Retribution
Is No Answer

Last week’s Herald encouraged us to "drive out" Republicans in next weeks election. But I am wondering: do we really believe that if we "drive out" one whole party, we will get something better? How often has that happened in your lifetime?

It could just as easily be argued that we should all vote Republican to prevent a Democratic majority from unleashing two years of retribution in the form of investigations and impeachment attempts—two years of preoccupation with "getting" George Bush, as expensive and distracting as the efforts to "get" Bill Clinton.

I, for one, intend to vote for the individuals that I believe can do the best job for Vermont and for the country. In that mindset, the fact that Martha Rainville is a "likable, intelligent, strong-minded, competent new alternative" (as the Herald pointed out last week) matters a lot to me. This election is for the long-term future, not just for the next two years. The next senator will serve a six-year term, and the next congressperson will more than likely serve for a succession of terms.

George Bush will be long gone before either of these individuals reaches his or her peak of influence in our government.

Personally I would like to vote for both Rainville and Welch and not for either Sanders or Tarrant. I’ll vote for Rainville, because I have met her, I like her, and I believe she will bring a uniquely balanced perspective to Washington. But if Welch wins, I will feel reasonably well represented as well. That is the way I remember elections in the past, with one candidate I preferred and another I could live with and respect.

Unfortunately we are now so polarized that we have lost most of our capacity to value the opposition. This cannot be blamed solely on the "other" party. We are all to blame. Largely due to Rainville’s initiative, the Rainville-Welch contest has given us a solid model of how to stop this blaming cycle. I applaud them for it and take inspiration from it.

Carol Frenier

Chelsea