Why Can’t Progs and Dems Just Get Along?

1. What you say of the national Democratic Party may or may not be true, but it is decidedly not true of the *Vermont* Democratic Party, which is pathologically and hysterically anti-business. Which brings me to my original point: there is no need for the Progs in Vermont — the Vermont Democratic Party is pleeeeeenty anti-corporate enough.

2. To “I dont think so” (and I might add…I am always curious why bloggers are unwilling to stand by their words with their names)When Clavelle ran as a Democrat, a Progressive (the capital letter does matter as it defines a party position, not an issue position) did not run. In fact, some P’s were frustrated…but infact, there were many more D’s that were. Also…why is it defined that he “did the right thing” and ran in the D primary? I did not realize the constitution explicitly indicated what was “right” and “wrong” with respect to how to run for office. I will have to go review my history.But in the vein of can we all get along? If/When all the P’s start running as D’s, you can bet there would be a lot of establishment D’s who would be even more unhappy about that. Even Tim Ashe’s race is a good example. He was not one of the chosen 6 (see Sen. Condos postcard and PAC). Now they are accepting and embracing him…but it was not supposed to be him.As for “tending”, please give me examples. I said “tend” because there will of course be one or two, but for the most part, individuals that I know have worked very hard to disuade people from running against incumbent D’s who have shown that they will vote more (small p) progressively when serving. Since we can not know how anyone will perform in the Legislature until they are there, we do (occasionally) run for the open seats even against people who might appear good on paper. We have all seen candidates who look like one thing on paper who turn out to be something else entirely.As for Dean…I can not think of many Democrats in this state who would argue that Deam governed as any word close to progressive.As for Shumlin, Anthony made it clear he would not run against Racine because Racine is a more progressive Democrat. He then indicated that he would be running for LG. But he did not make a firm, official announcement so Shumlin announced more formally…but they were both in at that point. Also…I have great respect for Shumlins ability to get things done, but he is all over the map with respect to progressiveness. Sometimes he is right there and other times (see the upcoming Yankee battles for the next two years) he will compromise away the progressive position. (Vote twice is another example)We are looking for consistent progressive people. Whether they run as D’s or P’s it does not matter. But we hold the bar pretty high. Maybe that is wrong of us. But maybe some people also want the bar raised higher.

3. Quite concisely: because the Democratic National Party is a corporation, owned by even larger corporations. It’s not there to serve us, it’s there to use us.

4. “A Progressive did not run in any of the first three races with Gov. Douglas.”That’s not really true. Was Clavelle not really a Progressive? Yes, he did the right thing and ran as the big tent candidate, but he was still a Prog. What were you going to do, run someone with a “P” next to their name against your own long-time city leader? So to say “we did not run anyone” in the first three Douglas races is not really true.” . . . when progressive Democrats run, or hold seats, we tend not to run.”Tend? What is a “tend”? Is there a policy in the Prog party bylaws on “tending”? Was Dean not “progressive” enough in 2000? Was Shumlin not “progressive” enough in 2002?

5. I hope that “my three cents” can make it to the discussion. While many of us hope that the issue/discussion can and does look forward, it is also important that we take the time to identify/correct information that is not entirely accurate. As each “side” has built up degree’s of missinformation it makes it harder for a practical discussion to move forward.Just to clarify, going into this election there were 6 Progressives. Three were from districts that had been electing (and probably would continue to elect) relatively progressive Democrats. All three seats were won during a time of an incumbent stepping down. However, out of the other three seats, 2 are seats that had been traditionally held by a Republican and one of the seats was held by a conservative Democrat. So to make the broad statement that Progs only seek cooperation after taking Dem seats is unfortunately rhetoric and we need to get back to the facts before we can move forward.The same is true with the Governors race. A Progressive did not run in any of the first three races with Gov. Douglas. There are many who think we have run every time because they allow themselves to believe rumors that fit their desires (to scapegoat someone else). However, when progressive Democrats run, or hold seats, we tend not to run.I know…some will bring up the fact that I ran against Sandy Baird in 1994. That is true. In this day I would not have encouraged myself, or someone in my shoes to do that. Sometimes we learn with time, and strategies develop or change. And sometimes, we can learn from the past and improve and move forward. For many Progressives (and many Democrats) this movement forward had been happening prior to this election cycle.Many believe that we are forming just to create a party and for ego’s. It will be hard to convince those people otherwise. But when one actually looks at the voting record, we are extremely consistent to our platform which is a se of policy positions that we hold very dear. Yes, we are a party and we do run to win. That is what all parties are for. But they (as we are) are also supposed be based on a set of principles/policy positions. I would argue we are most clearly and uniformly in line with that ideal. Examples to come during the discussion.

6. “Hold it, Now, are we actually gonna go before a federal judge, and tell him that some moldy Babylonian god is going to drop in on Central Park West, and start tearing up the city?” “Sumerian, not Babylonian.” “Yeah, big difference.”

7. Haik: Thanks for the reminder. I just corrected it in the post. I’ve been meaning to get to that for days … oi. I noticed the error when I created our Facebook events page.

8. Jane Knodell, City Councilor, P-Ward 1Small correction, Shay- Knodell represents Ward 2.

9. I want to thank everyone for some great suggestions and comments above — including taking this show on the road. Perhaps … But, to that point of how Prog/Dem relations work outside of Chittenden County, this is a great point. There is a difference in how this dynamic works.That said, feel free to offer your perspective here and I’ll be sure to relay it to the panel (and the audience).I do expect some folks in attendance at the Dec. 4th event will offer some thoughts/questions from the floor on this topic, but to be sure go ahead and post here or email me at shay@sevendaysvt.com.We‘ve also created a Facebook events page where you can post questions and comments, too.

10. “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.”I can’t necessarily agree with this. Many, many Dems are moderate — not the crazed officeholder Dems who allow impeachment protesters to take over my Statehouse and who use City Hall to hold anti-Burton hearings, but the rank and file everyday citizen Dems who just want to show up for work every day and make a living and pay their mortgage. Progs are by definition not moderate. Their agenda is anathema to many moderate Democrats. We are not necessarily “drawn from the same trough.” We do not all want to turn Vermont into a gigantic redistributive “corporation-free zone” consisting of organic farms and composting operations. In fact, isn’t that the reason the Progs have spent the past two decades criticizing Dems?

Comments are closed.