“You have to quit confusing a madness with a mission.”
― Flannery O'Connor, The Violent Bear it Away
― Flannery O'Connor, The Violent Bear it Away
In September,
Connecticut’s Junior U.S. Senator Chris Murphy traveled to New Haven to asperse
New Haven mayoralty hopeful Toni Harp with his precious endorsement. Mr. Murphy
followed in the trek of Governor Dannel Malloy, who earlier had endorsed Mrs.
Harp, whose deceased husband was New Haven’s premier tax scofflaw.
Upon Mr. Harp’s
leave-taking, his mountainous tax debt, along with his valuable assets, was
passed along to his son. Mrs. Harp has disclaimed any responsibility for the
tax debt, arguing that her affairs and those of her husband were separated by a
Berlin Wall. But there are some in New Haven who think Mrs. Harp is at least
morally responsible for the debt to Mr. Malloy’s government.
There was at the
time a hotly contested primary underway in New Haven. Given these
circumstances, it was a mark of pluck for Mr. Malloy to endorse Mrs. Harp.
Ditto Mr. Murphy. Not every day does a U.S. Senator or a governor summon the intestinal
fortitude to make an endorsement in what has turned out to be in New Haven a political snake pit. The endorsements might be characterized as
courageous because, as some commentators and editorialists have observed, those
making them may lose some political ground by sticking their heads bravely into
a Democratic Party primary mouse trap.
Some political
watchers may think such profiles in courage strain the bounds of prudence, and
it is true that prudence is on occasion the better part of valor. But
generally, we associate courage with some bold and personally reckless act.
Teddy Roosevelt stormed Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill into the White House. He
was praised for his courage because he had something valuable to lose in Cuba
-- namely, his life. Teddy led the charge at a time when his Rough
Riders were being picked off from the heights.
When one thinks of
Teddy storming San Juan Hill and Mr. Malloy storming Nica’s Gourmet Market and Deli in New Haven, surrounded by a corps of sign waving union
rank and file members all of whom were supporting Ms. Harp, one cannot deny Mr.
Malloy’s awesome bravery. A single woman who confronted Mr. Malloy on that
valorous occasion and asked the governor how he could in good conscience
support for mayor of New Haven a woman whose husband was a notorious tax
scofflaw, it must be admitted, also showed some pluck. Mr. Malloy bravely tried to shunt the woman
aside, but she was persistent. Eventually, Mr. Malloy was able to escape her
barrage and fell, like Hector after a battle, into the soft arms of his union
battalion, all lustily supporting the wife of the deceased tax scofflaw.
Mr. Malloy’s
endorsement of Mrs. Harp was fulsome: He said the people of New Haven should
vote for her because a) she was a woman; “New Haven needs a woman mayor,” and
b) as a woman mayor, Mrs. Harp would not be averse to arriving at consensus
among differing groups; “Consensus is important folks” – except, be it noted,
when one is writing a budget as Connecticut’s first Democratic governor in more
than 20 years. When Mr. Malloy wrote both his budgets, he sought no input or
consensus from Republicans in the General Assembly. Indeed, Mr. Malloy,
hammering out his budget behind doors closed to Connecticut’s media, shooed all
the Republicans from the room but was careful to seek consensus from SEBAC, the
consortium of unions authorized to negotiate state contracts with the governor.
Viewing the Harp
endorsements from behind the campaign curtain was Patrick Skully of Skully Communications, newly hired by Mrs. Harp as a campaign
consultant. Mr. Skully, once the communications director for state Senate
Democrats, no doubt was grateful for Mr. Murphy’s endorsement of Mrs. Harp. And
when Mr. Murphy voted against a measure approved by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that validated President Barack Obama’s military
intervention in Syria, Mr. Skully intoned in a blog titled “Murphy’s Profile in Courage”:
“Connecticut’s junior US Sen. Chris Murphy recently made what may very
well be one of the most crucial decisions of his career -- he voted to buck the
president and oppose granting him the authority to strike Syria. Regardless of
where one comes down on the issue, it’s safe to say Murphy’s vote was
incredibly courageous if risky.”
Let’s see: The resolution that cleared the Foreign Relations Committee by a 10-7 margin the
Senate on Friday, September 6 was narrower and more explicit than what Mr.
Obama had asked for. The measure explicitly banned combat operations for U.S.
ground troops and limited military action in Syria to 60 days, providing one
30-day extension if necessary. Mr. Murphy was one of two Democrats on the panel
to have voted down the resolution, the second being Morris Udall of New Mexico.
In its present form, the Senate resolution allows Mr. Obama little more than a
saving gesture, and the gesture may be insufficient to assure the future of
Syria and the Middle East; neither may it secure any legitimate American
interest. It would have been a pleasant surprise had Mr. Murphy declined to
support the measure on such grounds.
Mr. Skully considers
Mr. Murphy’s vote “incredibly courageous, if risky” because Mr. Murphy is a junior
senator who has bucked his chief. Mr. Murphy’s vote, however, has no practical
consequence, because it was folded into a Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote
that approved Mr. Obama’s measure, after the measure had been considerably
adjusted by the Senate. And Mr. Obama, in any case, is a lame duck president
with very little live political powder in his blunderbuss.
There are a few good
reasons – all courageous, all risky – that Mr. Murphy might have offered to
support a vote against the measure. The measure is too limited to be effective.
The measure cannot effectively restrain a president who had decided, before he
threw the ball into Congress’ lap, that he did not need the authority of
Congress to support an initial military action more open-ended than that
rejected by Mr. Murphy. The path chosen by Mr. Obama is not likely to lead to a
repeat of the Iraq experience; it IS likely to lead to a repeat of the Libyan
experience.
Does anyone remember Benghazi:
a dictator overthrown with the concurrence of
a president leading a popular revolt from behind; limited mission; no
boots on the ground; infiltration by terrorists; soul-stirring campaign boasts
that al-Qaida is in retreat; attack on
the American consulate; murder of American ambassador and others… That’s how
the violent bore victory away. And all this this was recent rather than ancient
history.
Benghazi is a very
good reason to oppose a feel good engagement in Syria. It would take some courage
for a Democratic politician in Connecticut’s all Democratic Congressional
Delegation to say so.
Comments