Okay, so who is this Bruce Lisman who's suddenly unavoidable? He's all over the newspapers, and spending God knows how much money on advertising (though I do appreciate his support of my favorite local station, WDEV). He's touting the Campaign for Vermont, a new, nonpartisan Hands Across The Water nonprofit organization seeking A Better Future For Us All. 

I don't know Bruce Lisman from Adam. (Or Steve, for that matter.) But while I admire his dedication to pursuing a more prosperous and better-governed Vermont… and while there are certainly a lot worse things he could be doing with his bankroll (lookin' at you, Koch Bros)… I have to say that every time I read about him or hear him talk, I get the unmistakable whiff of farm-fresh fertilizer, if you know what I mean and I think you do. 

His goals are phrased in such a way as to be almost mom-and-apple-pie inarguable. “Campaign for Vermont” — who among us is against Vermont? His publicly visible supporters are hearteningly, Vermontingly, bipartisan. The Campaign homepage features a photo of Bruce on a mountain trail in full hiking gear, just like a real Vermonter. Other photos show a group of smiling multicultural children, a happy family, a construction worker, two people petting a horse, a child with a bushel of apples. Awwww. 

But the rhetoric, while artful, is full of dog whistles echoing conservative talking points. 

The language on health care is full of muted warnings about the possible impact of a single-payer system, the bete noire of conservatives. It posits the riskiness of single-payer in a series of hypothetical questions: What if it doesn't contain cost? What if it can't satisfy patients and providers? What if political pressure affects the quality or cost?

Boogeymen, one and all. “What if it's a disaster?” Well, what if it isn't? What if we cling to the current system, which is a proven disaster? CFV's vision of health care is all about the preservation of competition — because we can all see how well the free market has served us to date. You might as well tell us to stay in bed because there might be monsters in the closet, you never know. 

CFV's position on energy is heavy on conservative talking points with the overt conservatism stripped out. “Reliable, affordable, safe and clean” — words right out of the Vermont Yankee playbook, without actually mentioning nuclear power. CFV offers support for alternative energy, but also raises questions about reliability and cost, particularly when spending public funds on the effort. (Solyndra, anyone?) 

Its statement on education bristles with conservative attacks on the current system, couched in pleasantly neutral tones. It says the schools cost too much and aren't good enough. It appears to call, in polite language, for spending cuts, school choice, and disempowering the unions — more or less the John Kasich/Scott Walker agenda.  

The Campaign also wants to see a lot more transparency and accountability in government. Yes, that is a good thing. And Vermont institutions often fall short on these important goals. But when Lisman starts talking about measuring the outcomes of government programs, he is wrapping a nonpartisan cloak around the old conservative call for “running government like a business.” Well, Bruce, government isn't a business. And there are lots of government operations you can't evaluate on a spreadsheet or quarterly report. 

The CFV focuses its attention on the Agency for Human Services. It asks why we can't be told how many of “the most vulnerable” there are in Vermont, why they are “vulnerable,” (quotation marks are theirs) and whether AHS programs are achieving results. This isn't as bad as Newt Gingrich wanting to hire poor kids as part-time janitors, but it's the same tactic: go after the programs that help the poor. (They could have pointed to transportation spending, which is a merry-go-round of political influence and patronage. Road contractors are routinely among the most generous donors to local and state political campaigns.) 

And then there's Bruce Lisman himself. I don't doubt that he is firmly convinced of the purity of his purpose. And as I said earlier, there are a lot worse things he could be doing with his money. 

But is he the best messenger for this cause? I look at his resume, and I see a career spent on Wall Street, culminating with a top executive position at the late lamented Bear Stearns, victim of the 2008 Wall Street collapse. Profile pieces in the Vermont media paint him as a relatively good guy and basically absolve him of any of the nefarious dealings that almost brought down the global economy. But he was certainly in the power structure. And a top position at Bear Stearns doesn't exactly qualify him as a standard-bearer for transparency, social responsibility, good government, and a sound economy. 

And then there's his years of service on the UVM Board of Trustees, that paragon of openness, transparency, and quality. He's been off the Board for several years, so he can't be blamed for the Dan and Rachel Kahn-Fogel imbroglio or the liberal handouts of nondisclosure agreements, severance packages, and golden parachutes routinely used to sweep scandal under the Catamount-skin rug. But it is fair to say that he was part of UVM's power structure, and was in a position to change the culture. If he tried to change anything, he didn't exactly succeed. If he didn't try, then his credibility as the face of reform is severely impaired. 

But let's set aside the atmospherics of the message, and the questionable qualifications of the messenger. The sudden ubiquity of this Campaign makes me wonder: Who's really behind it? Where is all the money coming from? Why is CFV automatically given “centrist” credence and largely uncritical reportage? And, most importantly, where does it go from here? How will it seek to impact the political process? Is it a gathering of good and honest folk who simply want what's best for Vermont? Or is it a Trojan horse for a conservatism (and a Republican Party) that has fallen out of favor and out of power in our state? A new “rebranding” of policies that can't gain political traction in their present guise? And is Bruce Lisman selflessly promoting a better future, or is he the next Rich Tarrant, generously offering to share a rich man's wisdom and leadership with the unwashed?

I honestly don't know. And if anyone has a contrary view or a more informed opinion on Mr. Lisman, I'm happy to hear it. He and the CFV aim to be a significant political force in Vermont, and we should know who and what we're dealing with.

But I smell manure.