Parliament: Way back when

The News Guy did not go to the Vermont Democratic Party fundraiser in Burlington last night despite suggestions – if not taunts – from some folks that he was obligated to do so, having shamed the Dems into opening the event to reporters.

The shamer/taunter set had a point, but 140 miles of round-trip driving just to show the flag seemed excessive from an energy-efficiency standpoint.

Two of them actually: excessive petroleum use by the automobile, excessive use of already-depleted energy reserves in the body. Word is that at least one other reporter did attend the event to hear what Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts had to say, and that said reporter’s account will appear on the VT Digger web site.

Last Wednesday’s post (What Are They Hiding? Just scroll down) calling attention to the (subsequently reversed) Democratic decision to keep reporters out of the fundraiser noted that even from the party’s selfish perspective, that original decision was “really, really dumb.”

Let it not be thought, however, that in Vermont these days one has to be a Democrat to take actions falling into the “really, really dumb” category. Just take a look at what the movers and shakers of the Northeast Kingdom city of Newport did last week.

(And, no, don’t think that just because you might live far from Newport, this particular really, really dumb move doesn’t affect you; it could cost you a few bucks even if you live in Castleton).

What the Newport City Council did was to decide not to welcome visitors from Quebec, or at least not welcome them in French.

Put Bienvenue on a sign? Sacre bleu, non, replied the City Council, as reported by the Newport Daily Express.

“Why can’t we put Spanish on the sign coming from the South?” asked one Alderman, a question which may or may not have had some rational foundation.

Another complained that French-speaking Quebecois are so anti-English that “the English die up there.”

Assuming loose standards for “rational foundation,” this qualifies. Francophone Quebecois do de temps en temps take this French-only business trop loins.

Still, it is unlikely that the folks in the tourism/marketing/economic development department would recommend a deliberate decision not to welcome people in their own language. Having heard about Newport’s anti-bienvenue policy, some Quebecers might decide to spend their money this summer in New Hampshire or New York, or maybe not to cross the border at all.

And who could blame them?

Now that we’re in the international mode, and before proceeding to matters of far greater substance for the rest of the week, let’s finish the recent contemplations about the possibility of altering some of the basics of Vermont governance.

Again, these are not proposals, just stuff that might be interesting to talk about. Last week and the week before, the interesting stuff was a one-house legislature, such as Nebraska has. Today, inspired by the sentiments of one reader’s comment, a more radical suggestion: Why not think about making Vermont the first state to establish a parliamentary system?

Maybe because it could be unconstitutional. The Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and by some definitions, a parliamentary system does not qualify.

But by others, it does, and every once in a while, a writer or scholar will suggest that the whole country convert. On its face, it seems a sensible suggestion. Almost all of the world’s democracies operate under a parliamentary system, and most of them seem to be governed at least as well as this one.

Those writers and scholars have not inspired a movement. The only organization that comes close to being a pro-parliamentary advocacy group is known as “US Parliament,” which is based (one will not be surprised to learn) in California, and which barely qualifies as an organization. Even Paul C, Manuel is not familiar with it. http://www.usparliament.org/parpar.htm

That’s significant because Manuel, a political scientist, co-wrote (with his wife, political scientist Anne Marie Cammisa)  Checks And Balances?: How A Parliamentary System Could Change American Politics (Westview Press, 1999 ) .

Professor Manuel, now at Georgetown University in Washington, said he and his wife were not advocating that the US switch to a parliamentary system, merely examining the pros and cons. In fact, he seems to conclude that the cons outweigh the pros. After all, he said, in more than 200 years, “the US has never had a government collapse.”

Still, there are advantages to the parliamentary system. Government in Britain, he said, has been “more responsive,” if “less stable” than its U.S. counterpart.

Because of the uncertainty, it might be interesting if one small, relatively civilized, state (that would include this one) decided to perform the experiment. If the states are, as Justice Louis Brandeis said, “the laboratories of democracy,” maybe one state would perform a service by switching to a parliamentary system. If it succeeded, other states would emulate it. If not, the first state could switch back.

Under a parliamentary system, Vermonters would not choose a governor. They would simply vote for legislators. The party that controlled the legislature would choose its leader to head the executive branch. In most parliamentary system, this leader is called the prime minister, but Vermont could continue to use the term ‘governor.’

One advantage of a parliamentary system is that the government, as long as it retained the support of a legislative majority, and presumably therefore of the people, could really get things done.

This is, of course, also the system’s biggest disadvantage. The government might do too much. But if any government did too much in the opinion of the electorate,  that government might fall, requiring a new election.

Would that be more power to the people? Or too much politics?

The power of the majority might also be constrained because legislative majorities could be harder to come by. Parliamentary systems tend to inspire the growth of minor parties, which often win seats in the legislature. Then the bigger parties have to form coalitions with them in order to get enough support to form a government.

This is precisely why some people think a parliamentary system might be a good idea. They’re the folks dissatisfied with the two parties and the powerful if unofficial two-party system which effectively invalidates minor parties.

Granted, all of this might be idle speculation, cotton candy for the mind, as someone once described theoretical musings about unlikely prospects.

But look at it this way: Thinking about making Vermont the first parliamentary system in America is no sillier, and less objectionable, than thinking about having Vermont secede, an absurdity which seems to have a  devoted (if very small) following in these parts.

Early in last night’s candidate debate, Sen. Peter Shumlin delivered an unusually astute (for a candidate) bit of political analysis that illustrates the challenge facing him or whichever of his opponents wins the Democratic primary for governor.

Shumlin said the voters of Vermont were like the members of a large, complex (as aren’t they all?) family about to sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, a meal which can be either pleasant or “a hair-pulling deal.”

What those voters want, he said, is a governor whose presence at the head of that table reassures them that “a food fight isn’t going to break out.”

The bad news for the Democrats is that the Republican nominee, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, who exudes poise, stability, and geniality, has at least tentatively crossed that threshold.

The good news for the Democrats is that, based on the performance of the three contenders who met at Sterling College in Craftsbury Common Thursday evening, any one of them has the potential to cross it, too.

Shumlin and Senators Doug Racine and Susan Bartlett answered the questions put to them knowledgeably, confidently, and even not all that long-windedly. Judging from conversations with several of the hundred or so in the audience, all three candidates impressed just about the whole crowd.

They were occasionally funny, sometimes at their own expense, and considering that the primary is only two months away, remarkably civil toward one another.

In fact, if there was a political downside for the Democrats, it was that all three came across so well that few of the onlookers were ready to choose among them.

“I was undecided when I came, and I was hoping to leave here with a favorite,” said one woman. “But I think they’re all great.”

A couple of qualifications before proceeding. First, there are five Democratic candidates, and the two no-shows can’t be judged here. Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz was never scheduled to attend. Former senator Matt Dunne was, but withdrew after his wife gave birth to the couple’s third baby Monday.

Second, the News Guy, as the debate moderator, was the one asking the questions (until throwing it open to the floor after about 40 minutes). Sitting at the table  with the candidates is not the same as sitting in a row with the spectators, so the perspective may be a little warped.

For that reason, and because it’s late (the debate ended at 9), this will be a shorter than usual post, hitting just a few of the highlights of the evening

Perhaps because of the questions, the candidates did not, as they reportedly have in recent debates, spend much time attacking Dubie. At one point, in fact, Shumlin expressed a mock sympathy for the lieutenant governor.

“Free Brian Dubie” Shumlin said, calling attention to the Dubie campaign aide at the back of the room videotaping the debate, to which Dubie had also been invited. Dubie has declined almost all joint appearances with the other candidates, and Shumlin said it was because Dubie’s campaign consultants were keeping him under wraps.

The closest the candidates came to a squabble came when Racine said that this year’s Legislature had “left an $8 million hole in the budget,” and gave Gov. Jim Douglas authority to make the cuts.

Not so, said Bartlett, who insisted, “we did leave with a balanced budget and did not tell the governor to go ahead and cut.”

The candidates revealed some policy differences, though they pale in comparison to the differences between the parties. Bartlett demonstrated more support for the idea of consolidating school supervisory unions. But none of them favored forcing local school districts to combine.

Shumlin most strongly supported creation of a statewide universal “single payer” health care plan. Racine leans in that direction, but is awaiting the report of a special commission on health care created by a bill Racine sponsored. Bartlett did not express support for a single payer system.

Though the debate kept going beyond its 90 scheduled minutes, almost nobody left. The audience seemed to be having a good time. Perhaps more surprisingly, so did the candidates, though they had done this, Bartlett estimated, “at least 30 times,” and were scheduled for scores more.

Maybe they sense that any one of them has the chance to emerge as the kind of person Vermonters want to see carving the turkey at the head of their Thanksgiving table.

Hidden amidst the stilted language of government budget-cutters in Montpelier Tuesday, along with the moaning and groaning—some of it legitimate—from people who will suffer from those cuts was some real news. But you won’t see it in the morning papers or on the evening TV shows.

Here it is: This liberal state—sometimes called the most leftward in all the land—is governed by two center-right parties.

This isn’t necessarily undesirable; center-right policies have their claim to wisdom.

But it’s a surprise, considering Vermont’s reputation as a hotbed of liberalism, sometimes even “the Peoples Republic of Vermont,” in semi-jest from both left and right.

In a real “peoples republic” (which does not mean China) the government does not raise the price of college for middle-income students or reduce the quality of mental health services for the poor without at least looking into the possibility of selectively raising taxes or fees.

Again, there is no suggestion here that the budget cuts are bad policy. Many of them are quite reasonable, even for liberals. Taken as a whole, however, they are not liberal policy. Not even center-left policy.

Raising this interesting question: What happened to the institution that supposedly supports and pursues center-left policies? You may have heard of it, especially because its adherents hold four of the six statewide offices and dominate the Legislature. Not only that, but its presidential candidate whumped his opponent but good in Vermont just a few weeks ago.

Yup, it’s the Democratic Party. The party of FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ, and HHH. Not one of whom would have stood by and allowed cuts in legal assistance for the poor, or weaker enforcement of human rights violations, or spending less on services for sick children without saying—no, without proclaiming—‘Wait a minute! There must be some way we can find some money here’

That Democratic Party lives, just not here. We know that because just next door, in New York, Gov. David Patterson is an actual Democrat with budget problems as severe as Vermont’s, with a $15 billion deficit looming for next year. Like Vermont’s Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, Patterson has proposed severe budget cuts. But he would deal with more than 25 percent of his projected shortfall with $4 billion worth of tax and fee increases.

Whether Vermont should follow that course is a subject over which reasonable people may differ. But if any of those reasonable people were Democrats, you’d think that a few of them would be taking that side of the debate.

Debate, however, seems to be something Vermont Democrats avoid, even when most of the evidence is on their side, or would be if they had a side.

For instance, in explaining why no tax hikes should be considered, Neale F. Lunderville, Douglas’s Secretary of Administration, asserted that “economists widely agree that tax increase during challenging economic times serve only to slow recovery.”

Well, sort of. What economists more “widely agree” on is that while tax increases are the second worse thing to do in a downturn, they are not as bad as cutting the budget and laying people off .

Just as Vermont is doing, without a peep from a leading Democrat.

There are economists who disagree with the general consensus, and who think raising taxes is worse than cutting spending. They could be right. But they are not Democrats. They are the most conservative Republicans. Even the center-right economists tend to agree with Democrats on this matter.

Among Democrats, only former State Rep. Paul Cillo, now head of Public Assets Institute, the liberal think tank he started after he left the Legislature, has dared to suggest that the state consider selective tax increases on upper-income earners. So have two writers on the Progressive Party’s “Prog Blog,” Burlington Mayor Bib Kiss and public policy analyst Doug Hoffer. But they aren’t Democrats.

(Well, OK, Treasurer Jeb Spaulding has proposed higher fuel taxes to finance road and bridge repairs. But that’s more of a user fee than a tax).

It’s true that on social issues Vermont effectively has two center-left parties, with few leading Republicans spending much time worrying about abortions or embryonic stem cell research or trying to roll back the state’s Civil Unions law. But when it comes to the fundamentals of governing—the role of the state in guiding the economy and providing basic social services, Vermont’s leading Democrats have converted; they are now Republicans.

Perhaps they are just being prudent. Any suggestion of tax hikes is politically risky. But nobody has taken a poll to see whether most Vermonters would consider some selective revenue hikes or borrowing to soften the impact of budget cuts. They accepted that path when Republican Gov. Richard Snelling chose it in 1991.

Even with the political risk, the behavior of the state’s Democrats leaves us with this question: If the Democratic Party will not stand up for poor, sick children, what’s the point of having a Democratic Party?—Jon Margolis