It’s a question I hear asked more and more often from those who remember how the genesis of the Progressive Party had a lot to do with liberal frustration with the centrist administration of Democratic former Governor Howard Dean in the 90s. At the time, Dean had no interest in accommodating the left, and was even known to openly mock liberals who seemed politically stuck with him. The combination of ideological frustration and personal pique went a long way towards evolving Burlington’s “progressive coalition” into a full-blown Progressive Party.
So when Governor Shumlin digs in, particularly on his views on taxation and his seeming deference on many public policies to the very wealthy in the state, the question inevitably gets asked as to whether history will repeat itself, and whether Shumlin’s trickle-down intransigence won’t lead to a resurgent third-party movement (either a reinvigorated Prog operation or something new) and a new era of structural advantage to Republicans in major elections.
Given the history and dynamics of the state, I think the answer is “yes,” but not right away. The political/ideological construct Shumlin has very deliberately built to protect him from such challenges from the left (as well as from the right) will do it’s job for a while, but will prove unsustainable very soon. The question is – will it matter?
First of all, let’s say what everyone assumes, but often doesn’t want to say: Peter Shumlin’s agenda is built to get him re-elected, first and foremost. Sure, that sounds tacky and seems disappointing, but it is what it is. That’s not to say that it isn’t built on genuine opinions and ideology, but the key is that it’s “based on” them. Not as far off as, say, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” was “based on” real events, but neither is it as close as, say “In the Name of the Father.”
Shumlin’s generally liberal-based calculus is also far superior to President Obama’s, which has failed miserably. The problem with “political triangulation” is that, when it goes wrong, everybody gets pissed off off at you, rather than being on your side. Obama has gambled on an owning of the mushy middle. Shumlin has taken a far wiser track.
There’s mumbling around the Statehouse that the only issues Shumlin cares about are pre-K, Vermont Yankee, and Health Care. I think you add ways and means (tax policy) to that, and you have a complete list. That’s because these issues are the ingredients to the Governor’s recipe for success. In fact, he has seemed concerned about other issues getting in the way of that calculus, reportedly showing anger to some insiders within the activist community who have created waves on social service issues during the session, for example.
Here’s the idea: Vermont Yankee demonstrates that he is a man of conviction who fights for what he thinks is right and can stand up to bullies. Health care shows him as a forward looking visionary. Pre-K shows that he is compassionate, family-focused and engaged with issues traditionally considered in the “women’s” sphere. Tax policy shows the rich Republican set that they have nothing to fear from him, and that he’s part of the club. Add to that marriage equality where he shows he’s a social live-and-let-live-er, and you’ve got the whole picture.
The fact that these things may not seem to be traditionally politically compatible (government run health care and tax cuts for millionaires?), just makes it better – that’s mavericky. The difference between being a political maverick and a political schizophrenic is whether or not your differing views fit together with themselves, or if they’re just a flailing, random assortment. With Shumlin, each paints a part of the picture, so they fit together nicely. Hence, Shumlin is already creating a powerful legacy of his identity as a chief executive which will serve him well in the history books, or in any further political ambitions.
This is why we on the left are wasting our time trying to appeal to Governor Shumlin on rational grounds to reconsider his approach to taxing the rich, or to dial back his decidedly Reaganesque rhetoric on state revenues and the need to protect our handful of millionaires from having to pay more in taxes than they feel like. We may have a strong intellectual argument, based on studies, letters signed by Vermont rich folk, records showing the real immigration patterns of the wealthy, etc – but the fact is that Shumlin’s view is not based on intellect at all. It is, in the end, a vital piece to the political narrative he has built for himself, and he is ready to deny the reality on the ground unto eternity to continue cementing that identity.
He’s also got his political base structurally tamed. The progressive left is often depicted as a disjointed collection of single issue causes, but the fact is there’s a hierarchy to that cause spectrum – and universal health care sits squarely on top. So long as that is in the balance (and so long as the left feels Shumlin is genuinely working towards it – which he clearly is), there will be no challenge from the left. There may be talk based on tax policy, or other issues, but it will not gel into an actual challenge.
So in the short term, Shumlin is secure from a ballot-splitting renewed Progressive Party, or Green Party, or whatever. His first – and most critical – reelection effort (2012) will be a clean D vs R, as Health Care will still be unfolding.
But that won’t last. This is where the partial shelf life of Shumlin’s carefully built political identity kicks in. Shumlin can’t drag out the health care implementation because the left will smell a rat. Dragging it out will also threaten his “gets things done” bragging rights.
And again, Shumlin is no political sociopath. His political identity-construction, as I said, is based on real beliefs, and he does genuinely feel that health reform is critical for the state – particularly for the state’s business climate. He wants to get this done.
But once it is done, many on the non-Democratic left will give freer rein to their anti-Dem feelings and will find enough simmering frustration on the tax issue – as well as the numerous, cumulative cuts in social services necessitated by Shumlin’s stubborn refusal to progressively raise state revenues, that they will finally begin to coalesce around alternatives.
The Shumlin folks will be shocked, horrified, angry. How could the left turn on the guy who brought them universal health care, they will ask? In asking they will make the classic Democratic political mistake of focusing exclusively on how they feel groups of human beings should behave, rather than how they actually do behave. That’s when they will start to feed the process by scolding the malcontents for acting the way humans always act, much like scolding a fish for swimming. Those malcontents will not like being scolded for behaving in ways that feel natural (because they are natural), so they’ll get madder and pull a few more people to their side – and the whole cycle of trying unsuccessfully to shoehorn a third party into a hardwired two-party system goes around again (sometimes I think all Democratic Party strategists – particularly the self-appointed ones – should be forced to get social psychology degrees).
And the time will come when we all will wish that the momentum to IRV hadn’t been so thoroughly crushed by the god-awful Kiss administration in Burlington. Of all their sins, knocking election reform back 30 years is, IMO, by far the greatest…
But I digress.
So that’s when the third party comes back. Will it be the Progs? Frankly, the Progs may well not exist by then at the rate they’ve been imploding. The Progressive Party is not on the favorable end of the bell curve of mortality.
But it will be many of the same faces, simply rebranded. And it will again never attain more than 10-12% of any statewide vote. It will ignore the lessons of the recent Pollina elections that running as an independent or a Dem would get them far more of the vote. The pointless demonizing of the Democratic Party (which is no more or less inherently problematic than any other political institution) and the human urge to make clubs will drive these folks to form the next sometimes-major party.
But here’s the thing: it won’t happen until after Shumlin has won re-election the first time, and in the process marked the Governorship as his for as long as he wants it, due to Vermonters’ particularly pronounced deference to incumbency. It will impact other races, sure, but SHumlin will be secure.
Three steps forward, two steps back, as we creep into the future. Thus has it always been, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing – it’s just a thing thing.
Still, wouldn’t it be nice if Governor Shumlin dropped the calculus and just lead, without political consideration? Sure, the stakes would be higher – he may lose some control of his legacy, and his future value as a candidate would be less certain – but he (and the state) could score big.
If he did, he could be the Governor who broke this goofy kabuki dance on the left, rather than simply leading us into the next pass through the same cycle. And that would be a cool legacy from where I’m sitting.
I say “shamefully good” because there isn’t a whole lot we can do other than sit around and watch it unfold.
You’re right about IRV. The sad thing is that, while it takes a good politician to win a clear majority vote, that is not the best quality for a candidate when it comes to delivering on the expectations of those who served as his faithful boots-on-the-ground.
I’d say that the state is scoring big by having a governor willing to risk implementing a single-payer system. You sound like one of these people who will never be satisfied until you get 100% of what you want — that’s how George Bush ruled.
I’ve sympathized mightily with the Progressive Party here in Burlington and I have made a point of voting for them consistently in the past decade as a resident of the city. Kiss and his extreme lack of political tact (and smarts) has given himself and the Burlington Progs an extreme buttkicking in the past 2 years here in Burlington. He not only incensed people with IRV, but he has also had several other setbacks: two tax increase proposals rejected (one rejected just last night by the City Council 11-3); the city credit rating downgraded for the City, Airport and BED due to the BT fiasco; the BT fiasco; having the CAO kicked of the Board of Finance; having the electorate reject a proposed increase to 50% vote requirement for mayor after IRV was repealed. The man seriously has an anti-Midas touch.
Throw in the fact that only Rep. Pearson represents the Progs from Burlington and that Councilors Brennan and Mulvaney-Stanak were among only 3 councilors to vote for a tax increase for city services to be sent for voters to vote on, and the Progs have completely discredited themselves in Burlington.
Kiss himself hasn’t stated whether he will run for reelection or not, and the dithering will only further hamper the Progressives. If he ultimately stays in, there will be a crowded field for the Mayor’s office and Rep. Kurt Wright (who is most likely to run again for Mayor) will win somewhere around 40%-plus of the vote and become mayor. One of the upsides is that Rep. Wright’s seat will be up for grabs and possibly claimed by a Dem.
Challenging Dems from the left in primaries will be extremely difficult, especially in safe districts where incumbents can claim they’ve done a lot to forward liberal and progressive goals. A strategy would have to be in place for progressive Dems to be ready to run for open seats that are eminently winnable, but which don’t come by very often. Talks about tax increases will have to probably wait 4 years down the road, and with Speaker Shap Smith running a very tight ship in the House, it will have to be a semi-long wait.
At some point Shumlin’s aversion to raising taxes is going to run up against the need to fund the health care system. I have no idea how he can resolve the conflict without altering in a major way one of the elements of his narrative that you cite.
Suzi Wizowaty
The conference committee signed off on Vermont’s universal health care bill this morning at 11 a.m. This afternoon the Senate will vote to accept or reject the compromise bill, and then we in the House will do the same. We’re 99% there–at least for this step (exciting and historic as it may be) on what is admittedly not a short road. But time for celebration is near.
Thankfully the Brock-Sears amendment was excised. Keep fingers crossed the petulant threats that helped it pass in the 1st place were just more hot air…
For the most part I agree with Odum’s analysis. I have been saying to many since the election that the last time we (Progressives) had strong growth in interest was when Dean was Governor. The other factor then (as now) was that the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.
Therefore…those many voters who thought (and some still think) that the Dems would bring about the left of center changes that people think the Democrats stand for, would see what the Dems actually stand for (as an elected group and Party…not necessarily on an individual scale).
In this case…we are seeing that progressive taxation (the most fundamental of Progressive policy positions) is still very very difficult to see happening any time soon.
I also agree that Healthcare is likely to reduce major challenges for the time being. Seeing that get implemented is certainly related to Progressive economic policy.
As for the current standing of the Progressive party…I could not disagree more (on the state level). While we were once only in Burlington we are now far more diverse and spread across the state. With Pollina in the Senate, I would argue that is a far stronger place than we have been in some time. Especially with the Senate more fractured than it has been.
Certainly the Burlington situation is not doing us any favors. But Emma and Vince are very well respected and two other seats were only lost by 10 +/- votes last election. It is good for any party to have to reflect at times : )
The other factor in place in the mid 90’s was that the Presidency was also held by a Democrat. Clinton brought us NAFTA, and Don’t ask Don’t tell. Clinton was still more popular than Obama (who has greatly disappointed those on the left who did not listen to him on the campaign trail and thought they were getting someone more left that then did.) Obviously Obama has been far better than the alternative…but the same tax issues haunt him as do Shumlin.
Only time will tell.
One quibble (it may seem minor, but it’s important to me):
Schizophrenia is not what you think it is– you’ve made a common error with respect to it– it’s not MPD; it’s something a lot more complicated than that and difficult to fit into a political metaphor.
1. A “left of Shumlin” challenge will not succeed until Dem voters forget what it was like having Douglas (and nearly Dubie) in office.
2. The reason that “taxes on millionaires” are not as easliy passed as you might think is that any such tax will be extended down to folks with incomes that are much closer to $200k. While no one here should be crying tears for people in that category…the bulk of the Governor’s economic support comes from 2 earner liberal couples. Do not bite hand that feeds.
Bonus Point 3: $50,000 per year after taxes per college tuition feels like a progressive tax to those of us who pay it. Do not discount this wealth drain when it comes to wondering, “why do these people resist tax increases when they’re paying a historically low rate?”
The issues that Gov. Shumlin are focused on seem to mirror the issues that Green Mountain Daily bloggers are singularly focused on: Vermont Yankee, health care reform, education, and taxation. Does the environment matter anymore? Alternatives to Vermont Yankee?
Here’s an example of an issue I would think would be of interest to GMD (and other Vermonters), but it’s not in the news anywhere: Governor Shumlin has appointed Ron Shems to chair the Natural Resources Board, though because of his most recent work he has had to recuse himself from all activities associated with the Water Resources Panel, which seems to violate state statute. The Governor’s office has responded to several inquiries and stands by his appointment.
Governor Douglas made several appointments to the Natural Resources Board before leaving office, so that now the NRB is made of almost exclusively of Douglas appointees, most of whom are unconfirmed. The details are here: http://vermontersforacleanenvi…
Remember what happened in 1994? At that time, confirmation of Dean’s appointees to the Environmental Board were front page news.
I see less likelihood of a third party with any impact in the medium or even long term than you do for a couple of reasons.
First, it’s being too soft on Dean as governor to refer to him as a “moderate”. He was conservative, and not just fiscally. Just as one example, he dumped two Defenders General for the affront of being strong advocates for the clients they were supposed to represent and he established as a personal litmus test for judicial nominees whether those nominees agreed with a particular Supreme Court decision that Dean disagreed with.
Second, as another poster pointed out, we all remember the Douglas years and we don’t want to go back there.
Third, and possibly most important, is that the trends are to greater ties between D’s and P’s. Witness the two successful Senate candidacies (and at least one House seat) based on D/P fusion races, or Doug Hoffer’s Auditor of Accounts race, which sets Doug in a good position to run again next year for the open seat when The Fish quits to take on Bernie.
An even bigger deal, of course, is the working ties between Bernie Sanders and the statewide Democratic Party. For years he’s been running as a de facto Democrat, even entering the D primary five years ago. If I recall correctly he also participated in the Coordinated Campaign.
These developments not only create institutional barriers to a big split, they also mean that the personal animosity isn’t there. That’s no guarantee that it can’t return, but I’m hoping it didn’t.
In the 2010 election Peter Shumlin was a known quantity. He had been on record for a couple of years with his “no more taxing capacity” mantra. People knew what they were getting, but even many of those who would have preferred a more progressive candidate were motivated first and foremost by the desire for an electable one. We got it and we have a governor who has had an extremely successful first year.
Let’s try not tearing the winning coalition apart, okay?