Editor’s note: David Moats, an author and journalist who lives in Salisbury, is a regular columnist for VTDigger. He is editorial page editor emeritus of the Rutland Herald, where he won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for a series of editorials on Vermont’s civil union law.
A recent poll by VPR and Vermont PBS illustrated a paradox of Vermont politics that most Vermonters probably take for granted, but which illustrates a major dilemma for the Democratic presidential campaign.
The paradox is that Vermonters continue to give exceptionally high favorability ratings both to Sen. Bernie Sanders and to Gov. Phil Scott. The poll showed a favorability rating of 64% for Sanders and 57% for Scott.
Sanders, a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, describes himself as a democratic socialist and has become the voice of the progressive wing of the party. He is unstinting in his denunciation of the character and politics of President Donald Trump.
Scott is the moderate Republican governor of Vermont, serving his second two-year term. He is one of the few Republicans to denounce Trump and has acknowledged he did not vote for him in 2016. (In Vermont, Scott’s loathing of Trump is not a big political risk. Trump’s favorability in the state stands at 31%.)
It is not new for Vermonters to split their tickets, electing liberal members of Congress while supporting Republican governors. Jim Douglas, the former four-term Republican governor, understood his position as a Republican in a liberal state; he was famously photographed helping President Barack Obama moving the furniture inside the White House.
Meanwhile, the state’s three-man congressional delegation — Sen. Patrick Leahy, Rep. Peter Welch and Sanders — is one of the most liberal in the nation.
All those tens of thousands of Scott and Sanders voters may be experiencing a degree of cognitive dissonance after Scott vetoed the latest minimum wage bill passed by the Legislature, which would have raised it from $10.96 to $12.55. The veto came even though the latest poll showed that 74% of Vermonters said they favored raising it that high or higher.
The paradox may be explained by the different view voters have of legislative and executive responsibilities. It’s one thing to champion a movement, to stake out radical positions, to agitate in Congress. Sending Sanders down to Washington is a way of affirming and bolstering left-wing causes without shouldering the responsibility for the pragmatic implications.
Governors, however, are the ones who must hold together a governing coalition, including some members of the opposition. They are also the ones who will have to put new programs into practice. So even though Vermonters favor a higher minimum wage and appreciate Sanders’ support for that cause, Scott has established himself as a go-slow moderate unwilling to press too hard on controversial issues. He may alienate activists on the minimum wage, paid family leave (another popular cause) and climate change, but the perception that there is a steady hand at the tiller seems to be reassuring to most Vermont voters.
The consternation of Democratic voters at the national level may reflect this paradox writ large. As a spokesman for progressive causes, Sanders has inspired an ardent following — so ardent that some of his followers have been accused of bullying behavior. Congress has been a suitable platform for him, allowing him to criticize without restraint the corruption and greed that are in the ascendancy in the Trump era.
But in running for president, his support comes nowhere near the high level of favorability he enjoys in Vermont. Moderate Democrats across the nation may be akin to those moderates in Vermont who know that the executive must appeal across ideological lines and who want someone with a streak of the pragmatic. So they have been casting about for a moderate alternative to Sanders, fearing that he will scare away the middle-of-the-road voters he will need. It isn’t clear whether Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar or Mike Bloomberg will fit the bill. The progressive alternative to Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, may be the best blend of the pragmatic and progressive, but Bernie’s movement so far has been crowding her out.
The irony of Sanders’ position as tribune of the ideological left is that when he occupied an executive position, as mayor of Burlington, he showed he was willing to practice old-fashioned pragmatic politics. Though he alienated the old Democrats who had run the city for years, he eventually was able to show results. It was no accident that he launched his 2016 campaign at the stunningly beautiful waterfront park that is part of his legacy.
Can Sanders tone himself down to ease the worries of the working people of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Michigan? In terms of ideology, he should be speaking for them and the economic injustice that has leached the life out of middle-class America. But if he is the candidate, the Republicans will portray him as a wild-eyed socialist, not a pragmatic executive.
That the Republican ticket is led by the most corrupt and corrupting president in our history is one of the ironies that has Democrats pulling their hair out as they search for someone to beat him. Trump is no Phil Scott, promising a level-headed alternative to the visionary schemes of a socialist. Rather, he is a demagogue eager to warp the institutions of government to defend himself against the sordid truth of his corruption.
Emotions are running so high this year that a long list of proven, level-headed Democrats has been unable to summon the passion that Sanders has done. Where are Jay Inslee, Steve Bullock, John Hickenlooper, Cory Booker, Michael Bennet, Kamala Harris? History has left them by the wayside for now.
Can Sanders do what candidates viewed as extreme usually do — pivot to the center after winning the nomination? He doesn’t have the nomination yet, but the well-being of the republic may depend on it.
