Party Politics

Earlier this month we saw party politics in action as both Shumlin and Leahy endorsed Clinton as the Democratic nominee. I am not surprised and neither should you be surprised.

Senator Leahy has long been an elder. As long as Senator Leahy has been representing Vermont, he will not be our Senator for another lifetime. That is a good thing. Lifetime service as a politician cannot, in this climate, be given the respect it deserves. Too many lifetime politicians have spent too long bilking the public while enriching their own pockets, Wall St and their corporate masters. This has led to deserved skepticism as people begin to equate a lifetime in politics with corruption and lying. Unfortunately, guilt by association harms Senator Leahy’s legacy, as the American public’s approval rating of the Congress and Senate continue to plummet. Yet his reputation at home is intact and well deserved. But he is a party man. The Democratic Party, and all of its financial donors, have benefited Sen. Leahy and he is obliged, as all those who take the money are obliged, to toe the party line; regardless of the appropriateness or benefit to their constituents.

Shumlin must wonder if his days as Governor are numbered. His dismal showing in the election in November had to have given him pause. Shumlin has been involved in Vermont politics at the state level since 1990, always a Democrat. With the possibility of losing the Governor’s seat a reality, Shumlin should be able to expect the help of his party. If Bernie wins (J) or if Leahy decides to retire, Shumlin could look to replace Welsh as he moves into a Senate seat. All conjecture, of course. Letting my imagination play. But not out of the question.

The underlying problem is that these guys rely on money from the national party which, as we all know, takes its money and marching orders from the same leaders as the Republican Party and for the same reasons. Access to influence can be, and has been, purchased by lobbyists for giant corporations, banks, and investment firms, most of which are not from Vermont and are not concerned with Vermont.

No matter how good or honorable a person is, the people who pay them have an expectation of service. Quite frankly, despite the fact they the taxpayers shell out large salary and benefit packages for representation, it is paltry compared to what Monsanto or Cargill or Caterpillar can afford. We can pretend all we want that it is different here, but we know better don’t we? Dirty money taints all who come into contact with it. So while we may believe that our representatives are good and honest men, we cannot discount the fact that they all take money from businesses and interests outside of Vermont, beyond their salaries and beyond the donations of their constituents, to do a job that we are paying them to do. If you took money from a supplier to influence your boss’s selection of vendors and the supplier was paying you twice as much as your employer, where would your loyalties lie? Would you be tempted to make certain that the supplier who was giving you the bulk of your income stayed happy? Even if it meant doing something that wasn’t in the best interest of your boss? It is true that one cannot serve two masters. 

All of this has led to the rise of the ultra-wealthy and an imbalance in the distribution of resources greater than the world has ever seen before. People are suffering the effects including stagnating wages, anemic job growth, and an economy flirting with another recession. Perhaps we have finally reached that tipping point, that moment when the forces of nature that rule us all assert their ultimate authority. History has shown us time and again that wealth inequality ends. It always ends. Because it is not sustainable. Once one group has all the wealth, the game is over. History has also shown a propensity for ending resource imbalance and wealth inequality in 3 common ways: War, Taxes, or Revolution.

There is a fourth way available, but I am not convinced that it is feasible in this culture. The fourth way is that the side with all the wealth realizes that the game is about to end, and in the time honored tradition of children everywhere, gives some back so that the game can continue. That would actually mean that the wealthiest 1% would voluntarily redistribute the resources by utilizing a combination of paying higher taxes, raising the minimum wage, revising the current tax code, expanding Medicare, and feeding and educating the workforce that it wants available to utilize in the next round of the game. This would allow the game to begin anew. The economy would grow, the rich would get richer and they would be supported in this by a vibrant and healthy middle class. There would be a safety net to protect the most vulnerable citizens and guaranteed healthcare and food and education so that all can contribute to their best ability. You know this can happen. Unfortunately greed has trumped common sense and it seems that the 1% would like to squeeze every drop out. So, given the circumstances, I chose Bernie’s “Political Revolution” over the other options.

These are also the reasons that it bums me out, Bernie running as a Democrat. Even though I understand the strategy, it leaves a bad taste. Yet, if one looks at the glass in a half full reality, Bernie could be the catalyst for disruption of the two party system. That would be a very good thing. I'm going to lend my energy to that end.

Oh, and as to Peter Shumlin’s decision to attempt and steal Bernie’s thunder, subtle Gov. Nobody thinks it was intentional and we all believe it just happened that way.

Party Politics. Pathetic.

Post Script: I just realized that I haven't heard Peter Welsh offer an endorsement yet. I must have missed it. I'll look it up tonight on the interwebs.

"A New England Food Vision" is a must read

Recently, in my search about a topic that had come up on my podcast (foodscenevermont.blogspot.com) I came across the website www.foodsolutionsne.org and downloaded A New England Food Vision. This is a fascinating document that lays out a plan for New England to provide for half of its food by 2060. The thing I found most interesting were the maps that laid out proposed land use throughout the region. In each scenario the Champlain Valley provides the lion’s share of the crops.

Now I don’t intend for anyone to take this out of context, you should really read the plan. It is well written and well thought out. But what tweaked my nosey Nellie is the thought of what that actually represents. Think about it. The Champlain Valley is an important resource not only for Vermont, but for the whole region. As we plan our land use and develop our rules and regulations, we would do well to think ahead to what the future of our food systems will realistically entail. While food should be a basic human right in an advanced society, the types and amounts of foods we consume as a regular part of our diet will, in many ways, be dictated by the trade agreements the state and region enter into with other states and other regions. The better the agreements, the greater the availability of sustenance beyond mere survival.

Vermont would do well to take a proactive approach to agriculture and begin to consider the ramifications of what we grow and raise and how we do so as an integral part of our future planning. Encouraging the types of agriculture that will make Vermont stronger both as a society and as an economic trade partner is in the best interest of the citizens. So the discussions should be open, transparent and public.

Artisan industries and small farms are vital to Vermont and our way of life. Making sure that a market exists for our products means making sure that our products are attractive to the market. By careful analysis, like that done in the aforementioned plan, Vermont can plan it’s economic and agricultural future and Vermonters can take their rightful place in the discussion about where we are headed and how we intend to get there.

It isn’t just for politicians any more.

Run Bernie, run!

There are several reasons that I am excited about a Bernie Sanders campaign for President. I first became aware of Bernie Sanders when I moved to Vermont in 2000. A friend was working his campaign and so I went to one of his town hall meetings. Really good chicken and biscuits, hot coffee and tea, cookies. A whole heap of straight talk about what he was focused on that year. Strangest campaigning I'd even seen.

I've never seen a negative Bernie campaign in the 15 years I've been in Vermont. He just doesn't roll that way. He tells you what he thinks and he votes that way and you can look it up. He is the rarest of all species.........an honest politician. He believes. He believes in this country. He believes that we should fulfill our promises to our elders and our veterans. He believes that kids should go to college for free so that we can compete on a global scale and he believes that the wealthy whose businesses stand to gather the most profit should pay for it. He believes that the system is corrupt. He believes he will not take PAC money. He believes that I will give him $5. And he believes that all of those $5 represent the will of the people and that they are powerful enough to drive out the Kochs and all the other billionaire handlers that have invaded our political system. But probably most importantly, Bernie believes that he can win. Or should I say WE can win? Because he believes that he is part of a grassroots team. Just listen to him speak and hear the wewewewewe drumbeat. It may be the only time you will hear a politician mean it.

I love the fact that Bernie has been an independent for so long. I think it took a real love of country to decide to run as a Democrat. Choosing to use the opportunity to present his opinions in a way that, while challenging the status quo, will not end up "splitting the vote" in the general election. I would have preferred that he run as an independent if only because it is important to break the two party strangle-hold on our political system. The American people are smart enough to choose from more than 2 pre-ordained candidates and a planned coronation. They have a right to hear from more than corporate interests.

 Bernie is not a young man. At 73, there is a fair chance that, were he to win, he would only serve a single term. But that just might be enough time to shake the electorate out of it's stupor, it might be enough to interest the millennial generation, who is going to inherit this mess, enough to see real change come to our system of governance.

I don't agree with everything that Bernie believes. But I believe that this year, for the first time, I will vote in the primary.....