That’s right. One year. Been a long time since that very first diary. Five-hundred and thirty some User IDs later, here we are.

Something on your mind? Not enough for a diary? Knock yerselves out…

(As this issue is still getting more attention, please note that I re-promoted the original thread to near the top of the page. It appears right below this diary)

A lot has been “not happening” and a lot has been happening regarding the now publicized link between the Second Vermont Republic organization and radical anti-union white supremacists and “Christian” neo-fascists. The traditional media has been rumbling, but we;ve seen nothing yet. Yet that may change as, even though the initial story is waning, the bigger story – that is, the reaction to the news – is just beginning.

GMD has been getting a lot of attention on the matter, but this site remains secondary, quite frankly. Vermont Secession is still the source, and continues to generate new content that is irrefutable (as evidenced by the fact that SVR regulars haven’t even tried, besides oblique references to things being “taken out of context.” Believe me, the posts at VS are expansively linked, providing reams of the very context missing from the SVR sites that they would rather not be discussed). JD Ryan at five before chaos has really taken on the issue with great aplomb.

The reaction has, sadly, been one of digging in on the part of SVR. Predictably, they’ve resorted to personal attacks. Ridiculously, they’ve tried to paint anyone who wants to take this seriously as being anti-southern (BTW, I’m a native southerner), but most disturbingly has been this part of SVR spokesperson Rob Williams’ reaction:

“Is (Donald Livingston) a racist? I don’t know. And frankly, it is none of my damn business

In other words, who cares?

Spoken like a true straight, white male of Christian heritage. In other words, someone who can have the luxury of not caring.

Fortunately others do care, and the first out of the gate is the Green Mountain Collective, who seem to be a more morally consistent voice of the libertarian left. From their press release posted in the thread below and crossposted in several sites on the web:

The Green Mountain Collective, NEFAC (composed of members of the VT AFL-CIO, the Vermont worker co-op movement, the Student Labor Action Project, and the Vermont Workers’ Center) finds the reports posted online by Thomas Rowley, and Odem on www.greenmountaindaily.com alleging that the Second Vermont Republic (SRV) has official ties to racists and right-wing extremists to be very disturbing.  The undemocratic, neo-fascist beliefs of such organizations as the League of The South, the Northern League (of Italy) and others cannot and will not be tolerated in the Green Mountains (as we would expect the SVR to agree).

the SVR has a solid list of outstanding progressive-leftist members/activists including Peter Schumann of Bread & Puppet, anti-Bush activist Dan Dewalt, and others.  However, this `benefit of the doubt’ must be backed up by immediate corrective measures on the part of the SVR.

  These measures must include:
  1. The immediate dismissal from SRV’s advisory board of Thomas Dirolenzo (for extreme anti-worker, anti-union views) & Marco Basani (for his connections to the extremist, anti-immigrant, Northern League of Italy).
  2. The official cutting of relations between SRV and the neo-Confederate League of the South, as well as any other organizations with ties to right-wing extremists, racists, and/or neo-fascists. The weblink on the SVR website must be deleted.
  3. A statement from the SVR recognizing a workers’ right to form unions and the historical necessity for workers to do such insofar as democracy and economic equality are goals which are socially desirable.
  4. A statement from the SVR that reaffirms their complete opposition to racism, fascism, bigotry and discrimination.
  5. These statements should be posted on the SVR website, and should be printed in the Vermont Commons (which is a sister organization of SVR)

  We expect SRV to do the right thing and to comply with the above five conditions insofar as they remain committed to “direct democracy on the farm and in the workplace,” anti-racism, anti-fascism, and the building of a progressive social movement in Vermont and beyond.

It seems highly unlikely that this matter is going to simply drift away. Note how the conversation is still developing, with the GMC focusing on SVR Advisory Board member Marco Bassani – someone I could find little information on, but whom the GMC seems to be more familiar with.

Whether or not the SVR still has time to do the right thing or not is an open question. In any event, I hope the truly progressive-minded secession advocates are working on a game plan to salvage the whole secession concept, lest it run the risk of being dragged down into the hole with SVR.

Expect more soon. If you’re curious, here’s a link to a podcast of my appearence-via-phone on Brattleboro AM 1490’s Live and Local broadcast this morning (its a 20-some-meg mp3 file, so be prepared). The tail end is clipped, but you don’t miss much (and it’s all rehash anyway if you’ve been following the issue).

No time to blog, but here’s a quick Freeps excerpt:

Vermont legislators face a vote next week on U.S. foreign policy in Iraq.

“This is very much a Vermont issue,” said Rep. Michael Fisher, D-Lincoln, lead sponsor of a nonbinding resolution that urges an immediate start to the orderly withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq.

The House and Senate have scheduled debates on the resolution for Tuesday. In the Senate, the resolution has been reviewed by the Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee, which recommended it unanimously Friday.

“It will make for great debate,” said House Republican Leader Steve Adams of Hartland. “I expect I’ll vote no,” he continued. “We all want our troops home as soon as possible, but I personally feel if we were to undertake an immediate withdrawal, it would be disastrous.”

No Republicans signed on as co-sponsors of the resolution in either the House or Senate,

Vermont’s legislature will be the first in the nation to pass such a resolution (yay!).

Why this debate is ok and the impeachment issue isn’t is beyond me, but that’s another issue…

The AP gives us an interesting li’l tidbit of an article today. A simple listing of communications staff in the Douglas administration and their salaries (emphasis mine). Here are the first few:

–Jason Gibbs, communications director, governor’s office, $62,004.80.

–Vacant, communications director, Agriculture Agency, range of $40,000 to $55,000.

—David Mace, principal assistant, Commerce and Community Development, $61,339.20.

–Heidi Tringe, principal assistant, Department of Aging and Independent Living/Human Services Agency, $62,379.20.

—Darren Allen, communications director, Natural Resources Agency, $61,000.

—John Zicconi executive assistant, Transportation Agency, $55,016.00.

(I’d post all of the names, but there’s really nothing more to the piece than the list itself and I can’t legally do more than excerpt a chunk).

Interesting, eh? The bold names are former Vermont press professionals. If you checked the link, you’ll notice the rest of the list shows a greater salary range – from $47k to $80k, putting Jason Gibbs in the low-to-middle range. Odd, huh?

But the fun game is to guess who from the Vermont press is going to fill that vacancy in the Agriculture Department… whaddaythink? Wanna place any bets?

(Re-Bumped to the top, as the issue seems to be gaining steam again – promoted by odum)

A few weeks back, I received email from an anonymous blogger asking if I’d ever looked closely at Vermont’s small but high profile secession movement, the Second Vermont Republic (and its companion publication, VT Commons). Despite the fact that many high-profile Vermont activists have associated themselves with the organization, I had dismissed them largely over sentiments I thought brushed into anti-immigrant territory. This particular blogger, however, had a deeper concern.

He (or she) had just heard SVR spokesperson Rob Williams on Switchboard passing on a revisionist historical portrait of Abraham Lincoln which the blogger (who follows hate groups) recognized as part and parcel of what the Southern Poverty Law Center (the premier anti-hate group advocacy and tracking organization in the country) refers to as the Neo-Confederate Movement. The blogger considered the possibility of a connection and looked into the SVR and VC websites.

What he found was shocking for two reasons; one, that there seem to be no degrees of seperation between SVR and leading neo-confederate thinkers and activists specifically discussed on the Southern Poverty Law Center website. These people are serving on SVR’s advisory board.

And two; that there seems to be no effort to hide the fact, given that groups such as the flagship neo-confederate organization The League of the South are linked to prominently, and the work of LOS activists cited and praised repeatedly.

The anonymous blogger has posted the first of his findings at vermontsecession.blogspot.com, and the work he’s done is prodigious. It is as well cited and linked as any research document, and as such virtually impossible to refute. From the anonymous blogger who is using the psuedonym Thomas Rowley after one of Ethan Allen’s Green Mountain Boys:

As I’ve read and learned more about the group at Second Vermont Republic and its publication, Vermont Commons, I’ve become concerned about some of what they say and even more so about things that they aren’t saying. My purpose in this blog won’t be to gevaltize about the various people and their connections to organizations that promote ideas (or as they would have it, “Truths”) that are inimical to generally accepted Vermont values of inclusion and respect for others. I’d simply like for my neighbors to have additional facts not being presented by those who are proposing secession.

I strongly suggest a visit to vermontsecession to review what is only the beginnings of his case (there is much more coming). In the meantime, I’ll try to provide some highlights below the fold, including the results of some of my own digging.

There are some names that might raise eyebrows on the Advisory Board. Marco Bassani is associated with Italy’s Northern League, a fracturous political entity that has faced charges of xenophobia, and Jason Sorens is the founder of the Right-Libertarian Free State Movement that settled in New Hampshire – a movement that has also dealt with charges of xenophobia and racism. Interesting, but there’s hardly enough out there to make for any kind of indictment, frankly.

There are, however, several people connected with the League of the South (LOS) who are either directly involved with or promoted by SVR. In fact, the LOS is directly linked to from the SVR site here. This is just some of what the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has to say about LOS:

a group that has grown to include 9,000 people organized into 96 chapters in 20 states. Despite the group’s claims that it will brook no racists, the League is rife with white supremacists and racist ideology.

One key LOS figure … a man who is the former head of the LOS chapter in Tuscaloosa (Ala.) County where the League got its start, was even blunter than his leader in his own AlaReb posting about black-on-white crime.

“You see the day is coming when we will NEED a new type of Klan,” G. David Cooksey wrote after the Central Park incidents in June. “Yes I said Klan!! If push comes to shove I’m for it! … Time has come to stop this crap now!

“Or would you all like to see your daughters raped???”

And J Michael Hill, the group’s founder is a veritable font of such statements as:

Let us not flinch when our enemies call us ‘racists’; rather, just reply with, ‘So, what’s your point?'”

And the SPLC goes on:

And the League runs the Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History, an organization headed by Donald Livingston that offers seminars “dedicated to combating the demonisation of the South.” It is supported by members’ dues and an LOS foundation.

The name Donald Livingston may look familiar if you’ve been clicking on the links earlier in this diary. That would be the same Donald Livingston on the advisory board of the Second Vermont Republic. Here’s a screenshot:

The vermontsecession blog spends a lot of time on Donald Livingston, whose SPLC profile can be found here. Rowley is actually far more kind to Livingston at the blog than SPLC is.

If you checked the link to Livingston’s profile, you may have noticed this:

At a 2003 “Lincoln Reconsidered” conference (see also profile of Thomas DiLorenzo), he said that “evil is habit-forming” and no habit is as evil as believing that Lincoln acted out of good motives.

This, of course, a reference to the Lincoln revisionism that permeates the neo-Confederate movement. What you also may notice is another name from the SVR Advisory Board – Thomas DiLorenzo.

At this point, Rowley doesn’t discuss DiLorenzo – but that’s only because there is so much to digest and process on the man, he is still working on it. Like Livingston, DiLorenzo is specifically highlighted on the SPLC site. His name is not merely attached to the SVR, but his work is repeatedly promoted (here under VTCommons’ “essential readings” and here, in a book review by Rob Williams as two examples).

Rowley’s DiLorenzo entry will likely dwarf the others in quantity and impact, as he is a big player in the hate group circuit. DiLorenzo is an enthusiastic proponent of radically unrestrained markets. For example:

One of the oldest myths about capitalism is the notion that factories that offer the poor higher wages to lure them off the streets (and away from lives of begging, stealing, prostitution, or worse) or away from back-breaking farm labor somehow impoverishes and exploits them. They
are said to work in “sweatshops” for “subsistence wages.” That was the claim made by socialists and unionists in the early days of the industrial revolution, and it is still made today by the same category of malcontents – usually by people who have never themselves performed manual labor and experienced breaking a sweat while working. (I am not referring here to the red herring claim that most foreign “sweatshops” utilize some kind of slave labor. This is an outrageous propaganda ploy designed to portray defenders of free markets as being in favor of slavery).

Finally, perhaps one of the strongest virtues of foreign “sweatshops” is that they weaken the hand of American labor unions. With few exceptions, American unions have long been at the forefront of anti-capitalist ideology and have supported virtually all the destructive tax and regulatory policies that have been so poisonous to American capitalism. Unions believe that they cannot exist unless workers can be convinced that employers are the enemies of the working class, if not society, and that they (the workers) need unions to protect them from these exploiters.

DiLorenzo, whom even far-right absolutists like Randian Libertarian activist Timothy Sandefur calls “an unusually bad scholar, whose incompetence at history is only exceeded by his poor grasp of basic Constitutional theory” is the source of much of the Lincoln revisionism, and as such a key source for the rhetoric of these groups. From SPLC again:

A recent headline on
WorldNetDaily, a far-right Web site, showed what neo-Confederate and white supremacist groups believe is at stake: “‘Taking America Back’ Starts with Taking Lincoln Down.” The anti-Lincoln campaign is not simply another series of shopworn arguments about the past. Instead, Lincoln is blamed for everything far right-wingers believe is amiss in the America of 2003: big centralized government, welfare giveaways, rampant capitalist greed, shrinking civil liberties and reckless imperialism.

Rowley even forwarded to me the following Google search link which shows DiLorenzo’s multiple postings on a neo-nazi website with the heading “No Jews, Just Right” No doubt Rowley’s far more extensive work on DiLorenzo over the next couple days will be damning.

But returning to the quote above, “reckless imperialism” is a key phrase. The neo-confederate movement represents a marriage of sorts between old-line, traditional white supremicists and the fringe of the paleoconservative movement. Rowley believes that suporters of SVR are not secret racists, but have rather been duped by carefully presented rhetoric. The paleocons passionately hate the neocons, whose statist, imperialistic visions they find anathema. As such, the conversation with genuinely progressive or left-libertarian activists can stay on common ground if carefully nuanced.

His view is reinforced by the appearence of so many genuinely progressive activists on both the Vermont Commons site as well as the Second Vermont Republic site. People like Dan DeWalt, Bill McKibben, Will Linder- these folks are clearly the good guys. I did give the ones I knew a heads up to what Rowley had discovered. DeWalt responded immediately that he had no idea of these connections, and would certainly take a look and re-evaluate, depending on what the results are. Rob Williams himself seems like a very genuine, progressive activist, and it’s hard after meeting him to imagine that he would have any part in this.

But as a historian himself, it’s also hard not to give him some responsibility for promoting the neo-confederate propoganda that passes as “history.” Or for giving  VT Commons print space to the likes of Franklin Sanders, whose work appeared in the copy of VT Commons recently included in Seven Days. From vermontsecession:

Like a number of members of Second Vermont Republic’s advisory board, Sanders has a long association with the League of the South [1] , a hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. [2] He serves on the LoS Board of Directors. [3]  He spoke at the First North American Secessionist Convention in Burlington that was sponsored last fall by Kirkpatrick Sale’s (also an SVR advisory board member) Middlebury Institute

Sanders has a criminal record, as well as having attempted a foray into writing:

a fictional account set in the now near future of a Christian Pol Pot-like character who decimated the non-Christian, city folk/population with a neutron bomb/device or some such nonsense.  If you like your action heroes white, preachy and definitely not Jewish then Heiland is for you. Customer reviews at the Amazon link included the mention of “a few good reviews of the book” from two (surprise!) fellow LoS board members, although that fact isn’t noted in the customer review.  One is from the racist president of the LoS, Michael Hill:

“Heiland presents a chilling portrait of what could be in store for America should the secular-statist agenda become reality. A death-dealing, anti-Christian Establishment holds sway over a blighted urban landscape, while Christian patriots control the countryside. The epic showdown between the forces of light and darkness is not to be missed.”

Dr. Michael Hill
Montgomery, Alabama

Disturbed yet? And there is more, more, more. Rowley has amassed sources – including YouTubed video recordings – and with much more to come. It runs so deep and the connections are so omnipresent, it’s hard to imagine that the SVR is truly salvageable, and that truly progressive secession advocates might want to consider dumping the organization and starting over.

But just as disturbing as these contacts themselves are the fact that it took so long to notice them, despite the fact that they have been on display for all to see. As overwhelmingly white as Vermont is, I can’t help but see this as a result of our pronounced lack of diversity. African Americans, Jews – any minority group with a history of being oppressed – have a culturally imbedded radar for bigotry that we in the majority lack. I can’t help but wonder if we were a more diverse state, if this sort of mischief wouldn’t have been spotted immediately and nipped in the bud.

Whatever the case, some very ugly tendrils have infiltrated themselves into the progressive community right under our noses, and Rowley should be given a medal for bringing it out into the sunlight before it spreads any further. I strongly urge readers to check out the definitive record at vermontsecession.blogspot.com and return frequently over the next couple weeks. It’s time we called it out.

UPDATE 2/10, 9:40 PM: Well. I guess people do read this site.

Quick notes:

1. Those defending the inclusion of the radical right wing, white supremicist element are probably wasting their time doing so by attempting to attack the reputation of the Southern Poverty Law Center. They are super-credible. The Nation cites them all the time. It’s possible to disagree with anyone, but when, instead of disagreeing, you try a smear without any backup, it doesn’t look good.

2. To everyone reading – this post was not about the concept of secession. I have mixed feelings on the issue myself. It appeals to my left-libertarian streak in theory, but I do worry about the practice. In any event, I’m not touching the merits of secession and don’t intend to.

3. On the “guilt by association” thing, setting aside that we take politicians to task for much looser connections to shady interests, if proponents feel that these alliances don’t matter – that it’s really okay with you and you’re comfortable with it – hey, just say so. Heck, say it proudly. I disagree, and said so. Others may disagree with me. Everybody’s different. It’s my opinion that most people will be as shocked as I was – certainly most in the GMD community will be. Some people will feel very threatened. What’s important is that it’s out there for discussion and there are no secrets.

4. As to the charge that the vermontsecession.blogspot.com poster and myself are simply wrong, again, make your case. I’ve mea culpa’d before, and have no problem doing so again. But just saying it’s wrong or calling me names is not a case.

It’s back. With 33 sponsors in the House and 10 in the Senate, civil rights activists are finally moving to finish the work that began with the placement of the term “civil union” into the international lexicon.

Putting aside for a moment the idea that in a truly just society, any so-called “debate” around granting full rights of citizenship to gays and lesbians shouldn’t consist of any more hand-wringing than a quick fifteen minute “Wha..? Gays can’t marry?! Oops! Geez…. what were we thinking?! Sorry about that…. here, let’s take a second and fix that right up…(pass, pass, conference, pass, sign),” there’s little doubt that the issue – if it gets any traction at all – is electoral dynamite in Vermont.

For proponents, now is clearly the best time to move forward. There are strong, established majorities in the House and Senate and nobody’s willing to bet the farm on a Douglas electoral defeat anytime soon. Clearly, if not now, when?

And among those stepping up to do the right thing is a surprise name; that of Senate Majority Leader John Campbell of Windsor, largely considered among the most conservative of the caucus, and a fairly feisty conservative as well. From the Times Argus:

As a Democrat who lives in Quechee, a portion of the state more conservative than some, he heard firsthand the animosity stirred up by that law, which provides same-sex couples many of the same legal protections as marriage.

“There was such uproar,” Campbell, the majority leader in the Senate, said Wednesday. “No one was in the middle.”But he also heard from gay and lesbian couples about what a difference the law made to them, Campbell said. While he understood the arguments against the bill, he rejects the idea that civil unions damaged the institution of marriage or morals in Vermont.

“It’s not about morality. It’s about compassion, understanding and humanity,” Campbell said.

Put aside for a moment the odd choice of words there – morality is about compassion, understanding and humanity, yes?

Still, Campbell may not simply be doing the right thing. As another Democrat frequently rumored to hold loftier political ambitions, he may be showing more political savvy than his former rival for Senate leadership.

Consider what we can gleam from the post-civil union election battle of 2000. The results of what was probably the least pleasant election cycle in anyone’s memory obviously showed a highly polarized, visceral split between those that supported equality and those who rejected it outright for gays and lesbians. It also showed an equally pronounced split among many House districts. More often than not, a district was clearly “pro” or “anti,” with more being “anti,” leading to the dramatic power shift that booted Dems from legislative control.

But broken out of those districts, the statewide numbers suggested a “pro” majority – just one that was too clumpy to keep the legislature out of GOP hands. Governor Dean became the very embodiment of the issue on the campaign trail, yet he still won re-election. Lt. Governor Racine as well.

It might well be that the savvy choice for a politico with statewide ambitions would be to… well, to do the right thing, here – especially if you’re a politico who could stand to improve his overly-conservative image among more liberal primary voters, as Campbell would be advised to do. It also would give him bragging rights on proudly doing the right thing in the face of public scorn, when in fact the greater public is probably with him.

Throw into the mix that this is seven years later, and as such the intensive polarity of this debate is bound to be less pronounced than the last one, if for no other reason than the two main arguments of the anti-civil union crowd – that Vermont society would collapse, and that “civil unions” are actually gay marriage being snuck in and foisted on Vermonters – are dead and buried. Obviously, society hasn’t collapsed, and if civil unions really are same sex marriage, then what possible difference would actual same sex marriage make.

Still, without question, the issue has the unique potential to create a mirrored Montpelier next session – a Democratic Governor and Lt. Governor facing off against at least one Republican house of Congress.

Shumlin, on the other hand, by saying that he is “…not planning on wasting a lot of energy on efforts that will not become law… If the governor indicated he would sign the bill, I would take a more serious look at it” is putting himself in seriously dangerous waters, precisely because that statement in and of itself is absurd in its (seeming) arbitrariness. Does Shumlin really mean to casually provide Douglas with such an all encompassing rhetorical veto? Of course not. There will be climate change bills that will emerge from this Senate, despite Douglas inevitably indicating his unwillingness to sign them. In fact there may well be some deliberately intended to draw such a veto in order to draw a bright line of distinction between Douglas and his next Democratic opponent.

Shumlin also needs to be careful because this issue isn’t going to get swept under the rug in the same way impeachment was last session. It’s a hot-button, simple-to-discuss issue with strong, sustained interest from the press and among many across the broad Democratic base. He may bottle it up in the Senate, but in the House there will be a strong push from proponents that will take on a personal enough quality among Legislative coworkers that it may well overcome Speaker Symington’s near-absolute reticence to take on any overly controversial, potentially majority-threatening issues. If that happens, Shumlin could end up looking like a road block to equality, feebly trying to point the finger of blame at the Governor – when if there’s any legislative body that could likely hold a veto-proof majority, it’s the Senate rather than the House.

I think about my kids a lot. Give me half a chance and I’ll drive you crazy talking about them (or, just as often, how they’re driving me crazy). It’s a cliche, but it’s true – once you’re a parent, your life is forever divided into two completely different pieces; before you had kids, and after. Other life-benchmarks, even the ones you used to think were important back in the pre-parental past, become merely details.

This is of course why all the trite political messaging cliches – making everything about “the children” – keep working, even though they are so transparenyly shallow and exploitative. Sentiments about kids – even clumsy sentiments – always hit parents right where they live (so to speak). Likewise, social action is almost always couched in the context of children. The whole notion of the future is placed within that context. The preamble of the Vermont Democratic Platform states “Everything we do – every policy, law, and regulation – must consider the effects of our actions on the lives and futures of the world’s children, and their children.”

It is an implicit, defining distinction between young progressive activists and their older counterparts; we older ones are doing it for the children.

But does such a motivation distinguish our politics?

It’s another cliche that lefties are all more idealistic – even radical – in our youth, but as we grow older and become more “seasoned,” our politics moderate. While not a rule (I haven’t experienced it, although my approach has changed), it certainly seems to be the norm. The shorthand, equally cliched reasoning is that, post-college, lefties “sell-out”; that is, they get cushy jobs, collect material things and become too materialistically invested in “the system” to allow themselves to meaningfully work against its injustices. As such, they begin a process of rationalization (the at-large rationale being “maturation”) as they move from the fringes to the political center. Back at the Institute for Social Ecology, I remember Murray Bookchin opining that the way to give campus radicalism a shot in the arm would be to abolish tenure. Suddenly, all those one-time radical lefty professors wouldn’t be so comfortably invested in the university system and they’d all take to the streets again (I was never sure exactly how serious he was, but I digress…). While there are certainly more pronounced examples all around us of this phenomenon, I don’t think it explains the vast majority of aging, moderating lefties who did not go on to become wealthy. What’s moderating them? Is it really that maturity equals moderation?

I don’t think so. In fact, I blame it all on the children.

There’s a primal urge to protect your children. It’s instinctive, powerful, and tends to override everything else. Filter that impulse theough the lens of modern humanity and it has political and social overtones – especially if you’re someone who looks at the world as a dangerously unsustainable place. It becomes an instinct to hoarde – to amass enough stuff and wealth that your children will be cared for when you’re gone. And it’s political overtones are obvious; taxing of any accumulated capital (or the passing on of that capital) cuts into the self-built safety net, so its easy to start down a path of conservative political thought.

And, as unsteady and uncertain as the future seems, it can become impossible to allow too much of a safety net. In fact, you could say that the more you see “the system” as a screwed up place, the more motivated you could become to protect your kids from it. Once someone heads down that slippery slope, they also have that human need to think of themselves as a moral person, so rather than live in opposition to one’s ethics and politics, one naturally starts a process of adapting those ethics and politics – moderating, in other words. This is where DLC contributors are made, more often than not. Socially liberal, economically conservative.

Of course the irony is, that if we had a more just system where basic rights (such as health care) were protected, and an appropriate social safety net were maintained, this force of moderating-anxiety might be lessened – that selfsame moderating-anxiety that becomes a force against making improvements. It’s also more complicated a force for hardcore lefties to engage with. Much easier to call someone a “sell-out” than to acknowledge that their motivation might not be so craven and hypocritical.

For the children, despite the children – whatever the case, “the children” do make the world more complicated…

From Peter Welch’s office:

“What is clear is the financial impact of the President’s failed policy in Iraq.  The President requests an additional $245 billion in funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 budgets and projects $50 billion more to be spent in fiscal year 2009. 

“Pressing needs are going unmet because of a failed Iraq policy.  There will be no more blank checks for the war. 

“To that end, I am working closely with my colleagues on tough legislation that demands an end to this war:

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 508, sponsored by Representatives Lynn Woolsey and (original co-sponsor of) H.R. 746, sponsored by Rep. James McGovern, both call for the redeployment of all U.S. forces from Iraq within a six month period and the turnover of all U.S. bases to the Iraqis. 

I have co-sponsored a resolution with Rep. John Murtha, H.J.Res. 18, calling for an immediate redeployment of our troops. 
Finally, I have co-sponsored H.R. 353, legislation introduced by Rep. Markey to prohibit the President from spending funds to escalate the troop presence in Iraq without specific Congressional approval.”

And these bills do disallow continued use of funds to support Iraq deployments after the redeploy dates laid out in the bills.

In related news, Chris Stewart’s head was reported to have exploded.

(NOTE: Above links and text adjusted to indicate corrected version)

Rep. Peter Welch: It’s easy to see the minefield Welch is in, simply by looking at the latest Danziger cartoon in yesterday’s Times Argus/Rutland Herald (check the “Rainville ’08” alongside the signature). Welch made the Iraq War the centerpiece of his campaign. After his campaign at Democratic gatherings, he forcefully and passionately continued the theme. Now that proposals for ending the war are coming almost daily, the term “non-binding resolution” has already become farcical, not simply among the activist left, but within the US Congress itself. Welch currently looks like he’s standing still, signing onto non-binding bills that seemed like yesterday’s news before the ink was dry. While his ideas on Global Warming are important, it is clear that – due to his own campaign strategy – his stance on the War will be the issue that defines his first term, both among his supporters and his Republican opponents. It may seem unfair to Team Welch that things are moving so quickly, but them’s the breaks – and again, Welch brought them on himself. Add to that the fact that Senator Leahy – someone with far more authority to speak on what is and isn’t proper and possible in Washington – is now on the leading edge of the issue through the Feingold-Boxer-Leahy bill, I suspect Welch has until the end of the month to join him on that edge and match his own campaign rhetoric. Any longer than that and – even if he does come around to the Leahy position – he will be tagged as having done it grudgingly and only under public duress (in other words, the “phony” label) Done.

The Governor: Letting himself pop at reporters last week was a big mistake. As I’ve argued, I don’t think it wasn’t truly uncharacteristic in quality (he’s always gotten nasty), but unexpected in quantity (insofar as he doesn’t lose it to such a degree). The dude needs to watch himself. This is not the same Vermont press corps anymore. The rapid turnovers are changing the nature of reporting and whatever institutional buddiness exists between the fourth estate and the administration. Gone are Chris Graff and Darren Allen, for example – and the Governor is likely to find himself held to far higher scrutiny before the likes of Porter and Hallenbeck.

His tirade of last week was akin to a bucket of cold water splashed onto the whole crowd – even those that are the relative veterans at this point, such as Ross Sneyd. Continuing into the session, and then on into the electoral cycle, he may find himself less able to take the positive press and spin he is so used to for granted anymore.

Vermont’s Legislative Democrats: There’s a disturbing narrative squeezing out around the edges of the burgeoning property tax debate. It smells ever so sightly like Dems, already seeming frustrated about the topic (due to the fact that they’ve all but left it to the Republicans ever since “Revolt & Repeal” started many months back) are starting to suggest that it isn’t a significant issue (I’m thinking of a recent newspaper report that highlighted Sen. MacDonald of Orange County’s presenting of a comparitive list of household expense increases in recent years, showing the property tax has increased far more slowly that other items such as gas prices…. but I cant find a link anywhere…any ideas?). Certainly I’m sympathetic to the feeling that the character and extent of the problem is getting politically defined – but again, that’s because when Vermont Dems don’t have a clean answer to a policy problem, they often cover their eyes in the hopes it will go away until forced to address it. Taking control of the rhetoric after ceding it will take a sustained, coordinated message strategy, starting as they are in the hole.

Unfortunately, there are signs that many don’t want to wait that long. We’re starting to hear a “What Crisis?” rhetoric from legislators, that is coming from Paul Cillo’s Public Assets Institute. Cillo correctly notes that education taxation, as a percentage of income in Vermont, has actaully been dropping. This is technically true, although the way we pay our taxes (getting a big income-sensitive check from the state) doesn’t make it feel that way.

But the fact is that there is an affordability issue in the nation (the rhetoric of which, the Dems have also ceded to the Republicans). The recent yearly increases in local school budgets don’t reflect a gradual, incremental creep that may go unnoticed, but rather a high-profile, annual bitter pill that intentionally draw intensive public scrutiny. The public doesn’t feel much power over gas prices, but they certainly expect to have power over school boards – and when they exert that power, they bring all the frustrations of their dwindling solvency with them. This is the nature of the beast, and Democrats and Republicans alike will always have to deal with it thoughtfully and proactively.

Against that backdrop, it would be hard to imagine a more disastrous, inappropriate and uncompassionate response to this debate (and aren’t the Dems supposed to be the compassionate ones?) than essentially saying “shut up and stop your whining, property taxes are no big deal, what’s your problem?”

It also makes those saying it seem hopelessly out of touch. When thousands of Vermonters are saying there’s a problem (especially those in my own tax bracket – and yes, I’ll attest there is a problem), and you think that telling them “no, you’re just not smart enough to see there’s no problem at all” is going to win friends and influence people, you might want to ask yourself if electoral politics is really your gig. This is a very dangerous minefield for Democrats right now, and Leadership would be well advised to pay very close attention to how their caucuses are responding to the very real frustration in play.

This could be the biggest lurking landmine of all, and the Republicans know all too well how to press Democrats’ buttons in these sort of arguments that they want so desperately to avoid. Navigating it will take time, and a process of public education combined with public empowerment that is methodical, and cautiously avoids ever sounding like a lecture.

This is why, in the end, Douglas will not adhere to the agreement that the Legislature and Douglas avoid criticizing each others’ ideas on the matter – because the fact is, it’s the Democrats who are most at risk. He’ll just wait until the worst possible moment…