by Mike Smith The pathway to the presidency often hinges on the south. This is particularly true for Republicans, but Democrats too must be competitive in key southern states like North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia to win the presidency. That is why, for years, both parties tap-danced around removing the Confederate battle flag from public property and condemning it for what it has become — a symbol of racism. For years, presidential candidates have either said nothing or avoided taking a definitive stance that might anger some southerners. Often they would say that flying a Confederate battle flag was a state issue rather than a federal one. But racism is a national issue.
Nine Americans have been savagely murdered as they worshiped their God and prayed for peace in Charleston, South Carolina. The killer is a racist who, prior to his murderous act, took pictures of himself with a gun and a Confederate battle flag. The flag was clearly meant as a rallying symbol. He wanted to incite — or thought of himself as being in — a race war.
For the better part of the 20th century, up to and including today, bigots and white supremacy groups have hijacked the Confederate battle flag as their symbol — a symbol calling for a racially divided America. To repudiate racism means the symbols of racism must be also repudiated.
There’s no doubt the Confederate battle flag has become a racist symbol. It is time to take it down.
Right on
Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos has it right: It is time for the Legislature to get serious about ethics and hold its members to a higher standard. Condos has proposed that the state establish an independent ethics commission to look into possible ethical violations by elected officials. His plan mirrors a bi-partisan call in the Vermont House with legislation spearheaded by Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe, and others. Many criticized the Vermont Senate this year for not establishing any guidelines or procedures to investigate ethical violations. Given the very serious criminal allegations pending against one senator, it’s unclear why the Senate would refuse to establish basic measures to give the public confidence. The House does have some loose guidelines and an established procedure but they fall painfully short because it is an internal process that is governed by the members themselves, certainly not independent of the Legislature. One hang up is that Condos said this commission would need approximately $500,000 to operate — money that is hard to come by when the state faces continuing self-inflicted budget gaps. But surely this commission can operate at a much-reduced cost and still be effective in rooting out ethical violations. Even in Vermont, a state we often think as immune from this type of behavior, it is time to get serious about this issue. It’s time for an ethics commission.
A changing state?
Certainly the chances of Sen. Patrick Leahy stumbling during his next re-election bid in 2016 are slim. He is the overwhelming favorite to win another six-year term. His longevity in the U.S. Senate coupled with the higher voter turnout of a presidential year will make him a formidable political force. But does the Vermont that Leahy campaigned in six years ago resemble the state today? Certainly, the bluest of blue states remains blue. That is to Leahy’s advantage. But there is also an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with Democrat officials in state government that Leahy will have to skillfully navigate. This dissatisfaction centers on economic issues like making Vermont more affordable and creating higher paying jobs. Many Vermonters believe the state is becoming a place where it is difficult to live because of the high cost of living and the limited number of high paying jobs. To the average working family, their economic future is uncertain. In recent years they have been holding elected officials more accountable for this economic anxiety. Gov. Peter Shumlin’s near political defeat in the last election was partly attributable to this shifting sentiment. But in addition, Vermont Republicans picked up seats in the Vermont House and Senate driven primarily by their focus on economic issues and affordability. Vermont voters are becoming increasingly impatient with politicians overpromising and under delivering; and promoting economic advantages of various policies that never materialize, drive up consumer costs or only benefit large investors. Leahy must make himself part of the solution rather and part of the problem, or he might have to work harder for re-election than he has in the past.
Leahy is skilled at recognizing and adjusting to changing voter sentiment — the man has been in office since the 1970s and we all know a lot has changed since then. Over the years his politics have mirrored the state as it transformed from conservative to moderate to liberal. But if an independent populist challenger could tap into voter unrest then maybe, just maybe, it could be an interesting race. Only time will tell if such a candidate will emerge. In the meantime, Leahy will have time to take the temperature of the Vermont electorate.
No surprise
And lastly, Bernie Sanders is climbing in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, although Hillary Clinton still has a lead. As I have mentioned on several occasions, Bernie has a message that can resonate — and apparently is — and his new surge in popularity shouldn’t be a surprise. Of course, sometimes surges among primary voters measure dissatisfaction with the frontrunner more than a desire to elect a challenger. And, in presidential politics one slip up. A surly comment, for example, can stop a surge or cause a campaign to crash. Bernie is surely surly from time to time. Time will tell if Bernie continues to rise in the polls. But one thing is certain, the Democratic establishment has got to be concerned about this surge.
Mike Smith was the secretary of administration under former Gov. James Douglas. He is a political analyst for WCAX-TV and WVMT radio and is a regular contributor to The Times Argus.