(Editor’s note: Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist.)
[F]or at least two reasons, Vermonters who are interested in politics might be forgiven for thinking that all politics is presidential.
One reason is that the presidential races in both parties are … well, let’s just say unusual. That means interesting. Especially interesting right now because the next big contest is right next door in New York.
And of course there’s a guy from Vermont in one of those presidential primary races.
But that’s not the only reason the typical Vermonter might have pretty much forgotten about other political campaigns happening this year, including one that will elect a new governor.
The other reason is that the campaign for governor so far is as exciting as a bowl of mush.
Vermont faces what might be called the end of an era. It has been the Peter Shumlin era: six years of substantial accomplishment (more prosperity, more educational opportunity from preschool to postgraduate, paid family and medical leave, tougher anti-pollution rules that might even save Lake Champlain) and equally impressive failures (the health exchange debacle, the universal health care collapse).
Whether those accomplishments outweigh the failures or vice versa can and probably will be debated for some time. What seems beyond debate is that Vermonters are ready — with Shumlin supporters almost as ready as his detractors — for something and somebody new.
Aside from a small but vocal corps smitten with Shumlin derangement syndrome, the governor is not so unpopular that people wish him ill. His approval and disapproval ratings in the latest poll were 37 percent and 40 percent, a statistical tie. But even most who wish him well are happy that he’s not running again. Vermont awaits its new era.
What an opportunity for a candidate. An electorate eager for a new approach, a new outlook, a governor with a different way of strutting his or her stuff. A perceptive and creative candidate could really take advantage of the situation. And with five candidates — five intelligent, experienced, reasonable candidates — you would think one of them would have risen to this occasion.
Not yet.
Check their websites. They are full of reasonable, intelligent, moderate proposals.
All about as interesting as a bowl of mush.
Former Transportation Secretary Sue Minter is “committed to leading a state government that functions well, is accountable to taxpayers, and restores the public trust.”
Former state Sen. Matt Dunne is in favor of “an economy that works for all Vermonters.”
Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott wants voters to know he has three “core principles,” which are: “work together, focus on fundamentals, and contain costs for families and businesses.”
Scott’s opponent in the Republican primary, Bruce Lisman, promises “a multi-faceted, coordinated platform for economic development. With a clear mission and quantifiable goals, we will restore Vermont’s economic growth and vibrance, creating opportunity for all Vermonters.”
Yes, he said “vibrance.” No, that’s not a word.
The third Democrat in the race, former state Sen. Peter Galbraith, of Townshend, appears not to have a website. In his speeches he has tried to paint himself as somewhat to the left of Minter and Dunne, calling for a higher minimum wage and a ban on corporate campaign donations (both he and Dunne have said they would accept no corporate money). He also said he would oppose putting any more industrial wind projects on Vermont ridgelines.
All right, some of the above is a bit unfair. First of all, it’s still early, and the candidates have time to elaborate on their proposals.
To some extent, they already have. Their websites do offer some detail beyond the platitudes. Minter portrays herself as the skilled and enlightened technocrat who did such a good job leading Vermont’s recovery from Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. Dunne proposes to use his experience in the high-tech world — he was a Google executive — to build an economy that would “export value in the form of software, finished wood products, beer, precision products, value added food, net-zero manufactured homes, or higher education.”
Both Republicans stress holding down spending, allowing the budget to grow no faster than the state’s economy by making government more efficient.
This presumably distinguishes them from all those who want to make state government less efficient. Those spending restraints would almost surely require deep cuts in the state budget.
What would they cut?
They don’t say.
Nothing unusual about that. Aside from the kind of hard-line conservatives who would not do well in Vermont, candidates rarely specify the public services they plan to eliminate or reduce. “I won’t repair the potholes” is not a winning slogan.
In fact, nothing that the five candidates are proposing is unreasonable. Much of it makes sense. But where is a theme? Where is excitement? They are all for a clean environment, good schools, economic growth and fiscal prudence.
Big whoop.
With his “I’m more progressive than those other two,” Galbraith comes closest to having a theme. But it’s not clear that ultra-progressivism is what Vermonters want from their state government. Vermont Democrats are progressive, or Bernie Sanders would not have so thoroughly cleaned Hillary Clinton’s clock in last month’s primary. But Shumlin, who persisted in raising the minimum wage and winning paid sick leave, is a progressive too. The voters are looking for something different.
Not the anti-Shumlin so much as the non-Shumlin. Fairly or not, Shumlin is perceived as too calculating, too much the operator, too secretive, too willing if not downright anxious to make deals.
That’s just what governors should be if they are to succeed. But some of them are subtler about it, more adept at hiding just how cunning they are. After six years, Shumlin has managed to antagonize the left (over the gas pipeline extension into Addison County and his abandonment of the universal health care plan), the right (over spending) and much of the center (over … well, nothing in particular, just the way he struts his stuff).
The candidate who succeeds him will be the one who comes across as straightforward, but also inventive and flexible. The winner will be the one who understands that while Vermont has problems (as do all the states), it is not in crisis. Vermont needs no revolution. It does need careful stewardship.
Politically, right now it needs a candidate who, if nothing else, is interesting, who can wrap his or her many disparate policy proposals into a comprehensive theme the voters can understand and appreciate.
All five candidates have the ability to do that. But first they have to get out of that bowl of mush.
