The day before yesterday, in a marathon press conference, Chris Christie, the Governor of New Jersey, engaged in a spectacular act of contrition. No fewer than 20 times he apologized for the behaviour of senior staffers who had improperly used their influence, last September, to create lane-closures on the George Washington bridge. The closures affected the borough of Fort Lee, their revenge on a mayor who had withheld support for Christie during his re-election campaign. With his usual exuberance, Mr Christie’s apologies became more abject as the performance continued. Towards the end of the press conference he said: “It wasn’t good. It was an awful, callous, indifferent thing to do.”
The apologies followed several months of investigation during which Christie dismissed the probe as the work of rivals “obsessed” with a trivial matter. In the light of the information unearthed by journalists, and given in statements by Port Authority officials, it seems that nearly everything which the governor denied was, in fact, true. And far from being trivial, the lane closures, which lasted several days, frustrated thousands of commuters and delayed emergency services. Their cloak-and-dagger implementation also subverted the protocols of important institutions.
As with many political scandals, difficult questions remain. Although the governor has dismissed senior aides, he has yet to explain why he kept on insisting, up to a month ago, that the lane closures were part of a “traffic study” – even though the relevant authorities had denied this claim quite explicitly. He will also have to explain how someone with a reputation for hands-on staff management could be so clueless about what they had done.
Christie’s political future – he is widely seen as a future presidential candidate for the Republican party – seemed assured a few months ago. In his first term as governor he had established himself as a tough, effective leader who knew when to leave petty partisanship aside – he famously refused to criticise President Obama because the federal government helped New Jersey recover from storm damage. Now that they are being sought, however, examples of the governor’s pettiness are emerging. The New York Times mentions his decision to pull financing for a project led by someone who voted against him on a redistricting commission, and a similarly small-minded vendetta against a Republican colleague. MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow has even suggested that the lane closures could be linked to a separate political squabble between Christie and New Jersey Democrats who had scuttled his nomination of a supreme court justice.
The drama in New Jersey is a clear example of the old adage that all politics is local. It is also a reminder that the routine shenanigans of West Indian politics are to be found in wealthier, more developed countries. The difference between our societies is not to be found in their levels of dishonesty, petty politicking or corruption ‒ which seem to be distributed fairly equally everywhere ‒ but in the power of the press to prise the truth out of reluctant public figures, and to make them face the consequences of their actions. As we watch Governor Christie try to salvage his political career, we might ask ourselves how often our own public figures, accused of similar pettiness, or much worse, would consider their futures so perilous as to offer such forthright apologies.
