The Web site of the Vermont Progressive Party, with its moose silhouette as its party symbol, looks like something put together by a bunch of Eagle scouts trying to earn a merit badge. One of its party stalwarts, state Rep. David Zuckerman, could not be reached during the day because he was tending his 16 acres of organic vegetable fields. And the party's populist message, in the age of corporate money and slick campaign slogans, seems lifted from the era of Eugene Debs. But the party is slowly succeeding at a time when other progressive movements are failing. And maybe, just maybe, this movement in Vermont signals a crack in the political landscape that could allow American progressives to rise from the dead.
Here is a political party, founded in 1999, which really does not take any corporate funds and refuses to discuss any potential health care solution but a single-payer, not-for-profit system. Here is an anti-corporate party that seeks legislation to protect small business. Here is a party that demands workers be paid a living wage. Here is a party that calls for state investment in renewable energy. Here is a party that condemns the "two band-name parties" because they act in concert to "serve the same corporate interests" by "taking the most important issues off the table and preventing discussion of issues important to most Vermonters: health care for all, property tax reform, energy independence." The progressive candidates, one of whom is making a credible run for governor, seek to represent the interests of the working class. What a novel idea.
"A lot of us do not believe that working within the Democratic Party is possible," Zuckerman, who has served 12 years in the Vermont House, told me one evening from his farm in Burlington. "On a national scale the [Democratic] party is entrenched in the same money needs as the Republicans. This is not necessarily an individual fault, but it is the reality of politics today. They can't change. I know many, many good small-'p' progressive or liberal Democrats whose philosophy is very similar to mine. They do believe they can change the party from within, but I think the institutional need for hundreds of millions of dollars to compete on the national stage makes it impossible for them to turn back into a populist party."
The rise of the Vermont Progressive Party, which has six members in the 150-member Vermont House, is another indication that Vermont, which has battled back everything from Wal-Mart to urban sprawl to billboards, may be one of the few sane states left in the nation. And the political lessons are important. If progressives want to regain political influence, we have to, like these Vermonters, think local. The corporations, through their network of oily lobbyists and infusions of cash, have a lock on most of the huge national and state offices, including, sadly, the seats in the Vermont state Senate. But Vermont now has the nation's only independent, socialist senator, Bernie Sanders. Sanders got there by showing Vermonters that a progressive mayor could efficiently run the city of Burlington.
Our hope lies in first capturing seats on city councils and town boards. Our hope lies in building a party from the bottom up. We will have to be patient. It will take time. But it might work. And that is why, in some ways, the campaign for Vermont governor, which pits the progressive candidate Anthony Pollina, a community organizer, against Democrat Gaye Symington and three-term Republican incumbent Gov. Jim Douglas, is one of the most important races in the country.
"If we can show people how to do it, then other people around the country, who are grasping for real change, even if they vote for Barack Obama, will see how to do it," the 36-year-old Zuckerman said. "The idea will catch fire quickly. The tinder is out there. It is dry and ready to burn. People only need an example. We have an opportunity this year to become a nationwide presence with Anthony's campaign."
Zuckerman, like many others in the party, supports Obama for the presidency. He does not believe Obama will make major progressive changes, but he argues that it is always better to have a Democrat in the White House.
"He at least inspires people, especially young people, to believe in the institution, that the institution can do good," Zuckerman said. "This is positive for the country. Ultimately, Democrats are better than Republicans. If we have a generational shift, as [there was] with Reagan, this is a net positive. Is Barack Obama a great lefty populist? No. He is not much farther to the left than Hillary, to be honest."
"When a Democrat is in power you can say here are the people who said they were going to do great things," Zuckerman said. "You can say, where are the results? You can give them a threat from the left. With the Republicans in power all the Democrats have to be is better than the Republicans. Everyone is so afraid of the Republicans. They say we can't afford to vote for anyone but a Democrat. I'd rather have Democrats in power so we can challenge them to be better."
The Vermont Progressive Party might seem like a natural ally of Ralph Nader, but it breaks with Nader on the issue of where to put political energy. Before worrying about national politics, the party is determined to show local voters it has the skills to govern. It argues that institutional credibility is vital for success.
"I have mixed feelings about Nader," Zuckerman said. "I have tremendous respect for him and the work he has done. I was very frustrated after 2000 when he did not take his supporter list and his networks and say go forth and win local office, go forth and build a party from the bottom up. It is extremely difficult, given the media and the hundreds of millions of dollars you need, to do it from the top down. It is an impossible task."
Rep. Chris Pearson, the head of the Vermont House Progressive Caucus, said that the party gradually built outward from its base in Burlington. In 1999, the first year of the party, all four progressive members in the Vermont House were from Burlington. Progressive members now come from around the state, representing seven of Vermont's 14 counties. Pearson said the biggest inroads are among the working class and poor in depressed rural areas. These are voters who have traditionally voted Republican, but who are suffering economically and are increasingly open to populist politics.
"If you approach them as a progressive and talk about pocketbook issues you can get their vote," said Pearson. "And we do. Because we are not Democrats they can vote for us. In a funny way, they are liberated."
The party is especially critical of the Democratic Party's refusal to support progressive taxation. Progressive representatives in Vermont presented a bill this year to reform the state's capital gains tax. The unsuccessful legislation called for using 25 percent of the new money collected by the state to pay off bonds and add 25 percent to the roads budget, a move that would have created employment and addressed the state's crumbling infrastructure.
"The Democrats have been too scared to talk about what regressive and progressive taxation means," Zuckerman said. "In Vermont we have a capital gains tax loophole. We are one of three states that exempt 40 percent of capital gains from being taxed. That is a giveaway to the rich. We offered an amendment to close it. We got 30-odd votes, including the six of us and 20-something hard-core Democrats. The Democratic leadership did not work to make it happen. They worked to kill it."
"The Democrats are afraid to talk about populist, class-based issues," Zuckerman said. "I don't know why. Is it the 300 people that give $2,000 to the party in Vermont? In Vermont, one of the most powerful people is an investment banker in Chittenden County. He was behind [former Gov.] Howard Dean. ... A Democrat is not going to win statewide office until they kiss his ring."
The party believes it can slowly build a broad base of support around the state, especially given the looming economic dislocation. It hopes it can begin to institute progressive reforms, reforms that will one day reach beyond Vermont's borders.
"Get into those local offices and show people you can take care of the basics," Zuckerman said when asked what progressives should do. "Success in one place on a moderate scale sparks inspiration."
Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
26 Comments so far
Show All"six members in the 150-member Vermont House" Six will probably be their high-water mark without campaign spending limits so they don't need so much campaign funding from the rich and the corporations.
"Our hope lies in first capturing seats on city councils and town boards. Our hope lies in building a party from the bottom up. We will have to be patient. It will take time"
"Before worrying about national politics, the party is determined to show local voters it has the skills to govern. It argues that institutional credibility is vital for success."
Until we leftists learn these valuable lessons, all of the futile efforts at 3rd parties under the stacked deck that represents our winner-take-all system of electoral politics will amount to what we have now: further marginalization. Just simply blaming the Dems or the mainstream media for our lack of traction with people who we say we have their best interest at heart is an old saw that needs to be challenged - this article goes some way in that effort. We need to apply some self criticism to our closely held assumptions regarding how to build social and economic movements for change, because running people for President in the "quadrennial extraveganza" ain't working, no matter how great their politics are.
One mindset that has to be broken is that "If I vote for this third party ut only means that the Republicans will win"
Both parties in America rely on maintaining that mindset. In this like many things they are joined at the hip. It might well be that voting for a NPP or Green party puts the Republicans in power, but that the only way one will get true change coming from the Democrats.
I believe it in the interest of Americans to split those monolithic parties, splintered wherein there exists a truly credible Progressive party. What stands in the way here are the Democrats and their existing Status quo and the fear of more republican administrations.
A few years back, a careful search turned up a single U.S. Congressman who exhibited an unwavering commitment to rational, socially cohesive policies and behavior.
His name is Bernie Sanders. I first saw him in a brief news clip where, during a Congressional Committee hearing (7/15/03), he chewed the seat right out of Alan Greenspan's britches. Confronting GreasePan with the truth, Sanders left the old fart dumbfounded.Transcript is available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_5_55/ai_108882468.
It is eerily prophetic.
As the good people of Vermont went on to elevate Mr. Sanders to the Senate, many of their municipal districts passed resolutions instructing their prosecuting attorneys that, if the outlaws Cheney or Bush were to appear in their jurisdictions, they were to be indicted for war crimes.
I am greatly heartened to find that America has not died, but only dwindled: it still thrives in Vermont.
God Bless you decent, rational people!
Calling on all Progressives to engage in a dialogue!
People For A New Society
http://www.peopleforanewsociety.org/
I agree, we disparately need a left-wing third party in this country. The Vermont Progressives are an important organization. Hopefully they'll win the governor election this year.
Any party that does not start off talking about eliminating the Fed and nationalizing Big Oil, and breaking from the WTO is doomed to fail. Any party that does should never travel together on the same plane or on the same bus.
How much fun to watch boyz and girlz with their big money rendered impotent. How refreshing to hear of a party that aspires to nothing more than building their political movement from the bottom up by doing a good job "taking care" of the voters who elected them.
It is almost enough, depite its bitterly cold climate, to consider relocating to Vermont. Maybe at least a summer vacation--who needs Vegas, NY,NY, or any of the other plastic fantastic tourist venues when you can visit an example of what America once was and perhaps could become again.
"people hear "green" and they can't help but see an image of some Jerry Garcia-looking pot-smoking hippie dude in their heads"
Conservatives have demonized green, Jerry Garcia, pot, hippies and dudes. What makes you think they won't demonize progressives too?
thank you chris hedges for an excellent article,
"Our hope lies in first capturing seats on city councils and town boards. Our hope lies in building a party from the bottom up. We will have to be patient. It will take time. But it might work."
absent civil unrest, it's the only way it will work. solid policy positions implemented locally that benefit the people.
i think it will be easier for people in rural areas, many who are rooted (positively) to the land to see 3rd party options as legitimate.
i (perhaps presumptuously) attribute the 'progressive' attitudes in VT to this back to the land movement, exemplified in the 1930's by helen and scott nearing (2 of my heros).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_and_Scott_Nearing
but they left the city to find their personal solutions in the country.
my question is how participatory economics/coops - decentralized participatory government - universal health care can be implemented/applied in an urban area like NY, chicago, or cleveland. i understand participatory democracy - progressive politics can provide solutions to problems. i hope these ideas can flourish in post-industrial urban america.
but the fundamental problem is there are too many of us, and our population is concentrated in such a way that is alien to our human nature.
i like the state secessionist notion (thanks for the link, forextrader 5/26 3:04). i think bio-regionalism is a great idea.
thank you VPP for leading the way.
...peace...
Zuckerman's arguments for voting "least worst" corporate candidates for US president is unconvincing. He is trying to appear "sane" to the presumably far right general US electorate when the far right policies of this crop of Repuks/Demoks exhibit themselves as complete failures. In effect, Zuckerman is telling that electorate that the failed polices are quite tolerable really.
The attitude that "least worst is better" only strengthens the duopoly which is rather quickly collapsing into a monopoly. Hey Zuckerman, who's going to vote for progressive principles if progressives aren't? Hey Zuckerman, what percentage of the US electorite will have to vote third party progressives before you start voting third party progressives?
Doris Haddock aka "Grannie D" - advocate for election campaign finance reform hails from neighboring Granite State - New Hampshire - though I'd bet she be honored to find herself associated with the much beloved Green Mountain State. She is a cross-continental loadestar and arguably living national treasure. Go Grannie Go!!
frank1569 has the right idea.
It's about time the Vermont Progressive Party goes national.
How about the NPP - the National Progressive Party. Or, even better, I'm so sick of the word "party," let's go with just The National Progressives.
Forget the Green Party - people hear "green" and they can't help but see an image of some Jerry Garcia-looking pot-smoking hippie dude in their heads. Libertarians are viewed as fringe. And, us being Americans, we're totally bored of the donkey and the elephant - and a vast majority believe them to be a single mafia with two different capos.
Jesus was a Progressive, most of the Founding Fathers were Progressives, and all polls show that the majority of Americans prefer Progressive policies.
The National Progressives.
The political landscape in the USA in essence consists of two major political parties. The Republican Party that represents the right and the Democrat Party that is also mostly placed right of center, and both parties are firmly in the clutches of and serving Corporate Lobbyists and special interest groups.
These are the two parties that have been alternating in power without giving the voters a viable third option!
Anything that would deal with the plight of the massess are met with a near hysteria by the two headed snake, labelling it as Communist or Socialists and these two concepts in the American psych are interchangeable.
The stigma of being a "Lefty" hasn't changed much since the McCarthy era's witch-hunts and in most people's mind it stands for higher taxes and and Government giving more welfare for the poor and in essence being Un American.
The fact that most of the welfare in this country is given as corporate welfare and bail outs, tax brakes and farm subsidies to the richest corporations seems to escape everyone's attention.
Even the issue of Universal Health Care sounds like a scary prospect to the very people who needs it the most because of the propaganda machinery and their scare tactics manage to murky the issue! Today, the Universal Health Care proposal made by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is advocating Health Care Programs administered and profiting Private Insurance Companies, instead of being administered by SSA- the National Health Care Adminstrator
It is time to get a viable third party on the ballot a party that's not advocating outmoded ideas such as the absence of Government as the Libetarians do, but to deal with the complex problems we are all facing in the 21st Century!
Come to think of it, the US Government supported Slovenia first, and then Croatia from seceding from Yugoslavia, and supported the breakup of the former Soviet Union.
Washington D.C. should also support Vermonters, if they elect to secede. And other states as well. Maybe the three west coast states of California, Oregon and Washington can form a new nation called, 'Calorwash' or 'Calorington' or 'Orefornington' or ' The Pacific Republic.' Creative minds will find a good name for a progressive region.
I signed a petition several years ago here in California to secede from the Union.
Keep up your good work, Vermonters!
An independant Vermont sounds just wonderful.
As a Vermonter, I too, support The Second Vermont Republic. While the Progs are definately a step in the right direction, what is really needed is to toss the other 49 and get on with the business of building a progressive country. There are many countries with populations close to that of Vermont who enjoy an excellent standard of living.
What is the clue for sanity and common sense that Vermont seemingly possesses. This is the state that has and indictment out on Bush and Cheney, who had better never decide to vacation in that state. This is the Granny D state. What is it with Vermont? We need to bottle it and give it to the other 49. This is a tale that, sadly, is not available in the main stream media. If you throw a revolution and no one reports it, did it happen? Much like the May Day West Coast dockworkers' strike protesting the Iraq war, this tale of hope will not reach the masses.
Better yet, I support The Second Vermont Republic. This movement is against US facist corporate state domination. Lead the way Vermont!
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/
"Here is a political party, founded in 1999, which really does not take any corporate funds and refuses to discuss any potential health care solution but a single-payer, not-for-profit system."
How about a not-for-profit energy program?
How about a not-for-profit educational system?
How about a not-for-profit economic system?
Take profit out of war and you end war.
Today is a day to honor the peacemakers.
What's the diff between the Prog. Party and the Green Party?
Health care
Living wage
Pollution control
Paper trail
Accountability
Green energy
Citizen rights instead of Corpirate Greed
Peace
Prosperity &
Sanity
The link for the Vermont Progressive Party in the article is broken. The working link is: http://www.progressiveparty.org/
Zuckerman, like many others in the party, supports Obama for the presidency. He does not believe Obama will make major progressive changes, but he argues that it is always better to have a Democrat in the White House.
Exactly.
That pragmatism coupled with some good progressive idealism is what will move us forward.
Progress is like fencing - thrust and parry. Sometimes you thrust, sometimes you parry. If you forget to do them both at appropriate times, you will eventually get run through.
I also heartily agree that the real work to be done is at the local level. That is the major disagreement that I have with many CDers who seem to put all their emphasis on the national and international. Real work is done locally. It is where progressives can, and are, making progress. Witness Vermont!
Good on ya, Vermont!
Another good article by Chris Hedges.
Three cheers for the Vermont Progressive Party! As more and more people see the synchronization of Republican and Democratic values; allegiance to corporate executives, adherence to the dictates of muti-millionaires and billionaires, an excessive Pentagon budget which threatens the world (or weaker nations) in imperialistic policy, a scorn for the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights, embracing fascism in the "Homeland" Sig Heil!, gross violations of international law and treaties, and a total disregard for We The People, citizens of the United States, folks are abandoning the morally bankrupt cronyism of the Republicrats which is basically one-party.
ProgressiveParty, Green Party, Socialist Worker's Party, are all better than the "get-along" duopoly slicing up our nation like a Thanksgiving Turkey.
Pass the word around, folks. There are alternatives to this infected duopoly.