This commentary is by Greg Guma, author of “Restless Spirits & Popular Movements: A Vermont History.”
Centralization in our social, economic and political systems has given rise to a deep sense of powerlessness among the people, a growing alienation throughout society, the depersonalization of vital services, excessive reliance on the techniques of management and control, and a loss of great traditions. — Decentralist League, 1977
Forty-five years ago, a group bringing together the political left and right attempted to create a “third way” called the Decentralist League of Vermont. It was convened by Robert O’Brien, a state senator who had recently lost the Democratic primary for governor, and John McClaughry, a Republican critical of his party’s leadership. Each invited some allies for a series of meetings to question authority and forge a new political vision.
“We oppose political and economic systems which demand obedience to the dictates of elite groups, while ignoring abuses by those who operate the controls,” its founding statement announced.
Vermont had been fertile ground for “outside the box” thinking before. To start, it didn’t immediately join the new United States after the War of Independence, remaining an independent republic until 1791. Almost half a century later, it was the first U.S. state to elect an anti-Mason governor, during a period when opposition to elites and secret societies was growing.
Early in its history, Vermont also had direct experience with another type of challenge to centralized power — nullification. The general idea is that since states created the federal government, they also have the right to judge the constitutionality of federal laws — and potentially refuse to enforce them.
It happened when American colonists nullified laws imposed by the British. Since then, states have occasionally used nullification to limit federal actions, from the Fugitive Slave Act to tariffs. In November 1850, the Vermont Legislature joined the club, approving a habeas corpus Law that required officials to assist slaves who made it to the state.
In recent times, Vermont has emerged as a testing ground for progressive political, economic and environmental thinking. But the ex-urbanite professionals and members of the counterculture who arrived to help make that possible built on a solid foundation. Questioning of illegitimate, centralized power began before the American Revolution. It continued with the jailhouse congressional reelection of Matthew Lyon in defiance of President Adams, resistance to an embargo of Britain and the War of 1812, and Town Meeting defeat of the Green Mountain Parkway during the New Deal.
The pattern reflects a libertarian streak that has resisted the excesses of both liberal and conservative leadership.
In a similar spirit, the group of Vermonters who launched an alliance in 1976 aimed at decentralizing political and economic power. Invited by Bob O’Brien, I acted as secretary and helped to craft its Statement of Principles. The Decentralist League was officially launched in Montpelier in March 1977. The plan was not to become another political party, the press coverage said, but rather to “speak out for the interests of persons not protected by rigged deals.”
Charter members included McClaughry and Sen. O’Brien; Sen. Melvin Mandigo, a Republican representing Essex-Orleans; Rep. William Hunter, a Democrat from Weathersfield; John Welch, who sought the 1976 GOP nomination for U.S. Senate; and Frank Bryan, a UVM professor.
I also made the list, identified as a magazine editor and activist, joining former Democratic Party vice chair Margaret Lucenti; James Perkins of Sheffield, co-chair of the Vermont Caucus for the Family; William Staats of Newfane, founder of the Green Mountain Boys; Martin Harris of Sudbury, leader of the National Farmers Organization; and John Schnebley Jr., who ran in the 1976 Democratic primary for the U.S. House.
As I outlined in a July 1976 essay published in response to the U.S. Bicentennial celebrations, Decentralism involves participatory democracy and worker ownership, home rule and neighborhood assemblies, regional self-sufficiency in food and energy, and voluntary inter-community alliances. Through efforts at both the industrial and local political levels, it can move us toward a social libertarian culture that respects the traditions of freedom and independence in America’s past, and that adds to this heritage a positive vision of human nature, ethical and ecological tools, and an internationalist perspective.
The basic purpose of the League, McClaughry argued, was to “reorient the political spectrum so that people begin to see issues in terms of power widely dispersed (close to them in communities), and power centralized (in large institutions over which they have no control).”
Although it lasted only a few years — a casualty of Reagan-era polarization — the League did identify a set of core beliefs, priorities and policies that could unite those who find the current national and global order unsustainable and dangerous. In Burlington, one legacy was the creation of Neighborhood Planning Assemblies.
Taking aim at centralized power and wealth, the League asserted that decentralizing both, where and whenever possible, is the best way to preserve diversity, increase self-sufficiency, and satisfy human needs.
Its basic principles, published in March 1977, resonate anew in the current global atmosphere of resurgent authoritarianism. Some policy specifics may seem dated; others are more relevant than ever.
