Kohut: Vote Out Status Quo

Whether local, state or federal elected officials, policy wonk Jeff Kohut, a 2011 petitioning candidate for mayor, says Bridgeport’s interests have not been served well by any of them. Kohut commentary:

When Bridgeporters contemplate the mass shooting of nine people (resulting in the death of an innocent man) in a Bridgeport neighborhood very early in the morning on Thursday, June 11, 2015, they are bound to feel the gamut of emotions from sorrow and sympathy for the victims and their families to all levels of anger and rage at the perpetrators and others who might be perceived as sharing some degree of responsibility.

Those not living in Bridgeport undoubtedly feel relief as part of a range of emotions when contemplating this news out of Bridgeport. But with rare exception, unless they have some direct connection to Bridgeport via friends, family, or business, they are probably not going to dwell on this tragedy for very long.

Bridgeporters, however, will be dwelling on this systemic shock to our sense of safety and well-being for quite some time.

The City of Bridgeport is dependent on a severely fiscally challenged state government for essential assistance in meeting a municipal budget that needs to be able to accommodate a long list of public-safety unknowns (such as the gang terrorism of Thursday morning). In the context of policing needs dependent on a dangerously understaffed and demoralized police force, there is plenty of reason for Bridgeport residents to listen very, very closely in the coming weeks to what the candidates in our upcoming mayoral election have to say about public safety and our municipal financial situation (among other important related issues).

Bridgeport is a city in socioeconomic distress in a rudderless, fiscally distressed state. It is a city that can’t adequately meet its public safety needs dependent upon a state that isn’t in a position to bridge that gap.

This fact should be very disturbing to all residents of Connecticut–even the ones living in towns where Thursday morning’s incident is currently unimaginable.

The Bridgeport-Connecticut dilemma is not unique to this state. Most of the 50 states in the US are in some level of financial difficulty, with these states all having distressed urban centers that are susceptible to outbreaks of violence attributable to unmanageable criminal elements spawned by the social decay attributable to unemployment and the dearth of living wage jobs in our cities–the latter of which is a direct result of our national political-economic policy.

The economic policies of our federal government leave a trail of breadcrumbs to the inner city unemployment/poverty that fuels most of our violent crime. Beyond the direct effects of demoralizing unemployment and poverty, these policies also direct revenue out of cities and states, financially disabling state and municipal government’s capacity to address crime at both the social and public safety levels.

Additionally, there is another layer of dysfunction of our democracy that must also be considered in this regard–wasteful, globally destabilizing US military adventurism (the flip side of the of the US economic policy coin). As if the unacceptable, unconscionable economic policies undermining our domestic well-being weren’t already placing our democracy in foreboding territory, our government also feels compelled to further compromise our well-being by squandering our shrinking economic wherewithal on military adventurism that seeks to maintain the security of the soiled interests of our multinational corporations. (E.g., the need to secure the foreign-soil interests of our multinational manufacturers and “big oil” through the maintenance of a hugely expensive, globally antagonistic, worldwide military presence.)

A further point to consider in regard to our wasteful military profligacy: If a foreign entity were to undertake a mass-shooting/murder of Americans here or abroad, our national government would (rightly) pull out the stops and spend as much money as necessary to find the culprits, and, when located, would spare no cost in destroying them through any means necessary–such as through the use of millions of dollars worth of remotely deployable ordnance. But how much money and effort will the federal government spend to secure the streets of Bridgeport in the aftermath of our “terrorist attack” of Thursday, 6/11/15?

So while we in Bridgeport need to look to our mayoral candidates for plans to secure the short- and long-term well-being of our city, we must also look to higher levels of government. We must think in terms of electing state-level leadership that seeks to revitalize our urban centers, and we must think in terms of electing federal representation and leadership that seeks to put national, domestic interests above multinational corporate interests, and in so doing seeks to ameliorate the socioeconomic decay of all the Bridgeports. We need a federal government that will bring prosperity back to American shores and American cities and that will cease to antagonize and militarize the world to the detriment of our people and the people of the world.

Presently, we in Bridgeport need new leadership at the city, state, and federal levels. Indeed, the electorate of Bridgeport, based on the actions and voting records of our federal congressional delegation, should not vote to return them to office in the next federal elections. Congressman Himes and Senators Blumenthal and Murphy have not served the interests of Bridgeport and have helped to create and support national economic and military policy that is not good for Bridgeport, Connecticut, the USA or much of the rest of the world.

Bridgeport has been failed, for too long, by its city, state, and federal representation and leadership and must vote for real change starting with the 2015 municipal elections.

Save Bridgeport. Tune out the mesmerizing political rhetoric from City Hall, Hartford and Washington and get out and vote–for change.