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.