Another Realignment in the People's Republic: Part Two

One outcome of the March 2012 elections in Burlington was already clear by January: the next mayor would not be a member of the city’s Progressive Party. In November 2011, Mayor Bob Kiss, the third progressive to serve as chief executive since 1981, had decided -- under pressure -- not to seek a third term.
    In December, Sen. Tim Ashe, a former Progressive City Councilor who hoped to run as a fusion candidate with the Democratic nomination, narrowly lost to Miro Weinberger in a hotly contested caucus race. Five years later Ashe is President Pro Tempore of the Democratic-controlled Vermont Senate.

Ashe, Lorber, Kranichfeld and Weinberger debate.

      After deferring a final decision for more than a month, on the last Sunday of January 2012 local Progressives finally voted, unanimously, not to field a mayoral candidate for the first time in decades. About 30 people attended the party’s caucus at the Fletcher Free Library, somewhat fewer than had showed up in December.
     Progressive Rep. Chris Pearson suggested that it was time to “streamline.” Last November, after a decade in the Vermont House, Pearson became a State Senator, elected as a Progressive-Democrat.
     In a 2012 post-Caucus statement, Party Vice-Chair Elijah Bergman explained that local Progressives believed “the best way we can continue to stand up for low and moderate income residents is to focus on winning city council seats.” To that end, however, the Party had nominated only two council candidates.
     In Ward 2, Max Tracy went on to defeat Democrat Eric Covey for the seat being vacated by Democrat Dave Berezniak. In Ward 3, Rachel Siegel was recruited for a successful race against Democrat Sean Hurley, filling the spot previously held by Emma Mulvaney-Stanak. She had announced plans to "take a break" from elected office. Mulvaney-Stanak has since become chair of the Vermont Progressive Party, and Siegel has left the Council to become director of the Peace & Justice Center.
     Bergman said in 2012 that members of his party “look forward to meeting with the announced mayoral candidates and sharing our priorities and vision for the city.” But he also suggested that an endorsement for Independent Wanda Hines was possible, although she hadn't requested it. At the Caucus, Hines appeared to be the clear favorite. In the end, however, the biggest Progressive endorsement came from Bernie Sanders, who backed Weinberger.
     Many progressives argued that Kiss was a poor communicator and criticized his handling of financial troubles at Burlington Telecom. Hines, who at the time worked on equity issues in the city’s Community and Economic Development Office, was one the few public figures who defended the administration and mayor.
     Shortly after the Progressive Caucus, Weinberger issued a statement proposing a coalition “to tackle vital affordable housing, education, environmental, poverty and workers issues facing the city.” He credited the Progressive Party for making “enormous progress over the last 30 years as a result of strong leadership” and said he hoped to “earn the support of Burlington Progressives.”
    Since then his attitude has changed. Last week, while endorsing  Progressive Councilor Jane Knodell in her re-election bid, Weinberger simultaneously attacked her Party for nominating candidates “from a reactionary fringe that is opposed to much of what we are trying to achieve.” He was talking specifically about two candidates, Genese Grill and Charles Simpson, both running insurgent campaigns in opposition to the mayor's development agenda. Grill is actually challenging Knodell as an Independent.
     In 2012, Weinberger also argued that progress had stalled in Burlington during the previous six years. But he was careful then to assign the lion's share of the blame to Mayor Kiss alone. During the Democratic caucus fight, Ashe and the other Democrats in the race took a similar stand.
     Five years later, Progressives still have four City Council seats. But Selene Coburn is on her way to the State legislature and Knodell, like other Progressives in the legislature and state office, have forged a working alliance with Democrats, an informal fusion that informs decisions and priorities.
     Weinberger defines the current dynamic as "a struggle going on for the soul of the party of Sanders, Clavelle and Knodell.” But the real questions remain the same as they were ten years ago, another moment when local Progressive leaders decided to support and share power with Democrats: Whose Party is it, and where is it heading? 

Part One

Washington's Warning: Passions, Factions & Domination

How cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men can subvert the power of the people.

Excerpts from George Washington's Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discrimination -- Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western -- whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views.

     One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourself too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection...
     All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
     However combinations of association of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust domination...
     I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
     This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and in truly their worst enemy.
     The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetuated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the mind of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
     Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
     It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.