Paul Bass Photo
WInfield and Markley prepare to square off.
When an urban Democrat met up with a Tea Party Republican, they defied the national norm: They listened to each other, found some common ground, and agreed to disagree — with the conversation to be continued.
Democratic New Haven State Sen. Gary Winfield and Republican Southington State Sen. Joe Markley are used to doing that. Despite occupying different ideological sides of the aisle and playing for different political teams, they have developed a respectful relationship at the Capitol.
That relationship was on display as they hashed out state issues in the Elm Street studio of WNHH radio for an episode of “Dateline New Haven.”
Click on the sound file above to hear the show.
They spoke of how they both came to public office through activism — Winfield through anti-police brutality protests, Markley through participation in the Tea Party. They spoke of how some of their former compatriots called them sell-outs once they were elected, for working through the system. Over an hour, they parsed their different positions on issues ranging from utility fees to government spending, and described how principled positions from the left and right can coincide, especially in challenging established power.
That algebra gets complicated when it comes to criminal-justice reform. At least it did on the show.
Winfield this past legislative session saw years of activism produce results: The state passed a slew of reforms he’d introduced for years, from requiring independent investigators (not local prosecutors) to probe shootings by police, to hiring more cops of color and protecting the rights of citizen photographers. Markley voted for those measures.
But he voted against another Winfield-backed measure that also passed, as part of the governor’s “Second Chance Society” law: eliminating extra penalties for people who possess or buy drugs in “drug-free zones”—any area within 1,500 feet of a school, day care center or public-housing development. Those zones end up covering pretty much entire cities, because of their density, locking up more blacks and Latinos for longer jail terms than white counterparts.
Part of the drug-free zone law remains in effect — the part locking up sellers for longer penalties. Winfield announced on the show that he intends to introduce a bill next year to remove the extra penalties on the sellers, too. Markley said he’s not ready to sign on.
He acknowledged that many on the right — especially Libertarians — have embraced reforms like drugs decriminalization and lower penalties for selling, to keep more people out of jail. But he said conservatives also believe in going slowly on changing laws, to avoid unintended consequences.” “The whole presumption of being conservative is to say you better make sure you’re doing the right thing before we change it. … Urban renewal in the ‘60s [for example] was really wrongheaded and destructive. It did more damage. “
Winfield parried that tough-on-drugs mandatory minimum sentences that lawmakers began enacting in the 1980s were in fact the kind of “draconian” change that conservatives are supposed to oppose: “That was anti-conservative. That was a rapid change in policy. … This country did a rapid turnaround in the way we dealt with drugs. It has been devastating.”
“I understand the argument on drug free zones. I think It’s perceived very differently if you live in Southington, where you can see 1,500 feet around a school is a reasonable buffer,” Markley said. “It comes back to — we try to make laws on faith they are going to work for everybody.
“But here’s the thing,” Winfield interjected. “We have a law that works for everybody on the books. … If you sell drugs to child, a minor, there’s an enhanced penalty … Anywhere. If what people say about the purpose of drug free zones is true — to keep people from selling drugs to our minors — then we already have on the books a law that deals with that. So having a drug free zone on top of this … boils down to nothing more than ‘This is something I can tell people I’m doing to keep kids safe.’ Most sales occur in drug-free zones when school is closed, anyway.”
Markley: “I think he has a very good argument.”
Winfield: “But this is not the argument we can get to. People throw up: ‘We’re concerned about kids. I’m concerned about kids.’ … It’s easy eliminating the penalty for those we consider having a health problem … We don’t have a distaste for those people. But we have distaste for [dealers] … If we’re talking about a Second Chance [Society], a second chance has to extend to people who notably have a health issue, but to people who have actually done something that we think of as bad.”
Markley was asked if he will vote for Winfield’s proposal next term.
“I think he has a very good point. I will take a good hard look at it. But that’s how far I will go” now, he responded. “I don’t like to say ‘Yes, yes,’ and then have second thoughts. When I jump, I jump with both feet.”
Winfield: “I’ll make sure you get all the information you need.”
When an urban Democrat met up with a Tea Party Republican, they defied the national norm: They listened to each other, found some common ground, and agreed to disagree—with the conversation to be continued.
Common Ground all right.The donkey and the elephant symbols of the two dominant political parties are tied at the hip.Both of them are part of the two-party stranglehold on the political system.Two sides of the same coin, two heads of the same beast,two servants of the Upper Class, and two protectors of the corporate plutocracy.Give me a break.This is why we need Proportional Representation and IRV VOTING and TERM LIMITS.