Editor’s note: Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist.
Gov. Peter Shumlin’s fourth state of the state speech wasn’t.
As in, it wasn’t a state of the state speech as such speeches are usually understood.
As such speeches are usually understood, they are about the state of the state and how the governor intends to improve it.
Since it is a speech by the governor, “the state” as used the second time in the title means state government and its functions: taxes and spending, economic policy and social services, schools and roads, crime and punishment, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water.
Instead, Shumlin delivered a 3,509-word message all about “the rising tide of drug addiction and drug-related crime spreading across Vermont.”
It was rare, if not unprecedented, in the history of state of the state speeches, and perhaps not only in Vermont.
It also served Shumlin well. If nothing else, it allowed him to avoid talking about state government and its functions: taxes and spending, economic policy and social services, schools and roads, crime and punishment, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water.
It isn’t that the governor deludes himself into thinking he can avoid all those other issues for very long.
“You will hear from me on many of these topics next week when I present my budget,” he said at the outset of his detailed examination of what he called the “epidemic” of drug use in the state.
In fact, in recent interviews and speeches, he has already discussed health care, poverty, and school spending.
But the state of the state speech is always a high profile event. The galleries are full of VIPs. The speech is broadcast live on public media. The press sends in its reserves (Channel 3 had at least three correspondents on hand) to parse the speech and get reactions from lawmakers and lobbyists.
How tempting, then, for a governor to devote his speech to a subject about which there is almost no dissent. Everybody opposes drug addiction and approves of measures to prevent it. Had Shumlin dealt with those other issues, the post-speech commentary might have featured Republicans and even a few Democrats assailing his proposals for going too far, or not far enough.
As it was, the Republicans were reduced to grumbling about what Shumlin did not say. He didn’t talk about economic development, complained Rep. Brian Savage of Swanton. He “missed the opportunity” to address the “broken” school financing system, said Rep. Heidi Scheuermann of Stowe. But Kurt Wright the only Republican who addressed what Shumlin did say, offered his “kudos.”
House Republican leader Don Turner of Milton did note that Shumlin’s anti-drug proposals added up to “more promises to spend more money,” and even some Democrats acknowledged that the governor gave no sign of where he would propose to cut the budget to pay for his plans to spend more to prevent and treat addiction.
Whatever political calculation there may have been in the governor’s choice of what to say – and what not to say – there is little doubt that he was addressing a real problem and that his concern was deeply felt. Shumlin is a shrewd politician, but unlike such shrewd politicians as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, he is not a good actor. When he seems genuinely dedicated to a cause, he is. Just consider his commitment to his health care plans.
And in this case, he is taking what is increasingly considered the enlightened viewpoint: that drug addiction is primarily “a public health crisis,” to be met by “providing treatment and support, rather than simply doling out punishment, claiming victory, and moving on to our next conviction.”
Not that he ignored law enforcement (so to this limited extent he did address the subject of crime and punishment). He called for tougher sentences “when anyone transports illegal drugs into Vermont,” and for “those who break into our homes with weapons in hand to rob us to feed their habit.”
But he insisted that “addiction is, at its core, a chronic disease,” and should be treated as such.
Vermont now seems to be the only state in which both the chief executive and the chief justice – Paul Reiber – are on record saying that treatment trumps law enforcement when it comes to dealing with drug abuse.
Whenever an elected official makes a speech on a matter about which he feels deeply, the danger of schmaltziness is always in the air, as it was in the House chamber Wednesday. As many a chief executive has done since Ronald Reagan introduced the practice in his 1981 State of the Union address, Shumlin introduced ordinary citizens strategically placed in the front row of the gallery: a young man who conquered his addiction, his mother, and the doctor who helped him; a man whose son died of an overdose; Bess O’Brien, whose film “The Hungry Heart,” deals with addiction in Vermont.
These introductions lent a soap opera flavor to the opening minutes of the speech. Of all Reagan’s contributions to American politics, this one could be the most regrettable.
