The Primary Election Blows (or “insert wind joke here”)

It sure got windy all of a sudden.

It’s been a challenging political season to sit on the sidelines. It’s now only two days before the primary election, and while I’m not about to get involved, there’s a lot worth commenting on, especially in this last week. One could argue that the Democratic contest finally got interesting.

One could also say that the Democratic arena has proven itself vulnerable to the same frothing-at-the-mouth zeitgeist that seems to pass for political discourse in this nation at late. And no, I’m not even talking about professional Diplomat and Gubernatorial Candidate Peter Galbraith referring to one of his opponents as a “fucker” on the record.

So let’s talk about wind power. Not the issue itself, but the meta-issue. Because a funny thing happened on the way to Tuesday’s exercise in democracy.

Gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne did something you don’t do on the wind debate. He fleshed out his position, bringing in a little more specificity to the vague catch-all platitudes that most Vermont politicians use on the subject. The result has been full-on rhetorical hysteria… or perhaps more accurately, a public window into the roiling hysteria which was already underway, as also witnessed in the full-on self-sabotaging snub of Chittenden Senator Philip Baruth by the VCV I discussed previously.

Now, full disclosure part one here; Matt Dunne is a friend, and I hate seeing friends get beat up on. I really hate it. I’ve been hiding from a lot of the news this week for that reason.

Full disclosure part two; I’m all for wind power. I grew up in eastern Kentucky where whole mountains are razed, pulverized, mixed with toxic chemicals, and dumped into local streams in the name of the fossil fuel industry. A few small roads to industrial sites with relatively modest footprints really doesn’t bug me if it helps choke the life out of the coal companies and save a few hundred miles of Appalachian ecosystems and water tables. As long as the science is our guide for siting (and the science says there’s very little ridgeline acreage in the state that is appropriate), and accommodations are made for critical habitat (so we don’t burn down the village in order to save it), it’s one piece of doing our part to convert to a robust electric grid powered by renewables to enable our transition off of carbon-spewing as soon as possible. I’m the kind of person whose teeth hurt everytime I hear the made up word “viewshed.” I couldn’t care less about the fleeting fickleness of anthropomorphic and anthropocentric cultural aesthetics when we are all responsible for the collective damage being done to the planet. “With great power….” and all.

But I also believe strongly that the ends do not justify the means. And the just means in our society is called democracy. Obviously in a representative government, citizens cede their rights to have say over every single decision – and in a Constitutional Republic, there are limits on democracy to prevent mobs from running roughshod over the less powerful.

But still, I see democracy as an unquestionable ethic. I see environmentalism as one too. And given the reality of climate change, it’s worth mentioning that I am also very pro self-preservation.

And I’d have been willing to bet this is where most people would say they land as well. It’s why all the politicians – no matter which “side” of the wind debate they are associated with – always give vague answers about needing to confront climate change, but needing to respect local communities when asked about wind power. Seriously, who wants to be openly anti-environment or anti-democracy? C’mon.

So Mr. Dunne made a political decision (and sure, I have no doubt it was political). Basically, that being more specific would be helpful in his quest for the Democratic nomination. So he was. He said he felt that siting towns should get a binding vote on wind power plant siting.

Now, is that where I would’ve drawn that line…?… ouch…hmmm…ugh… You see, even I don’t want to answer that specifically. I want somebody else to handle it and let me know when its all worked out so I can open my eyes. But if I’m going to be honest with myself, I probably wouldn’t have drawn the line where Dunne did. And obviously, drawing any line was going to create controversy.

But what has followed looks less like a reinvigorated public debate, and more like electoral rabies. It took me, and a lot of folks I’ve spoken with, by surprise.

It clearly took the campaign by surprise. Dunne’s initial remarks in response to the visceral fury unleashed upon him within the Montpelier/Burlington capital bubble belied a staggered candidate. It was another day before he got his rhetorical feet back under him, and the raw energy released seems to be spilling over into other controversies, and spiking early voting. Right out of the gate, Dunne lost the endorsement of Bill McKibben and others – and was broadsided with an attack from the Governor’s office by Mr. Shumlin himself, all but calling Dunne a liar and a fool (a very measured assessment of the fallout – including a calling out of Mr. Shumlin’s hypocritical hissyfit – can be found in today’s Times Argus editorial page).

So all this sturm und drang raises two questions for me. One; who are the winners and losers in this campaign? Folks like my friend John have all but declared Dunne politically friendless and dead for that one policy offering, and in rather animated terms. The truth is harder to tell. It has certainly hurt Dunne in the aforementioned bubble, but it’s true that bubble was already Minter turf. It’s also true that it may boost him in the rural – albeit less populated – regions. The timing is also harder to read. On the one hand, it could read as desperation from Team Dunne, which never looks good to the undecided set. On the other hand,  it could look gutsy (and the announcement so close to the election could prove to steal away enough support from Galbraith to enhance his (grouchy) left flank). Shumlin’s impulsive attack also could arguably hurt Dunne by virtue of its content, or hurt Minter from association (I’m not sure that it pro-actively “helps” anybody).

All of which is to say, anybody who isn’t looking at current poll numbers, but tells you the whole kerfuffle definitely helps or hurts one candidate or another is likely giving you their own parochial reaction. I feel like I’m pretty good at this stuff, and I’m honestly not sure how it plays out in the final analysis.

The other question it raises is trickier; are we capable as a society, in Vermont, of having a reasoned, thoughtful debate on wind power?

Sadly, I think there is a clear answer to this, and the answer – for the present – is “no.” I wouldn’t have thought it possible, but the dynamics of this debate look disturbingly familiar… they look like the dynamics of the gun debate. “Gun debate” is of course a misnomer, as there is no “debate” allowed. There is only screaming, threatening, rage and hysteric myopia.

For now, I think, calling it a “wind debate” is equally oxymoronic. Hopefully we can find our way past that – and soon. Because it’s really about a lot more than us.

7 thoughts on “The Primary Election Blows (or “insert wind joke here”)

  1. Only half of it was wind
    It may not intentionally have been part of the same piece, and it got a lot less attention but about the same time the Dunne campaign re-stated(or more kindly) clarified their wind sitting policy he also tried, awkwardly to tag Minter with what I guess they thought would prove a bit of mud from the EB-5 scandal.

    1. Honestly, the wind power kind of sucked the air out of the room and that issue got lost. I dont think the wind thing necessarily hurts Dunne, but the way he handled that could have.

      1. Yup. A pretty rugged run of self inflicted headlines they managed to get just before people started to focus and gear up to vote. Tuesday is the tell.

  2. Wind does indeed represent some kind of new ‘third rail’ in Vermont politics.

    The dispute pits local control advocates and renewable energy advocates, who should be branches of the same tree, against one another. From where I sit, both sides’ claims have legitimacy.

    But for single issue voters it has become the dividing line.

    Many people argue understandably for the supremacy of ‘local control.’ I think we must be sympathetic to that argument, especially when it is being invoked by a community that actually has some capacity for the necessary homework and expertise to exercise intelligent local control.

    The problem is that far more communities throughout the state lack that capacity, so their exercise of local control is likely to be capricious and reactionary: two qualities that will not help us move toward our renewable energy goals.

    Every community cannot afford to lay on the necessary science, engineering and educational staff necessary to ensure that local decisions are based on sound principles of science as well as public sentiment. So there is a good argument to be made for an impartial decision process by a professional board, outside of the local community.

    I think most everyone agrees that one size doesn’t fit all, but who should be the ultimate arbiter of fit is very much still a matter for discussion.

    It isn’t very constructive dismissing the local control advocates as NIMBY’s, just as saying “No wind, no way” ignores the essential contribution of wind to a fossil fuel free future.

    We’re all going to have to sit at the same table sooner or later. Meanwhile, progressive minded candidates are finding themselves fed to the shredder for venturing any opinion whatsoever on what still remains an exceedingly debatable question.

    Matt Dunne has just had the misfortune to pass through that shredder twice.

    Hopefully we all remember that this is hardly of the same order as one of Donald Trump’s jaw-dropping opinions, or even Hillary’s damn emails.

    Good people do disagree on ridgeline wind, and probably will for some time to come.

    That shouldn’t disqualify anyone.

    1. “The problem is that far more communities throughout the state lack that capacity, so their exercise of local control is likely to be capricious and reactionary: two qualities that will not help us move toward our renewable energy goals.”

      Lest you forget, these wind projects (and big solar like Ranger et al) – do NOT move us toward our re ewable energy goals. The move MA and CT toward THEIR RE goals. This is Vermont’s Catch-22.

  3. Personally predict brouhaha favors Dunne. One week Seven Days Paul Heintz reports the Dem horse-race as a snooze button. Forward-thinking Dunne, perhaps in effort to differentiate, chose a third-rail of VT politics — IWT with a populist response which imho is brilliant. Reaching out to the disaffected whose voice is not being heard, clearly resonated & partly why I admire Matt.

    Remembering Entergy Louisiana issue which propelled Shumlins’ victory. Soo, now this segment of one-issue voters concerned re this niche issue likely choosing IWT-opposing Galbraith — or Scott who has clearly said he would use power as gov to halt IWT — now have another choice. Believe me you those voters do not give a rats ass about Mckibben, VPIRG or the arrogant developers bottom line.

    Loss of local control resulting from heavy-handed top-down mandates enforced by Montpelier bureaucrats a huge issue — renewables just one. Quality of life sacrificed on the altar of overlords of whose servile sponsors promote their special interests as opposed to ours the issue here.

    Who are the fire-breathing dragons blowing all the smoke? The doctrinairians as usual. A classist constuct enforced by enablers supporting the moneyed interests, pushing a political platform & agenda whose biggest weapon is to pit one segment of our society against the other. We then duke it out in a proxy-war for their zero-sum game. True believers have become jihadists elevating this to just and holy war.

    Not a true believer but there are other wonderful reasons to embrace new technology. In a capitalistic market-based world we need *all* forms of energy to maintain competition which drives innovation, improvement & most of all employment.

    Personally opposed to nuclear which the so-called environmentalists — Bill Mckibben/, Sierra Club & UCS — have embraced as “necessary”. Alternative energy sources are needed. Personal belief is that with enhanced incentivizing of robust weatherization & promotion of home renewables would be the largest contributors.

    All need to have skin in this game & shared responsibility if we wish to participate in an industrialized society, how we achieve it is the issue here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *