Frank Speaking

We’re in the last week of one of the most spirited local election years in memory, and its time to figure out exactly who you are voting for, and why.  The tenor of the campaign has been very intense, especially in the last few weeks, and I think that is quite healthy for Greenwich. Healthy in the sense that in their dialogue, the candidates have  brought to the surface the very essence of how we govern and how all 62,000 of us view the role of government and its role. Apart from any personal affection you may have of any of the candidates, this year each camp has come to represent an ideal, and that is very, very different than anything we have seen before.

The views of Peter Tesei and Dave Theis are all tied up in a phrase that Peter cites quite regularly, which is “our decentralized form of government”. In this point of view, Greenwich is run best when the First Selectman sits more or less in an overall support role, takes care of ceremonial executive functions, acts as a pivot for the decisions of our Boards and Commissions, and, most importantly, is a friend. Dave Theis’s campaign slogan “Your Neighbor in Government” is no coincidence – he appears to believe quite strongly that your ability to relate to him alone is far more significant than his policy prescriptions. Peter and Dave believe clearly that tangible goals and aspirations in office are far less important than comity, consensus and tradition. Its not that Peter does not care about solving the flooding problems in Town, just that to him it is more important that our Town stakeholders reach complete consensus before we take action, that acting now with opposition is never the right course to take. Having literally grown up in this kind of courtly governance, Peter clings quite tightly to its traditions.

I see Lin Lavery and Drew Marzullo as more interested in the government being an agent of accomplishment. In this perspective, the Town works best when the Selectmen are more active leaders over a government structure. It is no accident that Lin and Drew are always making statements that include terms like “fix it” and “get things done” when addressing how they might govern. As candidates, they are much more comfortable with citing specific projects to tackle and goals to achieve than their opponents. In this perspective, the results matter far more than process. In Lin’s perspective, consensus for our flooding problems would be built during a dynamic process, rather than as a prerequisite for starting the process at all. Lin’s political history has taken place almost exclusively outside the world of Town elective office, and without having achieved her own success through the mastery of our current governmental system she appears to have a more expansive view of its utility. I believe she is always quite surprised that anyone would choose  process over results, regardless of its role. I think Lin is very happy for you to be her friend, but I think she’d rather be known for her deeds.

Two years ago, when we were just starting down the road of economic upheaval, the Greenwich government was, at best, an abstraction to many of our residents. The perspective of Peter Tesei made a lot of sense in a Greenwich of plenty,  a Greenwich of multitudinous options and, if you were even inclined to vote (and nearly 66% of us did not), a Greenwich which on the surface seemed to work just fine, thank you. When you are doing OK in life, why should you care about the depleted Parking Fund? It was just all chatter in a town with low taxes, police directing traffic with white gloves, and an international reputation for financial success.

A lot of that has changed, and mostly for the worse. In that environment, the voters have to ask themselves the question of who they are voting for and why. Apart from their respective families and close friends, this year its not about Peter and Lin, or Dave and Drew as personalities. Its about the Republican ticket,  resident politicians in the old school mold, people who will bend over backward to achieve consensus above all and whose central theme seems to be electing them as stewards af a system, versus the Democratic ticket, very much politicians of the modern sense, people who are defined by a set of specific goals and objectives, who seem eager to be elected to “do things” for the Town rather than be objects of tradition.

Viewed in the perspective of current events, what’s your choice?

For the first time since Lowell Weicker in 1971, our Congressman comes from Greenwich. There are a lot of things you can say about Jim Himes, but you can’t fault his address.

I’ve had a few differences with Jim over the past four years, most of which overlapped his time as Chairman of the Greenwich Democratic Town Committee. Many were, in the scheme of things, insignificant. I would have rather he done one thing or another to support my campaigns in the way I liked it, for example. Or in another case, I would rather he not support certain candidates over others that I backed. From a political perspective, nothing that I disagreed with that Jim did as Chairman of the DTC probably moved the life of any Greenwich resident one iota. But for my own reasons, it mattered to me.

Other issues in which I have differences with our Congressman are far more substantial. I look at our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from multiple, personal prisms. I look past the geopolitical to think of the effect on my two children, how the cost of two wars will harm us for decades to come. I worry about whether they will be obligated to wear the uniform of our country to fight for something I have to strain to make sensible. I have concerns that they will have to live in a world more hostile to America than I did, and I want them to be part of the world out there. On these issues, unfortunately, Rep. Himes has not satisfied my personal preferences since he took office this past January, no more than he may have had in the critical issue of ordering extra phone lines for the DTC election headquarters in 2007.

This issue of personal preference with our Congressman has popped up in a more open way lately following his “yes” vote in a non-binding resolution to defer closing of the Guantanamo prison camp. Jim Himes first found traction as a congressional candidate through the support of the left-wing “blogger” community. To say there is dismay in this group is an understatement. I have many friends that worked long and hard for a solid year to get Jim elected. When you work in the political trenches like that, you tend to get a strong ownership feel for the office-seeker, as if your issues and the candidates’ are always aligned. When those issue interests diverge, change for political calculus, or otherwise morph into something other than what you expected, grief is not an unfair word to use in describing the feelings. Politics is a very emotional activity to be involved with, because it is the intersection of feelings and logic in the pursuit of a goal, and its hard to separate or balance them when discussing ones important issues.

But this separation is something we have to do, and its the kind of thing we elect Congresspersons to do for us. In a surprising way, I find the Congressman’s vote to be strangely satisfying, even if I don’t agree with it. In one vote, he’s managed to support our President’s agenda, earn a seat at the table on the issue, represent the opinions of other (primarily Republican) residents, and perhaps even signal something extraordinarily rare in our politics – the ability to perhaps change ones mind because they were persuaded by what they saw as the facts. His action engenders one word that has up until now not been a regular one in other descriptions of Jim - respect.

America is the kind of place where well-meaning and passionate people in Fairfield County Connecticut have the clout and the drive in their collective energies into actually being part of solving the problems of the world. The course of the Iraq war started its change in the Greenwich living rooms which launched the Lamont campaign. But my solutions are not the same as many people who either agree or disagree with my general moral compass, and dogma and political rigidity needs to disappear if we are to move ahead as a society. If Jim Himes can continue to build respect as a leader, and not just as a candidate – and goodness knows he has the brains to do so –  he, and we, might do just fine.  Leading is in a large measure earning enough respect to get the benefit of the doubt. My personal preference is to have a Congressman who earns mine, and he has.