By Tina Courpas
The dumbing down of complex policy issues into partisan shorthand attacks is a characteristic of today’s politics that I am working to change.
I believe that Connecticut does a better job managing our political landscape than the federal government and certain other states. Speaker of the House Matt Ritter (D-Hartford) and House Minority Leader Vin Candleora (R-Branford) set a civilized tone in the CT House of Representatives, and the dialogue is usually substantive. CT has a lot to be of which to be proud.
And yet, we are not immune.
Taking votes on the CT House floor is not easy, even in the best political climate. The issues are often nuanced; one might support parts of a bill, but not all of it; one might support the purpose of a program wholeheartedly, but the state simply cannot afford it. Legislators must often vote by balancing competing priorities.
The problem with today’s politics, even in Connecticut, is that sometimes the substance of these complex policies is distilled down to a one-dimensional cudgel that either party uses to hit the other over the head.
Even a bill which merely contains hot button words in the title can become a political grenade. If a bill title contains the words “Reproductive Rights” and a legislator vote against it, I have seen it used as “proof” that a legislator is not pro-choice, regardless of what the underlying bill says. If a bill title contains the words “Gun Control,” and a legislator supports it, it can be used as “proof” that such person opposes the Second Amendment. The title words “Trust Act,” Transgender,” “Women’s Sports,” “Voting Equity,” “Voting Security,” even “Freedom” can also carry political risk – regardless of what the underlying bill says.
This sounds like an exaggeration, but sadly, it is not. I heard one House member say to another on the House floor this year: “I can’t vote NO on this Bill. The title says “Elderly.” If I vote no, next election my opponent will print a campaign mailer with the headline saying that I hate the elderly.’”
At the Special Session in November, I voted against establishing a temporary $500 million “side-fund” created for the Governor to use largely at his discretion. The fund was intended to make up for shortfalls in SNAP and other important funding as a result of the federal government shutdown which had begun on October 1. The “side-fund” would last only until February 4, 2026, until the legislature reconvened. I supported that proposal.
However, by the time the bill went to a vote, the shutdown had ended. The emergency for which the bill was created was over, and yet the bill proceeded. At the time of the vote, the bill’s proponents could not demonstrate any specific monetary deficit, any program terminating, any a single quantifiable decrease in SNAP benefits before February 4, which would justify such a “side-fund.” The “side-fund” also violated the fiscal guardrails, which I had promised to uphold. I voted no, along with other legislators. I recently read a partisan shorthand attack which obfuscated the real substance of this vote, calling it a vote “against SNAP benefits.”
The problems with this dynamic are obvious. Policy involves tradeoffs, and one-liners don’t explain those. Knee-jerk reactivity gets in the way of simply asking questions, getting the facts and understanding the issues. Finally, the dumbing down dynamic is a race to the bottom – who can be angrier, who can make the content of a bill seem more extreme, and who can make the other side look worse.
So, what is the solution to this “dumbing down” of our state democracy? I welcome your input.
I believe that part of the solution is to resist the trend. I am committed to doing that. As a State Representative, I believe this means asking questions, casting votes on the substance, providing full information to the people I serve, and trusting them to digest it. It is a privilege in all respects to represent the 149th District, including the fact that its citizens care about, read about, and digest the issues at a very high level. Thank you for the privilege of serving you. But I also believe that is possible for any and every district in our state to resist the race to the bottom. If the alternative is the continued dumbing down of our democracy, we have no choice but to resist.
