To watch the debate, visit bit.ly/774-debate.
BRATTLEBORO-Our lone public candidate forum so far in this election season has come and gone. It was standard issue. The topics, as always, were drawn from the perennial list. The agenda, too, followed the typical template: Each candidate opened with a couple minutes about themself after which Moderator Olga Peters commenced questions.
The event on July 8 was organized by the Democratic Party, its topics drawn from the standard menu of state issues, with the focus on a few leaning heavier in Brattleboro: taxes, government activities that aren't working, and drugs.
Responses from candidates may or may not have reflected the question before taking off into their preplanned talking points on just about every government activity, including income distribution, housing, the economy, health care, education, criminal justice, prisons.
The only notable absence, with the exception of incumbent Rep. Mollie Burke, was mention of climate issues. Perhaps the wonderful air conditioning in the Brooks Memorial Library, where the event was held, enabled us to forget the broiling heat outside.
None of the candidates offered any reflections on the roots of problems. Thus, one couldn't tell if they understood the issues or had any idea for a remedy.
Perhaps the tone was set, and expression subtly repressed, at the very beginning with the announced dictate that the forum was to remain civil and friendly because that's who we are here in Vermont. This is code for "nothing controversial allowed; stay in bounds."
Indeed, it was a laudably polite, convivial - even jovial - evening. No one wished to be labelled a pessimist or the messenger of bad news and risk losing votes, let alone be identified as "uncivil."
The hot issue that people came to hear about was taxes. It was also the issue handled most delicately and discreetly by the forum invitees.
The wind came out of that sail when, the only surprise, Amanda Thurber announced that she wouldn't at all mind paying an additional 3% income tax if she earned over half a million dollars.
The Great Debate between Ms. Thurber and her opponent, Emilie Kornheiser, never happened. This is to Ms. Thurber's credit for realizing that opposing the tax would place her in the position of talking about budgets, revenue, taxes, and tax policy, and she doesn't have the experience to do that.
All the candidates spoke about "fixing" things, so one could surmise that all recognized that government relies almost entirely on tax revenue, directly or indirectly.
If inflation - and, by extension, costs - rise 4%, taxes have to rise 4%. If a failing system requires more new and additional programs to plug the ever-more-numerous and enlarging cracks, then taxes are added for those, too.
No candidate named any program that could or should be eliminated or reduced. One had the sense that all the candidates suspected that "doing something" about their priority problems was going to mean more expenses.
No one, thankfully, proposed cutting "waste" from the budget. After a good many years flitting around Montpelier, I'm confident enough that there isn't more waste in government here than anywhere else, so the candidates' lack of concern for this is reasonable.
There wasn't much offered about what to do about problems, with the exception of one of the two incumbents, Emilie Kornheiser, who advocated for universal health care.
The entire group acknowledged that education was one of the largest and most intractable tax-increase drivers. No ideas were forthcoming that might remedy the situation. They could agree only that there was no control over education.
This suggests that they don't realize that, ultimately, the Legislature has full control of the educational system. They simply made an agreement years ago to delegate that control to the governor, with the tacit understanding that the Legislature would mind its own business.
Governors don't know anything more about education than many legislators do - and they probably know a lot less - but they do know what their heaviest campaign donors want.
Legislators study and set the course for all government responsibilities, such as infrastructure, large-scale finances, health care, and judicial, police, prison, and human-service systems, among other things, so it seems strange that they feel that they cannot grasp what a good educational system looks like.
If it took the time to gain this knowledge, the Legislature might not find the system so mysterious and uncontrollable. I suggest it begin by studying what the purpose of education should be, at least in the public-school sector that serves the vast majority of Vermont children.
Most people, privately and a few publicly, are talking about living in a world that appears to be imploding from every direction. Yet we go about our lives as if, given time, the world will simply right itself, that nothing much needs to change.
Of course, quietly, we admit that each day brings diminishing prospects.
Our youth, who shall inherit this planet and who will lead the fight for their own survival, are largely immersed and immobilized in electronic media and technology.
Their inability to respond is, in large part, the consequence of an education that provided an inadequate foundation for understanding their world. They were denied access to information they needed and the critical skills to evaluate existing norms and cherished beliefs. They were not permitted to question the legitimacy of our norms. They don't know how or where to begin. Frankly, for the most part, neither do their teachers, who were also reared in the high-tech environment.
I submit that if the purpose of education focused on democracy (what an equitable political system looks like), good citizenship (the value of and tools for participating), and how we survive within the environment and ecology of the Earth and Vermont, the cost of education would come way down.
A radical reassessment is necessary to make this shift.
As for the forum - well, it was sociable and sweet and polite and little more than a showcase for the flimsiness of American politics.
No criticism, no discussion with depth, no insights, no argument, no history, few facts, and little reference to anything.
No fundamental or game-changing issues (e.g., campaign financing, ranked voting, the Dillon Rule, regional autonomy) were touched.
It was eminently successful. All the candidates wrung their hands the proper amount, advised of their optimism, and broadcast their most becoming smiles and little jokes. A pleased and happy crowd indeed arose from their seats.
Spoon Agave
Brattleboro
To watch the debate, visit bit.ly/774-debate.
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.