The Hill reports on inclusive VT gov. debate, focusing on secessionist candidate

From The Hill:

The Vermont gubernatorial debate last night could be considered modestly historic as for the first time in our era it featured a secession candidate. In fact, there were two candidates who stressed state sovereignty over federal dominance. These debates always feature a mainstream Democrat and Republican, sometimes exceptional individuals like Madeline M. Kunin and Howard Dean, with several motley and homegrown independent candidates tagging along. As long as I can remember and before that there has been a classic world socialist candidate, and there was one again last night. But this time he seemed strangely out of place and irrelevant as he and his era had been superseded by a new generation of radicals…

Steele, a veteran and a hunter who processes his own meat, is a handsome and rustic small-businessman from the Northeast Kingdom. He was well-prepared with facts and information and proposed that the governor of the state could affect federal and foreign policy. The Second Vermont Republic was the first group to oppose the war on Iraq from a state-sovereignty position (full disclosure: I helped). The Democratic candidate said he likewise opposed the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and if he were governor he would tell the president he opposed these policies. It had the effect of highlighting Steele’s more committed and creative position and illustrated the impotence of partisan state politicians in global adventures.

9 thoughts on “The Hill reports on inclusive VT gov. debate, focusing on secessionist candidate

  1. MN Indy

    Pretty cool. I’d consider it somewhat of a breakthrough if Steele managed 5% or better.

  2. Green Party Conservative

    By God in heaven those Wars a a damnable crime and sin.

    The gentleman is of sturdy stock to say so strong and firm.

    The corporate warmongers lack all morals, and ethics.

    Damn ’em straight to hell.

  3. Red Phillips

    Oh my God! A secession candidate! He’s obviously a racist, because EVERYONE KNOWS that only racists talk about secession. Someone call the SPLC. A smear camp … err … expose’ is in order! This vile hater must be stopped!

  4. '..... just look at the activists ' [Lake]

    Red Phillips // Oct 12, 2010:
    “A secession candidate!”
    [Lake: Huh! Lots of movements at the turn of the Millennium (including five on the west coast), I did such an article as the author / primary investigator with the Reform (Deform?) Party national print monthly official organ.]

  5. paulie

    Addressing the point seriously, however sarcastic its original introduction here:

    I’m pro-decentralization of power (devolving to the local level as a stepping stone to individual autonomy), thus tend to be pro-secession.

    As Red will probably agree, I’m quite anti-racist. Racism is a type of collectivism. To the extent that it is voluntary collectivism, I don’t think it should be illegal, but it is a habit of mind that leads readily to coercive collectivism, which I abhor. Coercive collectivism is a step away from individual autonomy.

    To the extent that racism encourages the concentration of power in the hands of large collectives – “races” – it works in the opposite direction from the global movement towards local autonomy.

    There’s nothing inherently racist in the natural impulse towards more local control (secessionist groups all over the world represent a wide variety of political perspectives), nor is such an impulse readily present in racism (German nazis were centralists and centralizers, for example).

    I understand why some Americans link secessionism with racism, but I’m not among them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *