[N]ot just Republican incumbent Gov. Phil Scott, not just Democratic challenger Christine Hallquist, but all seven – count-em, seven (7) – candidates on the ballot for governor this year confronted one another at a forum Thursday night.
What transpired was the greatest advertisement for the superiority of the two-party system in recent memory.
Not a perfect arrangement, the two-party system. It is often derided by critics who argue that there are ideas outside the narrow horizons of the Democratic and Republican “duopoly.”
If so, they were not apparent at the studios of Channel 17, the regional government station in Burlington’s Old North End.
Or at least none that had much of anything to with being governor of Vermont, the office all four men and three women were seeking.
It was a livelier debate than some of those limited to Scott and Hallquist, neither of whom has been accused of being either charismatic or politically unconventional.
The other five weren’t charismatic, either. But they were unconventional enough to keep the proceedings interesting, even energetic, especially because moderator Lauren-Glenn Davitian, Channel 17’s executive director, kept reminding the contenders to stick within their time limits.
Thinking outside the box or subverting the dominant paradigm could be a contribution to the political debate. Thinking outside the realms of reason and subverting common sense are not.
That’s what perennial candidate Emily Peyton of Putney, the candidate of the Liberty Union party, did when she said Vermonters did not have to be part of the U.S. currency system.
Yes, they do.
And it’s what independent Cris Ericson of Chester, who also runs in about every election, did when she proclaimed that she had “the most brilliant, sharpest, clearest plan of any candidate in the United States,” in which she would persuade Congress to turn over to the taxpayers the revenue earned by pharmaceutical and defense companies whose profits depend on federal spending and federal patents.
It was Ericson who introduced the only ill-will of the event when she charged Scott and Hallquist with “committing fraud” by participating in a debate on Vermont Public Radio and Vermont PBS which excluded the other candidates.
Her grasp of the law seemed shaky. As independent candidate Charles Laramie’s understanding of the word “disenfranchise,” when he claimed that the other forums that excluded the independent candidates “disenfranchised” thousands of Vermonters.
In fairness to Laramie, a former teacher from Fair Haven, he did make one of the more interesting proposals. He said the first thing he’d do if elected governor would be to “remove cellphones and iPads from the schools.”
Perhaps he should be deputy secretary of education.
Whether all candidates or only those who can win should be invited to debates is something political observers have been arguing about for years. Davitian said Channel 17’s “policy is to invite everyone who is running. We are not in the business of picking and choosing winners. Our goal is to open the doors of local government for both voters, candidates and the community at large.”
That’s plausible. It would be more convincing if the unconventional invitees had much to contribute to the public policy discussion.
It isn’t that the five candidates who were not part of the duopoly were either fools or knaves. They appeared to be sincere, well-meaning, people who were convinced that they – and apparently they alone – possessed the insights and the abilities to cure the state of its ills.
And some of their proposals were appealing, if unrealistic. For instance, Stephen Marx of Strafford, the candidate of the Earth Rights Party (of which he seems to be the founder and the only member), is running a one-issue campaign. The issue is to adopt an amendment to the Vermont Constitution granting the earth rights as a person.
“If corporations are considered people, the earth should be considered a person,” he said.
Actually, a corporation is not a person because persons can be brought into existence by other persons via a process that will not be explained here in detail even if there were no governments and no laws while corporations are creatures of the state, formed by law.
And declaring the earth a person — what would it say? For whom would it vote? — presents all kinds of complications. But as a symbol for urging people to treat nature more kindly, Marx’s proposal could get some support.
The seventh candidate, software entrepreneur Trevor Barlow of Cavendish, came across as an uncommonly intelligent and civilized fellow who also had but one issue: innovation.
Nobody’s against that. Barlow is also for lower taxes and healthier communities.
And Scott and Hallquist?
Same old same old. Scott wants to increase the labor force. Hallquist thinks she can persuade utilities to wire the whole state with high-speed internet connections.
Dull. Reasonable. Like the two-party system.