Rep. Joseph David Courtney had resisted earlier attempts by his Democratic colleagues in the House to impeach President Trump. He saw the dangers in a congressional majority too quickly turning to impeachment against a president of the other party simply because they didn’t like him or his actions. And, pragmatically, Courtney saw no political upside to an impeachment with Republicans in control of the Senate.

Three times resolutions had come before the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings and three times Courtney had opposed them.

When Courtney visited with The Day Editorial Board in early August, we questioned him about his views on impeachment. The primary point of debate at that time was what to do about the numerous findings of apparent obstruction by Trump and his cohorts, outlined by Robert Mueller in his report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

It wasn’t enough, Courtney said.

“You don’t want to set a precedent where, if you’re are mad at somebody, you’re having a perpetual impeachment process,” he told the board. “This is something that President Trump would actually use to his benefit. Because if it petered out after an impeachment vote, he would certainly not be bashful about claiming exoneration.”

Those who claim that Courtney’s votes on Wednesday in favor of impeachment were politically motivated are wrong. As his prior comments show, Courtney well knows that this could politically backfire on Democrats by firing up the Republican base and allowing Trump, after the Senate acquits, to contend it was all a witch hunt.

Courtney, who has served the state’s Second District — covering roughly the eastern half of Connecticut — since his initial election in 2006, is a moderate to his core. It is an approach that enabled him to win in the first place in a competitive district that had swung back and forth between Republicans and Democrats in a series of close elections.

In 2006, Courtney defeated the incumbent Republican, Rob Simmons, by 86 votes out of about 242,000 votes cast. He has won re-election with relative ease since.

Now 66, Courtney has the demeanor of a politician from yesteryear. Having spent time in both the minority and majority, he is more interested in finding common ground with Republicans where he can than he is in scoring points with the Democratic base by demonizing the other party. Courtney sees political success in his district, and in the nation, as tied to the battle of winning the center rather than playing to the political fringes. His is the politics of caution − win friends, don't offend.

So, while this may be the age of highly partisan, tribal politics, that was not the game Courtney was playing in voting for the two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“It is not a decision in which I exult. It is exactly what I’d prefer not to be doing right now,” Courtney said in a video he taped for his constituents prior to his historic votes. “But at some point, you cannot look the other way when actions are being taken which really go to the heart of the oath we all take.”

His perspective changed, Courtney said, when it became clear that President Trump had, for more than two months, held up military aid to Ukraine, aid that had been approved by Congress as in the interest of national security. In return for releasing the funds, Trump wanted a favor from the newly elected president of Ukraine — to announce an investigation into Trump’s potential opponent in the 2020 election, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden, who had been appointed to the board of a powerful Ukrainian natural gas company under questionable circumstances.

“That is wrong … that is not something that any president of the United States should ever do,” Courtney said about Trump’s self-serving arm twisting using military aid.

Trump’s action, explains Courtney, was consequential. It came as skirmishes between Russian and Ukrainian forces continued, a time during which 25 Ukrainian soldiers were killed.

“I’m not making the direct argument that, but for suspension of the aid, those soldiers would be alive,” Courtney said. “But it does underscore we are not talking about a parlor debate here … we’re talking about something that really goes to the heart of all of our duty, when we take the oath of office, to support the laws of the United States. The president did not follow the law.”

As for the obstruction of Congress article, Courtney explains that he could accept a fight over executive privilege in denying Congress access to a particular witness or set of documents. He could not, however, tolerate Trump’s blanket order seeking to deny Congress all documents and witnesses it sought to do its job of being a check on the power of the president.

I don’t suspect these votes will cause the congressman much political damage, if any. It may gain him as many votes as it costs him. Republicans face a tough challenge in even finding a credible candidate to challenge him.

But I don’t think that made his decision any easier. In addition to Courtney’s successful efforts to boost submarine production and jobs at Electric Boat, his helping win a federal grant for upgrading a local rail line, his fights for lower prescription drug costs and access to health care, a new major item has been added to his legacy. Courtney voted to impeach a president. I am confident in saying that is not an achievement to which Joe Courtney ever aspired.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.