In the most recent election Democrats and Progressives slugged it out (at least electorally) in several House races throughout the state — with one particularly charged race in the Queen City.
These races opened up some old wounds, and as a result many Vermont voters, post-election, still want to know whether the parties can work together, or if they’ll remain stuck in a time-warp circa 1981.
Here are a few questions I’ve heard since the election:
- Should the two parties merge?
- Should the two parties create a joint primary system, perhaps utilizing IRV?
- When they do compete, can they do so civilly?
- Has the Democratic Party become a more comfortable home for progressives?
- Has the Progressive Party run its course?
- Should Progressives run in Democratic primaries (or vice versa)?
In the interest of promoting a dialogue about these issues, Seven Days is hosting a public forum. I’ll be moderating a conversation with two Democrats and two Progressives on Dec. 4th at 7 p.m. in the Main Street Landing Film House in Burlington.
As of now, our four panelists will be:
- Rep. Johanna Leddy Donovan, D-Burlington
- Jane Knodell, City Councilor, P-Ward 2
- Jake Perkinson, Chairman, Burlington City Democrats
- Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington
There is plenty of seating at the FIlm House (see the photo), so bring a friend and your questions (no rotting fruit or veggies please). The first part of the forum will feature questions I put to the panelists, and the rest of the questions will come from you, the audience.
Feel free to email me questions in advance as I would be happy to ask yours if you can’t make it. You should also feel free to leave them in the comments section of this post.
As with the event, I’m looking for spirited, but civil, debate and discussion.
We’re also hoping that Channel 17 will be onhand to film the event, and possibly broadcast it live on Burlington Telecom.
This article appears in Nov 19-25, 2008.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
This is a great idea. 1087 suggestion is a great idea. We should take this debate on the road. I look forward to a great discussion.
This sounds like an interesting event,but living in an outback region far away from Burlington ,I worry that this discussion will touch only slightly on the statewide implications of the Dem/Prog “thing”.The disagreements may be most intense in Burlington but it has impacted the entire state.
I hope the internet continues to make political parties more and more irrelevant in local elections. On a local level, a party’s apparatus largely exists to make and distribute physical, paper campaign propaganda, including signs. I don’t know if that will ever change, but at least the internet allows political campaigns to circumvent party machinery. A political party is what Vonnegut would call “a proud and meaningless association of human beings.” It’s a tool that amplifies, but also distorts an individual’s philosophy and message. And no two individuals will ever have exactly the same philosophy or message. So why can’t Progs and Dems just get along? They draw from the same trough, and if they got along they would just be Dems. And what fun is that? It makes better television this way, obviously.
What an amazing statement by My Three Cents who obviously hasn’t been paying attention for a number of years.
Dems should not be wasting their time talking talking “cooperation” with Progs. When push comes to shove, Prog officeholders don’t care about “policy.” They care about holding office and having power and expanding the Progressive Party. Electoral “cooperation” is entirely a one-way street. They plead for electoral “cooperation” from Democrats only AFTER they’ve taken Democratic seats. And they would not miss an opportunity to pick off Democratic seats in the future if they thought they could pull it off. Democrats should run against Progs in every race.
The Dem/Prog debate statewide, just like this discussion, is all about mediating egos and that attracts media attention. Who would show up for a debate about good governance? Last I understood that’s what governing is all about. I’ve had enough of party labels. Bring on the independents!
I disagree with Realist. The candidates that I hear that may be running for mayor of Burlington on the Dem ticket are terrible options. I will continue to vote Prog for Burlington, the administration is not bad and they haven’t “sold out”. I actually have a lot of respect for Mayor Kiss.
why would the progs and dems join forces when the burlington city council progs are already aligned with our cheney-esque republican-in-prog-clothing CAO? And when are my fellow prog groundtroops going to wake up and realize that the city hall progs have sold out? the dems aren’t great, but they’re a better gamble than our current prog administration.
Sounds like a great session!
I look forward to this event to see what everyone has to say, but I offer this food for thought: If there is enough of a desire or need by some for a 3rd party, doesn’t that in and of itself argue against this notion of “working together” in the long run? I’m not arguing from a Progressive or Democratic point of view. Just looking at the logic of it all.I can see short-term agreements in specific elections or election cycles as plausible, but in the end as long as there are two separate and distinct parties whose members can articulate significant reasons as to why the other Party is “wrong” for them and presumably for the state (for lack of a better word and to save space in this posting) I don’t believe it’s plausible for a long term “arrangement.” Different individuals are involved over the years, circumstances on the ground change, political hot-button issues change and there will inevitably come a time when someone will present a forceful argument for doing something other than what was agreed to.. or simply decide to go back on the deal (then all hell breaks loose)It’s hard enough to work together within a single political party (there are disagreements within both the D & P parties) and some folks think that two parties can agree to working cooperatively over the long term??? I think the best term for that is called “merger.”Some would like to see Ds & Ps working together b/c there is “agreement on the issues” … but issues are not the obstacle. Let’s all remember that the real discussion between the Democratic & Progressive Parties is a political one… we are talking about political parties after all. If it’s “issues” that are supposed to trump party politics, than folks wouldn’t worry so much about the labels. But like it or not, that is the way our system has evolved (it was certainly not designed that way) So… looking at this issue from a purely partisan point of view… in the political system that we have: Why would a Progressive Party member who is so opposed to the notion of belonging to one of the two major political parties give up on their desire to grow a third party movement and advocate for the specific solutions they seek to Vermont’s challenges? (Progressives do state that they have a more narrow agenda than the Democratic Party, making some D’s critical of the unwillingness to compromise in certain respects) Why would a Democratic Party member want to make a deal to allow the Progressive Party to get stronger, thereby increasing the divide? (Democrats argue that they are the “big tent” party, which makes some P’s critical of the compromises necessary to gain consensus as they don’t lead to the necessary solutions) Labels matter… if I consider myself a Progressive or a Democrat (as opposed to a small “p” or “d”), it’s hard to work together on something and then listen to the very same individuals use negative rhetoric against the parties themselves. Progressives don’t like to hear that their Party will never make a difference, will never win statewide, etc. etc. Democrats don’t like being told that they’re “no different from the Republicans.” And both sides share blame in that respect.So I remain a skeptic… we are all human and when we feel slighted we tend to become defensive & lash out. Any notion of carving up legislative races to make sure Ps & Ds don’t run against each other and taking turns on who will run a statewide candidate while the other party sits it out would require an authoritarian rule within each party that is anathema to its members and simply not practical. Again, arrangements like that run counter to the very notion of having separate parties. Since we have different parties, I think the best solution is to use them… individuals can seek more than one party nomination. If a person believes they have crossover appeal, they should try to get the nomination from as many parties as will elect them as their nominee for office. If enough people end up with both P & D nominations, maybe that will be a catalyst for a true reconciliation of sorts. But as long as there are party loyalists on both sides, any notion of “working together” won’t last long enough to matter. I’m looking forward to the discussion on the 4th.