last bastion of public-policy sanity, has drifted so far to the left, U.S. Senator John Sununu’s reelection is uncertain.

If the “no” votes prevail on Tuesday, the wasteful distraction that is the constitutional-convention campaign -- the political equivalent of a get-rich-quick scheme -- will happily be over. Then it’s time to get down to the real work of saving Connecticut from its scary spiral toward socialism.

D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and lecturer. His website is www.dowdmuska.com.

# # # # #