Saturday afternoon at “the Aud” in Barre I attended the Republican Party of Vermont’s committee meeting. My reasons for attending were twofold, namely to get a sense of the party (I am a lifelong Independent) and listen for their pitch to me as a potential candidate for the Senate or House from my progressive stronghold in Windsor County.
I rode to the event with my long-time friend Joe Trottier, who is also looking to run as a Republican for the state house now that perpetual incumbent Kevin “Coach” Christie appears to be stepping down due to health concerns. Christie, a Democrat, is one of the most likable human beings you will ever meet, whether you agree with his politics or not. Joe can be described similarly, although his personality is a bit more quixotic compared to Christie’s blue-collar statesmanship.
Entering the conference room, the bustling sound of old friends and lively hopefuls filled the air. Big names of the Vermont GOP, aside from Phil Scott, all seemed to be in attendance. Paul Dame, Gerald Malloy, Scott Milne, and others who have spent their years grinding away at the political wheel worked the room deftly as any Vermont Republican might, politely and with a smile and savvy unique to Green Mountaineers. As a flatlander from the West Coast, I stood out like a sore thumb for my lack of a plaid shirt, Carhart pants, and sensible winter boots.
A brief conversation with Mr. Dame reassured me he at least understands his role as a political leader. Strong eye contact and sharp listening skills are accompanied by political insight into strategy and need. After an inviting invocation to the Lord asking for His blessing on the day’s event, followed by a hearty pledge of allegiance, Dame gave the VT GOP equivalent of a State of the Union address couched as a motivational speech. His overriding message? If we don’t establish some party unity, the progressives are going to continue to eat our lunch and tell us we have to pay for it. Neither the prayer nor his plea would win the day.
After a run through the respective county roll call, where individual names were confirmed for member representatives to vote on the meeting’s issues, the procedure made it alphabetically all the way to the last county, mine, Windsor – when the fireworks began. Upon calling the name John McGovern as chair of Windsor County, an “objection” was raised, followed by a series of back-and-forth “points of order” and “appeals” until a man from Windsor County stood up and read a letter describing the nature of the objection.
Trying hard to follow the technical language that invoked “Robert’s rules” and other party statutes, it was clear the Windsor Committee was in disarray. It seemed the committee had swollen thanks to new membership, and many of them had grown disenchanted with Mr. McGovern for what they described as “dereliction of duty.” It was implied the committee’s attempt to force McGovern to resign was wrongfully nullified thanks in part to both McGovern’s unwillingness to recognize their authority and the state GOP inconveniently scheduling a meeting for the same day as theirs. The next twenty or so minutes saw “point of order” after “point of order” and “appeal” after “appeal” until McGovern was asked to explain his side in the matter. An older man with a gaunt and wizened Ivy League presentation began his defense by reminiscing his grandfather’s wisdom “never to get into a pissing contest with a skunk.” Amidst groans and protests, he attempted to backtrack the comment, but the insult had been made.
A lengthy explanation of the vote to recognize McGovern as the chair and rightful voter passed when a man at the back of the room launched into an expletive-laced complaint where he slammed a chair into the wooden floor calling “b***s**t,” Dame “a Democrat,” and referred to “the uniparty” as the Windsor clan stood up and began to walk out. To Dame’s credit, I thought he handled the entire ordeal with dignity and fairness.
Outside, I overheard McGovern explain to another attendee that he didn’t want Trump on the ballot and to oppose Trump is “pro-Republican.” This struck me as odd given Trump’s overwhelming popularity with the national party, and when I asked him about it, McGovern became defensive and shortly used terms like “crazy” to dismiss the case for Trump or his supporters. My next question to him was, “Do you think Joe Biden won the 2020 election?” to which he asserted he absolutely did. I asked if he’d seen D’nesh D’souza’s “2,000 Mules”, and he told me he went to Dartmouth with D’nesh, hadn’t seen the film, and dismissed both as “crazy.”
Moments later, another man from the meeting came out to McGovern’s case, which shortly turned into his describing a friend who he trusts with his life but is “nuts” for believing 9/11 was an inside job before demonizing Alex Jones’ involvement with Sandy Hook. Neither point had anything to do with Trump or the coming election. It was an emotional appeal, given he’d cried the day of the shooting and took the time to carve out the names of the children in a memorial he would personally take to Newtown, CT.
Surely, the man’s gesture was sincere, but it doesn’t warrant labeling those who question either story as “crazy.” There is enough public evidence of our government being weaponized against its citizens and media systematically lying about it to at least give credence to those who question the popular stories. In fact, that’s what the constitution these conservatives claim to want to conserve is built upon – the necessity of protecting dissenting voices. I can only imagine how many Brits and crown sympathizers referred to the revolutionaries as “crazy” to go up against the established colonial power.
Dismissing others as “crazy” and “nuts” has become the easiest way to avoid in-depth political conversations. No appeal to reason or additional facts and evidence can be mounted to take the dialogue further with people who use diagnostic terms to degrade or belittle people with differing opinions. What results is the Hatfield’s vs. McCoy’s effect which exists already between Republicans and Democrats, though now appears to be bifurcating the Republican party – never Trumpers vs. MAGA.
I went outside to ask the Windsor delegate for more clarification, and they refused on the grounds they speak as a group, so I shared my contact info in hopes I would have the chance to understand the deeper nature of the rift.
As an outsider looking into potentially supporting the Vermont GOP as a viable candidate, I was left disappointed at their seeming inability to set aside what are ultimately petty differences when faced with the real political threat – the supermajority in Montpelier and the establishment in D.C. These are the questions I hope they’ll consider:
How can you expect to win if you can’t even finish a simple meeting without devolving into chaos?
If Trump won in 2016 and received a record 12 million more votes in 2020, why would you not back such a strong candidate?
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have the lowest approval ratings in history. Biden is demonstrably mentally unfit, and Harris isn’t taken seriously as a candidate by her own party. Can you not see the Democrats have the weakest candidates in their history, yet you’re letting them dictate to you about likely the strongest you’ve had in Trump?
Is it possible you have adopted the very talking points given by a media that ranks as the second least trusted institution in the country, behind only Congress (who championed the “insurrection” narrative)?
If more than one million Democrats left the party to become Republicans following the 2020 election, what does that tell you?
If over half the country thinks the election was stolen, including some 30 percent of Democrats, why would you oppose the most popular Republican candidate?
From my vantage point, the Republican Party has never been in a better position to take back ground in the state of Vermont. From the unpopularity of DEI and the climate agenda, the failing education system, the attack on families, parents, and gender, the rising cost of gas and housing, and the soaring crime rate, winning back seats in Congress should be easier than getting an extra mail-in ballot.
The problem doesn’t appear to be a lack of unity but a lack of courage to call out the actually crazy party – the one that calls mothers “birthing persons,” says women can have penises while not being able to define a woman, drag-queens should read to children, children should have sex organs removed, we should ban gas-stoves yet tolerate genocidal language regarding Jews, the people who ended slavery are inherently racist, ad nauseum – are the same ones saying Trump is the biggest threat to America – and you agree with them?
What say you grand ol’ party?
The Lord from whom you sought guidance says this:
If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. (Galatians 5:15)