Deb Markowitz for Governor

Dear Neighbors:

I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I will be voting for Deb Markowitz in the upcoming gubernatorial primary here in Vermont.

Although my endorsement of Deb is an enthusiastic one, and I am certain she will be an excellent governor, I want to be clear that my paramount objective is to elect a governor from the Democratic Party. Vermont is the quintessential blue state -- by which I mean that it's clear a majority of Vermonters favor the socially and economically enlighted agenda that characterizes the Democratic Party -- in stark contrast to the laissez-faire, country club-esque, social conservatism of the GOP. That we have spent the last eight years under the leadership of a governor from a minority party is strictly a function of an endemic failure on the part of non-Republicans (both politicans and us regular folks) failing to unite. We cannot afford to let that happen in a year when the incumbent Republican is not seeking reelection.

Deb Markowitz has spent the past 12 years as a superb secretary of state. There is no better proving ground in Vermont for a prospective governor. Her writ runs statewide and requires her to oversee matters (e.g., our election process itself) that require fair-mindedness, efficiency, and good judgment in the face of petty temptations and frequently hard feelings. (Nobody likes to lose elections.)

The secretary of state is the glue that holds our town governments together -- I can say, from personal experience as an elected (though really minor) town official, that Deb and her office provide direct and invaluable assistance to folks like me, entrusted with sensitive matters that frequently (and inevitablly) pit neighbor against neighbor. As was pointed out in the Seven Days profile of Deb, it is not uncommon for Deb to respond personally to requests for help and advice. This is remarkable, even in a small state.

The Seven Days article suggested that, unlike some of the other primary candidates, Deb lacks broad exposure to the full measure of issues she would confront as governor. In effect, this reduces to an argument that only legislative leaders are qualified to become the state's chief executive.

There are compelling countervailing arguments. My admiration for the distinguished lawymakers in the race notwithstanding, legislative leadership is not the same as executive leadership. A veteran legislator (1) spends a good while becoming a specialist in one particular area of public policy, since committee service is where most legislative work happens, and (2) if fortunate enough to acquire a leadership post, is then forced to rely on the substantive expertise of others while mastering the legislative process and its underlying politics.

My point is not to belittle this form of public service -- to the contrary, it's noble and I hope to undertake it myself some day. What I am trying to say is that this kind of work is arguably less of a suitable prologue to service as governor than 12 years of secretary of state are, given the executive and administrative nature of the latter position. Plus, to state the obvious, Deb Markowitz has a demonstrated track record of successful statewide campaigns, particularly her first one in which she defeated a Republican incumbent.

Before joining Vermont Law School in 2008, I spent 14 years as a government official of one kind or another. I have been an employee of the states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. I watched, at close hand, the disasterous administration of Craig Benson in New Hampshire. Vermonters, trust me: Totally apart from his abhorrent position on substantive issues, Mr. Benson was a person who lacked the temperament, character and good judgment to run a state.

Thus I know from experience that executive leadership matters in this key respect: The example the governor sets, and the caliber of people she appoints, is the difference between effective government and a government that only moves backwards when it moves at all. I follow energy and utility law for a living; Deb Markowitz does not. But as someone who understands this stuff, I am confident that Governor Markowitz can and will surround herself with the kind of experts who can help her pursue truly visionary policies, as distinguished from Republican policies based on knee-jerk support for Vermont Yankee and knee-jerk opposition to wind and other renewables.

In other words, the key attribute of a successful and visionary governor is the quality of the people she brings to state government -- not just her immediate advisors, but the people she appoints as commissioners and to other key posts. My advice to my neighbors is to consider the candidates' positions on the issues, take note of how similar they are, and vote for the person who is most likely to exercise sound judgment in appointments -- and also most likely to defeat the Republican candidate this fall. Alas, that candidate is busy building a vast campaign treasury and organization while we democrats are busy disagreeing, however amicably, among ourselves. When we settle that disagreement in late August, the best candidate is the one who will be most likely to get more votes in the fall than her opponent, and then to be principled and effective as governor. For me, that candidate is Deb Markowitz.

If you would like to meet Deb, please join me and my family on Sunday, August 1st at 4pm at Arline Rotman's in Norwich. She and her husband, Barry, live at 95 Douglas Road (just off New Boston Road) in Norwich. Apart from our family and the Rotmans, other co-hosts are the Peter & Ashley Milliken, Don & Lisa McCabe, Richard & Mollie Brooks, and Mike and Carol Foster. Also Tim Briglin and his family. Thanks for reading!

Requiem for the Radio

From National Public Radio this week comes the disquieting news that it is no longer National Public Radio.

According to the Washington Post, the organization “has quietly changed its name to its familiar initials. Much like the corporate names KFC or AT&T, the initials now stand for – the initials.”

The first problem with this gesture is its pointlessness. Like any corporate entity, National Public Radio is free to trademark its initials, its logo, its logo containing its initials, and any other previously unclaimed identity under which it wishes to do business. The network need not formally change its name to take such steps.

A bigger problem, of course, is that the change represents a kind of official surrender to the glib superficiality that suffuses every aspect of National Public Radio’s competition. Has CNN been so wildly successful since shedding the Cable News Network moniker that its corporate branding strategy is worth emulating? Which is more profitable, and more conducive to the greater good: the CBS of Katie Couric or the Columbia Broadcasting System of Edward R. Murrow?

The president of National Public Radio, Vivian Schiller, makes the point that her network is no longer truly a radio network – its journalism, and its cultural offerings, are now available in a variety of media. For example, a truly full appreciation of the recent Fresh Air program about the nation’s electricity grid would involve a visit to the network’s web site to check out the interactive, layered map of the grid. If the venerable Susan Stamberg does a story about contemporary architecture, thanks to podcast downloads you needn’t be at your radio for the broadcast and, of course, visuals of the building will be available on the web.

All the more reason, given these leaps forward, for the network that Stamberg helped build to celebrate, to cultivate, and to communicate its historical roots in radio broadcasting. Radio has a romance, and a rich history, that other forms of communication simply lack – Roosevelt’s fireside chats . . . kids on farms hiding their transistor radios at bedtime to catch a few innings of their favorite baseball team a thousand miles away via a static-y clear channel AM station . . . even Neil Armstrong’s untelevised “one small step for a man – one giant leap for mankind.”

Chuck all of that in the interest of making National Public Radio, in the words of its president, more “modern” and “streamlined”? I respectfully dissent.

Radio and its history are not the only things the network is deleting from its hard drive. There’s that middle word, too – public. It means something.

Commercial radio died for all intents and purposes in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan and his congressional enablers deregulated the medium, eliminated ownership limitations, and trashed what were once legally binding public service obligations. This led inexorably to Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern and the death of alternative formats and full-service commercial stations.

If that pitch seems too ideological to you, forget radio for a second and consider how non-public entities – i.e., investor-owned businesses – have fared as news and information providers in other media. The nation’s great newspapers are in the toilet swirl, victims of their own comfort with short-term profit that allowed them to stop thinking about the future and the changes it would bring.

Arguably, it is National Public Radio that stepped forward, boldly and creatively, as the empires of the commercial broadcasters and newspapers have crumbled. Public radio did this not necessarily because its people are smarter or more virtuous than their for-profit counterparts, but because they were liberated by their public mission. Consigning the “public” in National Public Radio to oblivion is even less defensible than the blithe abandonment of “radio.”

According to the Washington Post – oops, make that the WP – television’s Public Broadcasting Service will not follow the example of its radio counterpart. The irony is that, unlike National Public Radio, PBS would do well to shed its ponderous name. “Broadcasting” has always seemed so much snootier than “radio.” PBS stations still felt like elitist cultural medicine long after public radio got interesting and cool. Bob Edwards joined National Public Radio ten years before Elmo showed up on PBS in 1984.

National Public Radio fired Bob Edwards in 2004 – looking to freshen up Morning Edition, they said – and so one never hears the words “Bob Edwards” on public radio anymore. That’s understandable in the circumstances. But consigning the very phrase “public radio” to the same fate? It a full-throated surrender to the morals of the marketplace – to the pernicious principles of . . . well, of PR.