Droney’s Perspective

Like the weather in New England – about which Mark Twain says: If you don’t like the weather here, just wait a minute and it will change – political parties are sometimes subject to rude and rapid change.

Here is John Droney, a stalwart Democrat, on recent changes in his party: “I was there in the Bill O’Neill days. I was a John Kennedy Democrat. I was a Scoop Jackson Democrat. I was a Bill O’Neill Democrat. That’s when we were the party of the working man and the party of rational behavior. And we were very successful in Connecticut at every level. That party doesn’t exist anymore nationally. It’s a bunch of left-wing psychos from the various universities and a bunch of socialists and people who are troublemakers, and they’re going nowhere. They couldn’t make the sale at the national level, and they’re not going to make the sale in Connecticut.”

There is more. There is always more in Droney’s case. The former Chairman of the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee and member of the Democratic National Committee may be too easily dismissed by rough and tumble leftist Democrats as a relic of a bygone era.

Governor Ned Lamont, Droney told the Hartford Courant, “does not face much of a challenge from state Rep. Josh Elliott of Hamden, a liberal Democrat who is running against Lamont from the left in a [primary] race that Droney calls ‘a waste of time’ for Democrats.”

“’The guy can’t win,’ Droney said of Elliott. ‘He’d be better off running for mayor of New York City. … The Democratic Party in Connecticut is not a socialist party. It’s a party that leans left, like most Democrats do now, but people who are firebrands and AOC types are not going anywhere in Connecticut.’”

On the Republican side of the political barracks, Droney told the Courant, “I think [soon to be ex-Republican mayor of New Britain Erin] Stewart wins the primary hands down if there is one. I think she’s the most formidable candidate the Republicans have for governor, but she can’t beat Lamont.”

It should surprise no one that Droney favors 1^st District U.S. Representative John Larson over primary challenger Luke Bronin, Hartford’s former Mayor.

Bronin is “racking up campaign money,” the Hartford Courant tells us. And seeking to portray Larson as a creature of Big Business, a common theme of progressive Democrats, Bronin recently unleashed the following jeremiad: “Today [emphasis mine], I’m pledging not to accept a dollar of corporate PAC money, and I’m calling on Congressman Larson to do the same,” Bronin said in a media release. “The deck is already stacked against working families and the middle class in so many ways, and the scale of corporate PAC money in our national politics makes things worse. Voters deserve leaders who are putting the interests of working families and the middle class first, and I’m calling on John Larson to reject and return corporate PAC contributions for the 2026 cycle.”

The operative word in Bronin’s press release is “today.” He has not pledged beyond the upcoming primary to spurn corporate PAC money from presumptive capitalists who have financed the reelection of Larson and other Democrats through the years – should Bronin win and go on to serve multiple terms in office. All Democrat primary winners in the 1^st District have served multiple terms, and it is generally agreed among legacy reporters that Republicans cannot win the District in a general election, possibly for two reasons: 1) Republican campaign contributions from greedy corporate managers in the 1^st District are slight, and 2) the district has suffered for decades from Democrat Party gerrymandering. No one within Connecticut’s Democrat supporting legacy media dare call it gerrymandering in their reports.

The important question, rarely mentioned by Democrats in Connecticut’s one-party state, is: who stacked the deck in “the land of steady habits?” In poker and politics, political decks are rarely stacked by those who have consistently lost the game. If not Republicans, then who are the culprits?

Campaign gambits, we all know, are not the most efficient and productive way to run a state or nation. The notion is not mine but Machiavelli’s. Our country is overrun with “princes” unable to appreciate the true meaning of Machiavelli’s “virtù.”

In Machiavelli’s Prince, “virtù” is very nearly the opposite of “fortuna,” seen as a fickle goddess who may bring the Prince good or bad luck. Virtù is human action, in opposition to fortuna, that allows the prince to overcome the vagaries of fortuna by successfully adapting virtù to prevailing circumstances. This foresight prepares the nation-state for propitious change. Democrat campaign successes in Connecticut time are often followed by destructive policies.

What Connecticut really needs is a handful of Machiavellis in its press corps who are, for ill or good, the watchdogs of the public purse and morals, committed to virtù rather than fortuna.

Few will deny that Democrats in Connecticut, most especially in the state’s larger cities, have been fortunate. But neither have they been moved by virtù. As used by Machievelli, the word indicates a martial spirit, a collection of human traits, courage among them, necessary for the maintenance of the state and the achievement of great things.