(Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist.)
[V]ermont’s campaign for governor is getting a bad rap.
“Boring, boring, boring” seems to be the general consensus of the political insiders and the professional chatterers alike.
In fairness to the insiders and the chatterers, there is evidence to support their assessment. The campaign doesn’t have much political sex appeal. Neither do the five principal candidates. They have not aroused the kind of passion that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders did on the national level.
Wherein, perhaps, lies the problem, as Democratic candidate Peter Galbraith discovered the other day as he shook hands at the annual Church Fair in Irasburg. Many voters didn’t know who he was. One, who described herself as a Democrat who usually voted in primaries, said she didn’t even know who was running for governor.
“I’ve been so preoccupied with the presidential thing,” she said.
Who hasn’t? By comparison, Vermont’s campaign and its candidates do seem rather dreary. Not one of the five contenders has suggested building a wall around the state or refusing entry to Rastafarians, Huguenots or Baha’is. Nor have they been accused of running scam businesses or using inappropriate means of communication.
A bland bunch running unexciting campaigns, at least according to the current measurements of what qualifies as exciting and its opposite.
But consider for a moment the possibility that the insiders and the chatterers (present company by no means excluded) have foolishly (decadently?) accepted those measurements.
Because here are two facts: First, this is a substantive campaign in which all five principal candidates are making serious public policy proposals, some of which could affect Vermonters for better or for worse (or both). Second, this is an impressive field of candidates. They are all experienced, informed and thoughtful. Not one of them is a fool or a scoundrel.
Or an extremist. As these things are usually measured, the two Republicans are more conservative than the three Democrats. The Democrats want to legalize marijuana and require background checks for all gun purchases. The Republicans do not.
On the GOP side, Bruce Lisman seems to be somewhat more conservative than Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, if only because he won’t promise not to vote for Trump. But in most other states Lisman would be considered a moderate Republican. He even wants to spend more on clean water programs.
On the other end of the ideological spectrum, Galbraith is running slightly to the left of Matt Dunne and Sue Minter. But most of the differences are marginal. Galbraith wants the state’s minimum wage to go up to $15 by 2021. Dunne also wants a $15 minimum, but he doesn’t set a date for it. Minter’s website calls for raising the minimum to “$12.50/hour by 2018 and continue a gradual step to a livable wage of $15.”
None of this, to be sure, is very good theater. But let’s consider the possibility that, contrary to what the presidential race might suggest — and the media coverage of the presidential race confirms — a political campaign is not required to be good theater. Maybe it should just be good politics, possibly heading toward good government.
And there is at least a plausible case to be made that this is what is happening right now. These boring candidates are doing rather little except … discussing policy: public spending, school funding and governance, campaign finance laws, gun safety laws; where (or whether) electricity-generating wind towers should be built and who should make those decisions; how best to encourage economic growth.
Like candidates everywhere they also engage in meaningless blather. Galbraith is going to “fight for bold priorities for Vermont families.” Scott is running to “lead Vermont forward.” Dunne wants “an economy that will work for all Vermonters.”
This no doubt distinguishes them from all the candidates who will fight for timid priorities, lead Vermont backward and encourage an economy that works for only a few.
But within all that boilerplate are some concrete proposals. They should be taken seriously and examined to see if they make sense as policy, not just as campaign strategy.
Some of them might not hold up very well. Lisman, for instance, would “require agency and department heads to collaborate across state government to deliver 1.5 percent in additional efficiencies.”
Really? Don’t they already do that? How about some data supporting the notion that such collaboration would save that much money?
Minter wants to create “a public-private investment program to grow Vermont’s downtowns and regional centers.” She provides some detail, but not a great deal. Is this a realistic proposal or pie in the sky?
Both Scott and Dunne think Vermont’s population should grow by more than 10 percent over the next decade or so. That may be neither feasible nor desirable. But maybe it’s a great idea. (Does this mean they support Utah multimillionaire David Hall’s plan to create a 20,000-person development on land he has bought in Sharon, Royalton, Strafford and Tunbridge?)
Recently Minter created a bit of a stir with a TV ad linking domestic violence with gun possession and promising she “won’t back down” from proposing a law requiring background checks on all gun purchases, calling herself “the candidate for governor who’s willing to talk about it.”
It was an effective ad, and it got her some favorable publicity. But her two principal primary opponents agree with her, and they’ve been talking about it, too.
At about the same time, Galbraith got almost no attention when he broke with some two decades of bipartisan consensus over the state’s policy of enticing businesses to move to Vermont — or stay here — by giving them money.
“If a company needs public money to do business in Vermont,” he said, “it should be through a loan that is repaid or equity participation.”
It’s the candidate’s responsibility to see that his or her statements get taken seriously. And Galbraith is operating under the disadvantage of a general assumption — maintained despite the absence of any reliable polling — that he is running behind the other Democrats.
Still, it seems noteworthy that this kind of direct challenge to the status quo should be greeted by almost complete silence.
Like all the proposals coming from the candidates, the wisdom of this one is debatable. But Vermont right now is blessed by the presence of five serious candidates who are making serious proposals. That’s not boring.
