In New England, the states of Vermont and New Hampshire are known to have distinct political personalities. New Hampshire is fiercely independent. And the word fiercely must always be paired with independent in this case. Vermont, is liberal. Perhaps even socialist.
The states are tucked next to each other, at the center of the northeast region, forming an imperfect rectangle divided almost on the diagonal by the Connecticut River. The border technically runs just a few feet from the Vermont shore, not down the middle of the river as you might think.
In 2020, Joe Biden won New Hampshire by almost eight points, and he won Vermont by thirty-six. But you would not be looking closely enough if you stopped there. Vermont also re-elected Republican Governor Phil Scott to a third term, by more than forty points, and New Hampshire re-elected Republican Governor Chris Sununu by more than thirty points. Over time, New Hampshire has sent both Democrats and Republicans to Congress. Vermont has sent independent Bernie Sanders to Washington, D.C. since 1991. First to the House and then the Senate.
It may be more helpful to look at the political differences between these two states not so much as liberal versus conservative, but in terms of what freedom means to those who live on either side of the river, and what the residents of each state hope to derive from their relationship with the federal government.
Both, it seems, want their money's worth. Both value freedom in different ways. In New Hampshire, there is an inclination away from regulation and government interference. In Vermont, voters are interested in federal government programs that would help when it comes to issues like the economy, healthcare, and education.
As I drove along the border in early December, I listened to a two hour news conference by Vermont Governor Scott who was updating the state on the management of the Coronavirus outbreak. Scott's focus was imploring Vermonters to continue social distancing and to wear face masks. He urged them to curtail holiday gatherings and - this Republican governor - also spent a good deal of his two hours in front of the microphones urging people to get help, if the stress of the pandemic was leading to mental health issues.
"It's okay, not not be okay," was the phrase Scott, and members of his cabinet, repeated often. There could not be a more intimate effort by a government to intervene in the lives of its citizens.
In the 2020 presidential race, Joe Biden was campaigning for what he called the "soul of America." President Trump tried to define the difference as continued prosperity versus a tilt toward socialism.
But when times are difficult, who is not in favor of a little socialism? Who is not in favor of a $1,200 check from Washington to help pay the bills, or a forgivable loan to keep a small business from going under?
Bernie Sanders is fond of arguing that if you are in favor of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or the Affordable Care Act(Obamacare) then you are a socialist. So isn't that what the great debate is really about? Isn't that where the fault line really stands in the United States? It is between those who want less government, because they are doing just fine the way the system stands today, and those who want the government to come in on the side of those who are struggling. Fairness.
Most see the results of the recent election as a sign the country is bitterly divided. Though Biden won by an overwhelming margin, Trump still managed to secure seventy-four million votes, and those voters presumably buy into Trump's view of the world and, somewhat ironically, believe Trump is the one who will use government to make things right.
At the same time, Republicans gained seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate is almost evenly divided. Another way of looking at the results is to say voters rejected the Trump presidency, because he failed to make progress on the most important issues(including the pandemic response), but they want a battle of ideas and compromise from Congress. The selection of Biden as president, also says that given our current circumstances, voters favor more government intervention right now, not less.
In 1995, during a similarly divided period in America, President Bill Clinton(D) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich(R), met for an outdoor public forum in Claremont, New Hampshire. With the pressure of a live audience of real voters in front of them, and many others watching on television, they got along for about an hour and even agreed on a few issues. The spectacle did not lead directly to any great legislative achievements, but it did show that when the voters demand results from politicians, politicians are eager to deliver. It is in the self-interest of elected leaders to please voters, because it is the most effective way to stay in power.
In this period of transition, we have the power to pressure the new president and Congress to work together on behalf of the country. It is one thing to send a message on Election Day, but the times require our on-going involvement in the civic life of the country. What does freedom mean to you? What expectations do you have for the federal government, or government at the state and local level? As Americans, withdrawing our participation until the next election is not a luxury we have given the crises of the moment.
© Dean Pagani 2021
Credits:
© Dean Pagani 2021