Of the many object lessons the trainwreck that constitutes the “Challenges for Change” rollout provides (most of which one would have hoped would be self-evident), the most telling is its crystal clear illustration of the very anatomy of political cynicism.

Cynicism happens when negative political stereotypes become default political archetypes in voters’ minds, and it grows when they see their elected officials play to those archetypal forms. Much of the rhetoric of “Challenges for Change” sounds great, and in principle, it has been hard to argue with the essence of Tom Evslin’s cheerleading on the topic.

The problem is, voters simply don’t believe him, and that lack of faith proves well-founded when these “Challenges” proposals include the relentless ideological goals of this Governor that do nothing to save money. Voters see such a devil in the details and they know they were right not to trust the rhetoric, however appealing it may have sounded. Cynicism grows.

On the other side, one Democratic political archetype is that Dems are shifty and don’t stand for anything. That they’re not really on your side when they claim they are. This is why openness, inclusion and transparency are so critical for Democrats, whose party functions more as a coalition. When it turns out that Democratic leaders have been sitting on proposals representing the most radical deconstruction of government in memory (in apparent contradiction to their own stated principles); when Dem leaders attempt to release these proposals into a fast track approval process designed, from all appearences, to catch allies unaware and minimize public involvement – well, this too plays into those negative archetypes. That sense that these lawmakers are shifty or untrustworthy seems vindicated. Again, cynicism grows.

What are the implications? Electorally it’s pretty obvious. Some of the goodwill Senator Shumlin has recently accumulated will take a hit. How much is hard to tell at this point, but if there’s one axiom that escapes politicians time and again, it’s the fact that it is far easier to destroy than to create. The trust and good vibes built up by Shap Smith over last year’s historic veto overrides, and by Shumlin over the Vermont Yankee vote can be erased in far less time and with far more ease than it took to build up.

But in general, of course, it will be the political left that takes the bigger hit from this episode. These days, Republican rank and file expectations in Vermont seem to add up to little more than the aggravation of Democrats, and that will always be a very low bar. On the left, however, we expect to see progress – or at least a genuine attempt at progress – and in recent years when the grassroots becomes frustrated and cynical with its lack, it has been the “grasstop” leadership in Montpelier that has helped to mollify criticism of legislators by adjusting expectations.

This time, however, it is those very grasstop voices that have felt slimed by the process; and with these progressive leaders from virtually every imaginable liberal cause feeling dissed by Democratic leaders, they may well be feeling less enthusiastic about smoothing the ruffled feathers of the rank-and-file base that will be so needed in the election season.  

Sound self-destructive? Maybe, but that’s just human nature, and smart politics works with the flow of human nature, rather than against it (and yes, that would be another one of those should-be-self-evident lessons).

Tonight’s legislative hearing on the CfC mess may help somewhat by giving room for diverse voices. But what will help more is if legislative committees either clearly and publicly reject the ideologically-based flaws built into the proposal (and for which there is little or no evidence of the vaunted savings), or change the timetable to allow full examination of every clause and comma.

Redesigning government for effectiveness (not the same as “efficiency”) is one thing; redesigning it fast and and on the cheap based upon the idea that government is the problem, is something else entirely. Subjecting Vermont to a discredited and bankrupt “philosophy” is the very lack of standard that has created the mess we face today.  Vermont deserves better.

(NOTE: Diaries posted under the GMD user represent collaborative efforts of multiple admins.)