( – promoted by odum)
Okay, so Eric Davis, everybody’s go-to guy for political analysis in Vermont, was on the Mark Johnson Show this morning. At one point, Eric and Mark rather casually asserted that, regarding the state budget, the Vermont electorate is significantly to the right of the Legislative majority.
I stewed over that for a while, and then called the show.
First of all, I made a brief case that the Legislative leadership, in fact, pursued a moderate course on the budget rather than a liberal one. And then I asked about their unsubstantiated assertion: If the Legislature is significantly to the left of the voters, how exactly did that happen? And, if the Legislature is so badly out of touch, is there something fundamentally wrong with how we choose our lawmakers?
Eric had two answers: First, that the GOP took its eye off the ball regarding Legislative races a few years back, concentrating on re-electing Jim Douglas and getting Martha Rainville into Congress. (Oops.) The Republicans didn’t even contest a bunch of races, he said. Well, nonsense. If the GOP isn’t strong enough to walk and chew gum at the same time, they’re in trouble. They didn’t run candidates mainly in districts where they had no chance of winning. Also, how does that Republican distraction somehow produce a two-thirds majority if, in fact, the electorate isn’t fundamentally center-left?
Eric’s second point: Polls give the Legislature very low marks for job performance… but individual lawmakers are popular in their own districts. So they get re-elected whether or not their views fairly reflect those of the electorate. Thus, presumably, the Republicans continue to pay the price for their 2006 inattention. There’s certainly some truth in this; Vermonters are very slow to oust incumbents (and Jim Douglas thanks you from the bottom of his heart). But still, it seems a mighty thin basis for the assertion that Vermont is a center-right state that has somehow managed to elect a solidly left-wing Legislature.
This disconnect between politics and pundits is also playing out on a national level. There’s a basic assumption that America is a centrist or center-right nation. But somehow the Americans managed to overwhelmingly elect a Democratic President, and sizeable Democratic majorities in Congress. I realize that “objective” pundits like Eric Davis try to play it down the middle, but there’s a much simpler explanation: Vermonters and Americans, by and large, want their government to do a lot of things. Regulate the excesses of the free market, furnish services that the market does not, redress social imbalances, maintain the infrastructure, and provide for a secure, orderly society. We may not be fond of paying for all that, but we do want our government to do it. On that score, it’s the Republicans, including Douglas, who are out of touch with the electorate.
and maybe it’s Republicans ,Douglas and some pundits that aren’t as in touch with pulse of the electorate as they once were or now believe.
I didn’t hear your call, JV, but I made pretty much the same call. I think Davis is so concerned about appearing middle of the road that he’s ignoring what is no defining “middle”.
M. Johnson also tried moving the political bar a bit during my call … he was defining the “will of the electorate” as being a 2/3rds majority of voters instead of the majority required to move legislatures.
We are a centrist nation. But the center now includes single payer health/medical care systems; protecting our only source of food, water, air and shelter (aka the physical environment); government playing an active and positive role in our lives; and other people oriented goals.
The center is no longer defined by a bunch of radical right wing corporatist extremists lying us into wars and pushing torture and such.
It must be unsettling when one’s world view starts to look wrong .. just ask Alan Greenspan.
One thing that really give me encouragement about the future of America is that the only demographic in America that currently supports the GOP over the Democratic party is the 65 and older generation. Every generation behind this group of people supports the democratic party over the GOP. In four years when we have our next election millions of McCain voters will no longer be here, while millions more of young Americans and new Americans will register to vote and continue the trend of supporting the democratic party by a huge margin over grandpa’s old party. The GOP is dead! BTW its been dead for a long time in Vermont!
I hope that helped move the conversation along, and I think it did.
I don’t happen to agree with it, though. Not totally. The choice seems to now be down to federal/state government versus local government (I’m simplifying, but isn’t that the gist?)
I’m not at all convinced that bringing everything under more local control is the silver bullet, aren’t their just as many examples of abuse, injustice and undue influence at the local level, as has been pointed out?
For me, the argument of Jessica and Rama is still way oversimplified and ignores the troubling, pesky facts in favor of a quick, emotional, sloganish approach that still does not address the underlying issue, that neither side has contested, that government does not always act in the best interests of the people.
Look at health care reform as an example. Currently, insurers have the final say over who gets care and who doesn’t, or people can get experimental care if they can afford it. This is a “weak government” model compared to every other industrialized country in the world and it has proven to be the worst of the lot in terms of access and outcomes for the majority of citizens, and in terms of cost.
So are you against the current health care reform proposals?
Or look at banking deregulation and the huge power shift that enabled. Credit card companies can move to states where 30% interest rates are allowed due to “local control” and lenders can make their own rules or have no rules at all in the pursuit of profit/happiness and it’s led to a national disaster happening right before our eyes.
So are you against banking reform?
I ask because the right wingers use your populist, libertarian rhetoric to appeal to folks like you and a broader swath of fed-up voters, but it’s in the pursuit of outcomes which I do not think you want from what I’ve heard, but maybe I’m wrong. I guess being unable to get decent health care does fit under the umbrella of “autonomy, self-determination, the ability to make choices not based on coercion”, but is that really what you are after?