Mike Lawlor, Governor Dannel Malloy’s law and order chieftain, has a Chris Christie in his craw.
The Governor of New Jersey, a convenient campaign foil for Eastern Seaboard progressives such as Mr. Malloy, was recently cited in a news report, as a Republican not infested with racism who seemed to support a measure used by Connecticut progressives, Mr. Malloy among them, to tar Connecticut Republicans with racism – not by intent but by outcome. In the Malloy Eden, it is possible for an innocent Republican who opposes a Malloy measure to slither into a racist mode. To be sure, Connecticut Republicans, a moderate lot for the most part, intend no racism. But by questioning the hoped for outcome of Mr. Malloy’s “Second Chance Society,” they have shown themselves to be "racist in outcome."
Mr. Malloy’s Second Chance Society is one that compassionately and empathetically would repeal a law that unfairly punishes minority urbanites. The law, passed by a legislature that has been dominated by Democrats since 1965, illegalizes the selling of drugs within 1,500 feet of a school or public building. The Democratic majority that affirmed that law, according to Malloy-Lawlor logic, was racist – if not in intent, surely in outcome. Apparently, “outcome racism” is ubiquitous in Connecticut. We know, for example that the rate of abortion among African Americans in cities is much larger than is the case in Connecticut’s pearly white suburbs, and there seems to be a connection between the high rate of abortion in cities and the distribution of Planned Parenthood facilities in the nation; there are more of them in cities. One wonders if Planned Parenthood might fall into the “racism by outcome” category that progressive Democrats find so useful on the campaign stump as a means of bringing home urban votes.
It turns out that Mr. Malloy is not alone in opposing the racism by outcome law. Right of center politicians such as Mr. Christie are seated in the same pew as Mr. Malloy and Mr. Lawlor, who find the proximity distressing, not to mention politically inconvenient. Other right of center politicians and political theoreticians – Nobel Prizewinning Economist Milton Friedman and conservative-libertarian icon Bill Buckley for instance – seem to be pulling on the same oars as Mr. Malloy and Mr. Lawlor.
When a reporter pointed this out to Mr. Lawlor, venomous flecks of campaign spittle bubbled up from Mr. Lawlor’s molten progressive center, and he gave the game away.
"It's not my job to say nice things about Chris Christie," Mr. Lawlor fumed. “Many Republicans [in Connecticut] seem to be back in Willie Horton mode when in the rest of the country, conservative Republicans, they're proposing these same things."
See – Connecticut Republicans are even more racist in outcome than Mr. Christie, Mr. Buckley, Mr. Freedman and Saint Francis of Assisi. Got that?
So then, let us inquire. The urbanscape in Connecticut has been handcrafted by dominant Democrats in the General Assembly. The law that Mr. Malloy and Mr. Lawlor consider “racist in outcome” could not have been promulgated or passed without the support of majority Democrats. The last time Republicans were a majority in one of the two houses in the state legislature was way back in the 1963 and 1965 sessions. Are people in Hartford, circa 2015, more integrated, safer, better educated, less prone to shooting each other with illegal weapons readily available to the criminal element that preys on defenseless women and children, than was the case fifty years ago when Republicans last commanded one of the two houses in the state legislature? The answers to these questions are: No, no, no and no. In a one-party state, the one party controlling the legislative agenda is responsible for the condition of African Americans and Latin Americans in the state.
Headline, Hartford Courant, circa 2015, front page, top of the fold: “Hartford Police Have Little To Say About Pastor's Shooting.” Lead Paragraph: “The shooting of a pastor outside a church on Capitol Avenue Sunday continues a string of gun violence in Hartford over the past several weeks.” More: “Robert Jones, 27, of Hartford, was shot multiple times at 402 Garden St. and listed in serious but stable condition at St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center.” And more: “On May 19, Mariano Gonzalez III, 19, of Fairmont Street, was found in a car on Irving Street with a gunshot wound to the head. Wednesday morning, he was pronounced dead.” And more: “On May 16, two others were fatally shot: Michael Clahar, 28, of Hartford, was found at Mary Shepard Place and Rashad Collier, 27, of West Hartford, was killed at George and South Streets in the South End.”
Over time, even those living in communities ravaged by such crimes committed, one may note, with weapons not purchased by violent criminals at the local gun store, become used to the gunfire, the bullets, the tears.
Now then, lawgivers should make a sharp distinction between violent crime and non-violent crime, and violent criminals should not be given a second chance or a third chance or a fourth chance. They should be apprehended, tried and, if convicted, sentenced to appropriate punishments that are not diminished by parole boards or by Mr. Lawlor’s brand-spanking-new “get out of jail early” Risk Reduction Earned Credits program, the result of legislation passed in an omnibus bill that had not been vetted in a public hearing.
Rape is a violent crime committed mostly against defenseless women; though, of course, men are raped as well, sometimes while in prison in the custody of Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Malloy. Should rape be among the violent crimes excluded from Mr. Lawlor’s program? The answer, Republicans in Connecticut have said over and over again is – Yes. Neither Mr. Lawlor nor Mr. Malloy have been moved by Republican pleadings, nor by the pleadings of women who have been raped.
Why do Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Malloy find it so difficult to support by swift and certain sentencing the second chances of those who are victims of rape and other violent crimes? Do the victims of violent crimes not deserve the justice meted out by courts, undiminished by politicians who find it convenient to marginalize the Republican Party by falsely accusing it of racism?