Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick’s press releases on serious issues follow a predictable pattern of serving up word salads in order to obfuscate clear policy positions and obscure both actions and inactions. It is time for us to break through the Congressman’s highly-visible, well-publicized facade of thoughtful, moral behavior and finally call it for what it is – half-baked, weak and self-serving.
He begins each press release with a strong statement in support of Trump’s actions or policies, but follows that with a 180-degree turn that implies a fundamental disagreement with what Trump has done. His press releases leave us with no clear idea of what he actually believes or what he will do to fix any problem. He specializes in noble-sounding lip service, without committing himself to do anything.
His press release on the war in Iran is a painful example of this pattern.
He begins by supporting Trump’s war of choice. He writes:
“For decades, the Iranian regime has methodically built a network of terror, proxy militias, missile proliferation, and regional coercion designed to destabilize the Middle East, threaten American interests … and brutally suppress its own people. It remains the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism … that record is long, deliberate, and undeniable—and it cannot be ignored.”
Predictably, the 180-degree flip appears next when he writes:
“Of course, our national security posture must always be matched by fidelity to our Constitution at home. Any sustained or expanded military engagement should be done with the advice and consent of Congress. The American people deserve clarity of mission, defined objectives, and disciplined oversight.”
There is obviously and absolutely zero clarity of mission, defined objectives or disciplined oversight anywhere near Trump’s war of choice in Iran.
With every statement from Congressman Fitzpatrick, I am left asking: What is his conclusion? What does he believe to be true and worth acting on and fighting for?
Thesis-antithesis-synthesis has a fancy description: It is a “three-step dialectic framework for resolving contradictions and advancing thought.” It makes so much sense. There are two opposite thoughts – a thesis (or main idea), and the opposite of that main idea. And nothing of value emerges unless you get to the third part of that framework: Synthesis – What is the right conclusion?
Fitzpatrick never goes there. He brings up important issues, but does not have the courage to state plainly what his conclusion is or what he will do in the face of any challenge.
As it is, we are left to determine what Fitzpatrick actually believes based on how he eventually votes, and even then, he waffles. This urge to waffle, even on his votes, was infuriatingly in sharp display as he voted on the House of Representatives’ War Powers Resolution on March 5. He voted against that resolution which failed 219-212. His reasoning, presented to us in another press release because he refuses to make himself accessible to the press or constituents via town halls, highlights the futility of trying to know what he believes in or will fight for.
He voted against the resolution, and that would imply that he does not actually believe the President needs to offer any “clarity of mission, defined objectives, and disciplined oversight.” However, he tempered (waffled?) his vote by writing in his press release that he had to vote no because “The resolution is written so broadly that it would require the immediate termination of all hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government.”
That statement implies that he would have voted differently if the wording were different. This is where Fitzpatrick’s behavior becomes intolerable. Fitzpatrick endlessly and proudly pushes his alleged bipartisanship and independence.
But if Congressman Fitzpatrick actually thought the wording of the War Powers Resolution was just too broad rather than being opposed to its goal or even his constitutional responsibilities with authorizing war, he could have co-sponsored a bill with “better” wording – wording that would have allowed his constituents to receive the “clarity of mission, defined objectives, and disciplined oversight” he says we deserve. However, to protect himself from actually having to walk his talk, he hid behind the meritless excuse of poor wording and did nothing to serve the citizens of his district, this country, or the men and women in the military risking their lives for the Trump administration’s reckless adventurism abroad.
Fitzpatrick then mentions in his press release about his vote that he is the Chair of the CIA Subcommittee of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He should know then that in 1953 the CIA and Britain’s MI6 worked together to orchestrate a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. They did that because he had, not surprisingly and to our dismay, nationalized Iran’s oil industry. We installed the Shah of Iran, who ruled as a ruthless dictator and the blowback from that was the 1979 Islamic Revolution that led to the current oppressive theocratic regime. (If you want to read up on this history you would be well-served to pick up a copy of All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer.) Yet, Fitzpatrick and his Republican colleagues have learned nothing from this history (which his party is also at war with). And now he is giving Trump a blank check to run his half-baked war plans without any meaningful congressional oversight or accountability. Here we go again.
Congressman Fitzpatrick wanders through Congress heaping praise on himself with every newsletter and press release, while never stepping forward to use his 10 years in Congress to advance any deeply-held beliefs, take any firm stands, or assert any kind of influence – either because he is too afraid or because he does not have any. Pennsylvania’s first congressional district deserves better representation.
