No Giants Here
Back in 1945, when most of the real ball-players were off at war, the theretofore (and largely here to-aft) hapless Chicago Cubs met the slightly less hapless Detroit Tigers in the World Series.
Walking into the ball park for the first game, Chicago sportswriter Warren Brown was asked who would win.
“Nobody,” he said.
In the wake of Tom Salmon’s switch from the Democrats to the Republicans, it’s time to consider Vermont politics in the light of that story. Not because of what Salmon did, but because of the way he did it: not very well. He seemed pleasant and moderately articulate, but a bit wooden.
Not nearly as wooden as his prose, though. He actually said, “The Democratic Party left me,” which was a cliché 30 years ago.
But this is Vermont, which, with Howard Dean gone and Jim Douglas going, is bestridden by political mediocrities. Right now, most of the likely candidates to replace Douglas as governor have a history of either losing or most unimpressively winning. There’s not a fearsome face in the crowd.
Start with the Republicans. The front-runner to whom all will defer should he want the job is Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie.
Winner of four statewide elections. Strong record, no?
No. Dubie snuck into office in 2002 because Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina took enough votes from Democrat Peter Shumlin to allow Dubie to slip in with a plurality. Then he kept getting re-elected because: (a) He is by all evidence a nice guy; (b) His Democratic opponents were palookas; (c) Nobody cares who the lieutenant governor is.
Outside the Republican inner circle Dubie has only the tiniest personal following. If he runs, he will get the hard-core Republican vote and nothing more, unless, of course, the Democratic candidate is yet another palooka.
Or, considering how much more conservative Dubie is than the average Vermonter, maybe even if the Democratic candidate is yet another palooka. Meaning he’d probably lose.
(Digression: And doesn’t it seem that he’ll not run? The very fact that he’s taking time to think it over (assuming that’s not an act designed to make him appear modest) indicates his heart isn’t in it. After all, the only point to being lieutenant governor is to run for governor. Why hesitate?)
If Dubie doesn’t run, many Republicans will turn to State Sen. Randy Brock of Franklin County, the only Republican aside from Douglas and Dubie (and Jim Jeffords, who soon thereafter became an ex-Republican) to win statewide office since roughly the Pleistocene era. That’s a sign of strength, isn’t it?
Not really. Brock beat an incumbent Auditor of Accounts who had been caught fudging her educational credentials. Even if the evidence did not quite support the judgment “lying about” those credentials, it was close enough. Elmer Fudd could have beaten Elizabeth Ready in 2004.
Politically speaking, the Auditor of Accounts has one thing in common with the lieutenant governor: almost nobody cares who he or she is because almost nobody knows what he or she does. Substantively, there is a difference. The Auditor of Accounts actually does something. Brock apparently did it well enough.
But two years later he got beaten by Salmon, a challenger whose only credentials were having the same name as a popular former governor and being a Democrat.
Besides, Brock, who also seems to be a nice guy (based on one conversation) is even more conservative than Dubie. His conservatism does not make him completely unelectable in Vermont. But close.
Or what about Mark Snelling. Like Salmon, he’s the son of a popular former governor. But he’s a Republican, and people do care who the governor is, meaning the typical voter might examine his credentials beyond checking out his name.
His credentials are that he runs the family business and the Snelling Center, a think tank of sorts which…well, which does something having to do with looking into government and politics. Exactly what it does remains mysterious. Its impact, however, is clear: it has had none. Being the head of a think tank about which nobody thinks isn’t much of a credential.
There are a few other Republicans supposedly contemplating a run for governor, and for all anyone knows, Sens. Phil Scott , Vince Illuzzi, and Kevin Mullin might be good candidates. So might former Sen. John Bloomer. But none has ever run statewide. Only Illuzzi is widely known, and he might be too much of a maverick, and too much the economic populist, to win a Republican primary (though possibly the Republican most likely to beat a Democrat).
Oh, yes, the Democrats. Among whom we have one candidate (Sen. Doug Racine) who lost a statewide election he should have won; a potential candidate (Shumlin) who did the same, in the same year (2002); and another candidate (Sen. Susan Bartlett) who appears to have raised no money for her campaign and who is little known to the general public.
Granted, there is one undefeated champ—Deborah Markowitz, who has been elected six straight times as Secretary of State, a string of victories that would be more impressive had the elections been for, say, Homecoming Queen at Siwash U. or Treasurer of Local 252 of the International Tiremakers and Mechanics Union.
Like Sate Treasurer, Secretary of State should be an appointed position, and isn’t only because it gives politicians an office to run for so they can run for something else. Somehow, her predecessor (the one she knocked off in 1998) managed to do the job poorly, an extraordinary feat suggesting a level of incompetence so extreme as to be almost admirable.
Having knocked off an incompetent, being competent herself, not to mention rather charming, and a Democrat, Markowitz kept getting re-elected. Elmer Fudd would have done the same.
At this point, a certain generosity would be both compassionate and (more important) accurate. Political losers –Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama — have returned as better candidates and won big victories. Shumlin and Racine seem to be sharper, more aggressive, candidates than they were in 2002. Bartlett, an accomplished legislator, could emerge as the sleeper candidate of 2010. And who knows? Even Tom Salmon, if he could hire himself a better writer, might become formidable.
Right now, though, the 2010 campaign here looms as a clash of…well, not quite of midgets. But certainly not of giants.
Still, someone will win. Someone won the 1945 World Series, too. The Tigers in seven. Hank Greenberg, home from serving in the Army, hit two home runs.
But that didn’t mean they were any good.
Tags: Brain Dubie, Doug Racine, Peter Shumlin, Susan Bartlett, Tom Salmon, Vince Illuzzi
September 11th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
(Jon, I periodically lose my log-in password, and as a result, I don’t comment often. Hopefully, I have now put my password somewhere I can remember it because your excellent analysis deserves comment!)
Regarding giants, I remember being on the floor of the U.S. Senate once and asking myself, “Where are the giants?” They seem so rare, and in an age of celebrity, notoriety and instant information and gratification, it is fair to ask — but not easy to answer — “What makes a giant?” Perhaps we expect too much from one person when we should seek to evaluate the characteristics of the society from which de jure leaders spring. I personally believe that the last Vermont gubernatorial giant was Deane Davis. Davis was elected at an older age, had accomplished much in his life and did not NEED to be Governor. I think he had a sense of something larger than himself, a great sense of Vermont, and was able to bring about two absolutely landmark accomplishes in the face of challenge: institution of the sales tax and the creation of Act 250. Yet, he did not act alone and was able to assemble a collective wisdom, bringing to mind Newton’s comment: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Therefore, a political giant is more a creature of a supportive cast of characters … and an underlying socio-cultural polity that makes great accomplishment possible, something that might not be achievable in the tea-bagger era. (In the realm of giants, I would have to give runners-up awards to the Dick Snelling/Ralph Wright partnership back in the budget crisis of 1991.)
Jim March, a professor emeritus at Stanford and an authority on leadership, co-authored a book using Don Quixote, of all characters, as a meditation on leadership. Toward the end of the book, he observed that Quixote’s attitude “embraces a view of life and action that uncouples heroic commitment from great hopes for consequences. It speaks of obligations rather than expectations, of a life that is to be lived and enjoyed, and of duties to be honored.” Now, who in your list might fit that description, News Guy, and who, in your long experience, might qualify as a “giant”?
September 11th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
This column usually has a lot of good things to say, but what it has to say about the Snelling Center does not enhance its credibility. First of all, it is NOT hard to find out what the Snelling Center does. It studies specific issues. It runs training sessions for new legislators to help them hit the ground running and make their efforts more productive. It runs programs which train Vermont’s leaders in government, education, non profit and even commerce, to understand what needs to be done, to understand the governing and leadership issues, the tools and the resources or lack therof, and each other. It promotes dialogue. It is non partisan. Its courses require work to get through. It has an alumni body active in leadership roles around the state probably in excess of five hundred persons. It is, in and of itself, a huge achievement, of great value to the state. What it is not: a think tank.
The News Guy should get to know the Snelling Center, which has quietly become one of Vermont’s premier resources. He might find that its mission is very positive, and something to like.
Finally, Mark Snelling’s, and the whole Snelling family’s involvement in the center has been active and thoughtful. The Center began as an ongoing, particularly active tribute to Gov. Richard Snelling. The curricula communicate an ethic of service, educated decision making, and honest effort which characterized his, and Barbara Snelling’s public service in Vermont. I don’t think one would be able to find a single graduate who did not value highly the experience of being a part of a Snelling Center program.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
first, you get points for using “bestridden”
love it
second, you said “Politically speaking, the Auditor of Accounts has one thing in common with the lieutenant governor: almost nobody cares who he or she is because almost nobody knows what he or she does”
this may be true today but it wasn’t that long ago that people did care; admittedly, Tom Salmon and Randy Brock did not distinguish themselves or generate much interest; but Ed Flanagan completely redefined the job and gave people a reason to care; if he/she acts with courage, the State Auditor can be an important independent voice for the people by asking tough questions of the administration; sadly, the Leg. is not very good at this so the Auditor can fill a void; Ed did this with a passion, although his fights with Howard Dean often overshadowed the substance of the reports he issued (the mainstream media saw to this)
sadly, Ed’s approach to the job has not been adopted by his successors (although Liz Ready tried in her way); but I’m convinced that a credible candidate who is not afraid to speak truth to power would galvanize voters; we can only hope someone steps forward