RSS Feed
|
|||||
|
Fourth Contest
When "Webster" and "MacDonald" signs begin popping up like spring tulips on Orange County lawns, you know what season of the year it is. Next Tuesday, for the fourth time in 12 years, Mark MacDonald of Williamstown and Stephen Webster of Randolph will ask the permission of county voters to represent them in the State Senate in Montpelier come January. Webster, a Randolph attorney and a woodlot manager, won that first contest in 1994. MacDonald, a retired high school teacher who raises beef cattle on his farm on the Randolph-Williamstown town line, has since returned the favor and is now the incumbent. Interestingly enough, their present rivalry is a small-scale symbol of the great ideological divide that has marked America’s political life in the take-no-prisoners 21st Century. MacDonald is an unabashed Democratic Liberal. Capital L. Webster is an unabashed Republican Conservative. Capital C. There is little common ground between them, other than a desire to be a public servant and make a contribution to the overall good of Vermont, with "good" in both cases defined by their liberal or conservative agenda. Webster is 62 and MacDonald 64. Campaign Styles A significant difference is their campaign styles. MacDonald doesn’t as much run for office as he gallops. He’s the guy knocking at the front door with a handful of campaign literature. He shows up to shake hands at the farmer’s market. He’s game for any kind of public event where he can meet people. He was defeated by William Corrow of Williamstown in 2000 during the political firestorm over legislative passage of the civil unions legislation. MacDonald voted for it, saying he would have a hard time explaining a "no" vote to students in his Randolph Union High School civics class. In Orange County, where the "Take Back Vermont" movement got its birth, Corrow rode opposition to civil unions to victory. But just for two years. MacDonald beat him in a return match in 2002. He has said he thought that might happen when voters told him in door to door campaigning, "You’ve been forgiven." Webster, on the other hand, more or less "stands" for election. You know his character, and his history, and his record, and you can vote for him on that basis. "Mark makes a full time job of it, more than I do," he said the other day. Nevertheless, his low-key approach has served him well. He was elected to the Senate from 1987 to 1996, at one point serving as Senate President, and also considering a run for governor in those days. Then came the MacDonald rivalry. After losing two of three, Webster changed course and ran, successfully, for the House. He served two terms there before being defeated by Democrats Patsy French and Jim Hutchinson two years ago. Now he and MacDonald have their lawn signs out again. His primary motive in running, he said, is his concern about the general liberal drift of legislation coming out of Montpelier. "I’m running to give people a choice," he said. He also wants to give Gov. Jim Douglas another vote in the Senate to try to prevent the Democratic majority from overriding vetoes. Webster, an avid reader of political philosophy and history (and a member of a weekly Bible study class in Northfield), is a poster model of a "fiscal conservative." He is a a devout believer in the power of "the market" to freely guide economic policy. He opposes high taxes, and seeks to cut costs. For example, he objects to the pay and benefits packages that most teachers get, saying they are out of line with the income of taxpayers who finance them. , "Teachers on average are very well paid," he said. "They have a health plan. They can retire in their early 50s with a full pension. All of this separates them from the average Vermonter." Political Climate Next Tuesday Webster will run up against the hard fact that Vermont’s political scene has changed drastically since the Republican heydays of 30 and even 15 years ago. Both the state House and Senate are now in firm Democratic control. This part of Orange County is Democratic, a fact Webster attributes to an influx of new people from out of state. "It is less likely I will win in the current environment," he said. "The people I talk to like to be left alone," he says of personal campaigning. "If they remain discouraged, it is less likely that I will be chosen." The mood of the volatile electorate is a subject of non-stop interest to candidates. For his part, MacDonald senses unease. "People feel squeezed," he said the other day. "It shows up in a variety of places—the property tax, the ability of young people to afford a first home, the squeeze on health care. People work more hours for less take-home pay than 10 years ago. "At the same time there is a small group of folks who are doing better than ever. Ten years ago, wealth shifted to a very small group who make more money and own more of our society. As this group acquires more assets they should pick up more share of the revenue. This is not fair." The result, he said, is that people "are more edgy and frustrated." What to do about it? The blunt reality is that MacDonald and Webster, faced with intractable local, state, national and global problems, can only chip away at the edges if they are elected. There are too many options. For example, Webster places his faith in the free market’s ability to solve economic problems, MacDonald argues that Vermont always has traveled a middle road as opposed to a market system. It has believed that government has a role to play, dating back to conservative icon Gov. Deane Davis in the late 1960s who championed Vermont’s landmark land use regulation, Act 250. "We need a sense of balance," MacDonald says. Webster no doubt would agree. That also was a favorite saying of Deane Davis. And once again it means that Vermont will survive another election, no matter who wins. |
for larger version     |
||||
