Rep. Spencer Dickinson (Democrat – District 35, South Kingstown)
Unless you live in the area, you’re probably not paying much attention to the primary race between incumbent Representative Spencer Dickinson and South Kingstown Councilwoman Kathleen Fogarty in District 35.
I wasn’t, until I was randomly perusing Anchor Rising, and saw this series on Mr. Dickinson’s five-page mailer to constituents outlining the issues he sees in the State House, and specifically those under the reign of Speaker Gordon Fox. Merely due to formatting issues, I recommend reading the unmodified PDF version.
Mr. Dickinson, according to his Wikipedia page, previously served from 1973 to 1980, attaining the post of Deputy Majority Leader. So when you read the letter, it’s important to keep that in context. Mr. Dickinson isn’t some political neophyte shocked at what they’ve discovered; he is describing a system that does not have to exist, and has first hand knowledge of an alternative.
There’s a lot to unpack in the letter, but notably that Kimball Brace, the consultant behind the recent redistricting process, was also involved in a 1982 redistricting process that triggered a suspension of election for the Rhode Island Senate. Why? Because they were found to be attempting to remove a political opponent through gerrymandering, which Mr. Dickinson alleges Speaker Fox is trying to do to not only him, but also Representatives Rene Menard and Robert DaSilva.
DaSilva decided not to seek reelection, and instead to challenge Senator Daniel DaPonte for the Democratic primary. That race could be considered a proxy battle between the opposing sides in the battle over state worker pensions.
The primary race in District 35 appears to not be as lofty. In Mr. Dickinson’s telling, the reason is purely to provide a pliable legislator for the House leadership, something that Mr. Dickinson has incidentally decided not to be. It shouldn’t be called corruption (suspect redistricting process that lopped a hefty proportion of Mr. Dickinson’s supporters out of his district aside), but it is political maneuvering.
Mr. Dickinson may have just emerged as the most clear-spoken critic of Speaker Fox and leadership. He’s doubly powerful, not only because of his affiliation as a good Democrat, but also from the vantage point of his time as a Deputy Majority Leader. In a great many ways, Mr. Dickinson appears to have taken the blunt “throw all the bums out” refrain when discussing the failures of the General Assembly and sharped it.
What Mr. Dickinson is describing is an institutional culture problem. Rhode Island’s is particularly bad, because it stretches back centuries; those corrupt Democrats of years past learned all about corruption from the Republicans who’d practiced it on them before (the state GOP garnered the “for sale, and cheap label” so often quoted about RI’s corruption problems). But it’s not just corruption that we need fear. Good people can be placed in bad institutional cultures and then do bad things.
This should be a fear of every progressive, or anyone who believes in that there are principled legislators in the General Assembly (full disclosure: I do). An institutional culture can co-opt even good people. Rookie legislators come in, learn the system, and then practice and refine it on others. It’s easy to bargain away the good. ‘I’m just doing this to get my good bill passed,’ a legislator may think, ‘if I don’t play ball, it won’t ever see the light of day.’
It’s an understandable way of thinking. It’s also wrong. I believe Matthew 16:26 puts it succinctly: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?”
We need more Spencer Dickinsons in office, it appears; people unafraid to keep their souls. At its root, that should be the foundations of a credible opposition. There are two ways to take power: by gaming the system, greasing the right palms, and working your way to the top; or; by smashing through, criticizing, working with other opposition members until the electorate hands you a bunch of like-minded people and you can take power after doing your time in the wilderness.
Anyhow, I could go on, but if you read Mr. Dickinson’s letter, and felt it was good, and wish more people would speak up about their experiences in the legislature like this, his contact info is on his website. On September 12th, win or lose, give him a call or send him an email and tell him about your response to his mailing. Personally, I wish more of our legislators had the courage to express their feelings like this.
P.S. A television camera in the Speaker’s office would be brilliant!
It is disturbing to read the word progressive and Spencer Dickinson in the same post. Clearly you don’t live in South Kingstown. If you did, you would know that he is anti-choice and anti-marriage equality. If I did not see the name Samuel Howard in the byline, I would have thought that it was written by Mr. Crowley or Mr. Liedecker. Because, as everyone in SK knows, Spencer “works for the NEA”. His words, not mine, when he spoke to the Superintendent of schools, which was then shared via email to the entire School Committee and then on to the entire town. Spencer has no shot in this primary and writing that letter was the act of a desparate (and defeated) hack.
What Spencer Dickinson wrote about the controlling Speaker is absolutely true and the rest of the Gen ASSembly lawmakers are sheeple…In fact, what ever Fox wants, his shadow MAjority Leader Mattiello makes sure he gets…Watch Capitol TV sometime and you will see that Mattiello is always the last person to speak before they vote. He always says …”I urge you to vote for this…. It’s the best thing for us to do etc etc etc.” and then the sheeple do just that.
Except for a handful of lawmakers, the rest are afraid… if they challenge Fox and Mattiello, his servant, then they won’t get their grant money and bills passed for their constituents, which means they can lose their jobs in the next election!
I would vote for Spencer if I lived in his district. You need a lawmaker hwo will not cave in to every beck & call of Gordon Fox like my rep does. I am voting the Majority leader out! And that is what….58 days away till NOv 6th…. We all need to vote the incumbents out…they’ve been in there too long…they have accumulated too much power & control…they have their own agenda and not they people they serve’s agenda…Look at the mess they have created. Vote them all out.
If you don’t like your representative, then vote him out. That’s exactly what we are going to do here in SK, vote Dickinson out. He introduced one bill this session and it went no where. He is the most ineffective legislator at the State House. That’s why we are going to vote him out. He has done nothing for his district and can do nothing for his district in the future. The reason you send someone to the legislature is to look out for the best interests of your district and the state. Dickinson publicly states that he works for the NEA because that is who got him elected. Tell me jo ann, how does that help the people of SK and how does it help you or the rest of the state?
<Political Stuff ahead>
As the candidate running against Gordon Fox, @Jo Ann, I hope you’re in the district!
@speakinguptoday, it sounds as if Rep Dickinson had the deck stacked pretty far against him. If you go back and look at the news report of the smashup of Board of Higher Ed/Board of Regents, he was aghast that it was in the budget. And of course he had to vote for it, because… It was the budget.
As an Independent opponent to Gordon Fox, I have already promised not to vote for bills I haven’t read, and not to support last minute body slams.
The reason I am running, which gets more and more powerful, is that Gordon Fox has used his position to bully the legislature — to the detriment of Rhode Island. It has shown up again and again.
Let me count the ways:
Pushed 38 Studios through (but seems to “have escaped the fallout”)
Combined Board of Ed and Board of Regents with no public discussion — and stuck it in the budget to make sure there was no way to oppose it
Punted on Marriage Equality “because it wouldn’t pass the Senate.
Punted on Payday Lending
Etc.
As the Speaker of the House, he has the power to call votes and to table bils.
He also seems to have the power to enforce his will.
Please spread the word to your friends in District 4. Mark Your Ballot for Mark Binder
</political stuff>
@mark binder… Clearly you haven’t read any of the above posts because Joann stated that she lives in the majority leader’s district. So, I guess it is all about you and not District 35. In District 35, we will not vote for Dickinson because he is a pro-life, anti-marriage equality, anti-woman DINO who is paid for and owned by the NEA. He is power hungry and longs for the day when he can relive his youth and overthrow a Speaker like he did in the 70′s. We in SK know him and will never vote for him. He can’t help our town, nor does he want to. Check the votes… Bought and paid for by the NEA. The real question is, why are so-called progressives supporting him?
While I’m not happy with the antipathy towards NEARI, if you’ve correctly identified Mr. Dickinson’s positions on social issues I can understand why you won’t vote for him. Progressive is a label that is both pro-union and anti-union, depending on where you stand and what you’re discussing. It’s certainly not “pro-life, anti-marriage equality, anti-woman” like you’re describing. And I took pains not to describe Mr. Dickinson as a progressive; I merely described him as a “good Democrat” which in Rhode Island, doesn’t mean much.
But my viewpoint is that the value of Mr. Dickinson’s letter is in its discussion of a dangerous culture in the State House, one that may be replicated by those who do not consciously take steps to inoculate themselves against it. The value is in publicizing this.
It’s been said that light is the best disinfectant. The only way to get to the truth of Mr. Dickinson’s allegations is to shine a light on what goes on in the State House; the vast majority of its operations being a mystery to many Rhode Islanders, including myself. I wish more legislators would write about their experiences, would be open to us. RI Future got criticized by the Speaker’s office for allowing Mark to continue blogging while he ran against Gordon Fox. But Mr. Fox never sat down and banged out a column to respond, which has always been a possibility. He could respond to this, call me an idiot, and be done with it. I may very well deserve it.
But, I think politicians should live their public lives in the light, so to speak. I have a fair portion of a Quaker background, and “walk in the light, wherever you may be” is a phrase that springs to mind.
I can see that this is ill-timed; and it may be very well be a political play on Mr. Dickinson’s part to position himself against a Speaker who has quite severely damaged the state, and to tie his opponent to said Speaker. But often times, when we’re backed into corners, people resort to the truth. They have a moment of revealing clarity. This may be that moment. People also resort to anything that might do some damage (even if it’s a lie) when they’re backed into a corner, and that might be equally true here.
I have to pause here and take issue with your point that Mr. Dickinson has been ineffective in getting bills passed. That’s not the object of a legislature. The object of a legislature is to govern. That can be hundreds of bills passed, or just one. That can be no bills passed, or a hundred repealed.
Anyhow, to make a long story short, I don’t envy your position tomorrow. First, I hope you’ve expressed your feelings on this letter to Mr. Dickinson; it seems easy enough to contact him. Second, I hope that no matter who you elect in South Kingstown; Spencer Dickinson or Kathy Fogarty; they’ll govern with principle and integrity. Because you deserve it. As do all Rhode Islanders.
I usually don’t comment but I’m kind of blown away by this debate going on. Since when do progressives only care about social issues? It’s my understanding that progressives throughout history have economic liberalism as one of their staples, with organized labor at the very top of the staple. So progressives have to be social liberal but can be either economically liberal or fiscally conservative? I don’t understand how someone, in the tradition of progressivism, could be against organized labor but still be considered progressive because of their social views. Does that mean all libertarians are now progressive?
Then to say that anyone who is “pro-life, anti-marriage equality, anti-woman” is a DINO is just as ridiculous. America is a two party system with several types of political thought that have to pick a side. There isn’t a monopoly by one strand. I’m personally a moderate on social issues but very liberal on economic issues. Does that mean I’m not a Democrat? Would that make me a Republican? I think don’t so. Before we start making accusations of who is what, maybe we need a better definition of exactly what those groups are. Lastly, I agree with Sam, Spencer Dickinson or Kathy Fogarty, either way they are both Democrats who represent two different wings of the same party. Neither one is a DINO.
Sam,
You said, “Progressive is a label that is both pro-union and anti-union.”
If this is true, then I don’t want to be a progressive.
If all progressiveism is to be is a group of anti-worker, anti-middle class, pro-wall-street, pro-free-trade social libertarians, then count me out.
If the left wing won’t even support labor, then who will? Isn’t the fact that we’ve had two very neo-liberal pro-financialization parties for two decades primarily to blame for so many of the troubles we see today?
If there is such a thing as anti-union progressivism, then these people had better think long and hard about what they believe in.
“If this is true, then I don’t want to be a progressive. If all progressiveism is to be is a group of anti-worker, anti-middle class, pro-wall-street, pro-free-trade social libertarians, then count me out.”
Hyperbole much? That’s not what Sam said but if you insist on being a sheep then you won’t see anything outside the flock.
Dog,
I don’t see what’s hyperbolic about seeing a fundamental incompatibility between being anti-labor and progressive. Now, I said that if there is a such thing as an anti-union progressive, they had better think long and hard about what they believe in. Let me expound upon this, because I think there are important reasons why an anti-union progressive should think long and hard about their beliefs.
But first, let me address you directly. This would be like you, being the Conservative that you are, deciding you were anti-business. But no conservative does that. I know you hate unions. I also know you dislike the minimum wage. But if progressives join you, then one must ask: What is it they will stand for?
Clearly what they stand for, then, are simple social liberties. Or at the very least, Sam was intimating that social liberties trump economic equality so greatly that one can be at once in favor of social liberties and simultaneously against the right of labor to organize in collective bargaining with ownership.
In a society where, during the work-day, the owner/guardian holds absolute power, any social liberties gained publicly will ultimately be hidden from view and denied during the majority of the waking hours of one’s adult existence. And so, what liberty is gained, other than that which has always hitherto been practiced in the shadows and behind closed doors?
Indeed, I find the concept of an anti-labor, anti-union, or anti-collective bargaining progressive to be so self-contradictory as to be wholly without philosophical merit. How can one be, on one hand, for tolerance and the democratization of political power to isolated social groups, and simultaneously, on the other hand, against tolerance and the democratization of political power in the workplace?
But you may go ahead and call me a sheep. Which perhaps presupposes you to be the shepherd, or, better yet, the proprietor of the estate upon which the sheep graze. Which probably allows you to believe yourself some natural right of superiority to me. At the very least, you intimate that you are smarter than I and see more clearly the socio-political structures of modern American political discourse.
And this is the cornerstone of Conservative thinking. That one is better by birthright than another, granted power by an Almighty Creator, who has bestowed upon you greater wealth and station at birth than your neighbor due to virtue, a natural order, and divine Providence, and that this should offer you special privilege and dominon over your neighbor.
The Liberal answer to this has always been that we hold self-evident that all people are created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights. Among these rights is the right to bargain for one’s wage in a labor contract. One cannot call oneself a Liberal and simply pick and choose the rights in which they believe. Workplace rights are as integral as sexual rights, or any other. And yet, somehow Sam divorces these.
And in much the same sense, one cannot be an anti-labor progressive, lest they cede to Conservatives that proprietors deserve property and absolute authority over their workers or subjects by Divine Right, which, as a concept, has been antithetical to progressives since the 1600′s. And yet it saddens me to observe that the argument somehow continues, as if no progress has been made in the intervening centuries.
And so I spoke my mind, as I often do when I observe philosophical inconsistencies. And you spoke your mind, as you often do when you find someone with whom you disagree. Let us leave it at that and maintain civil discourse, lest we slide into calling each other sheep or snakes or any other manner of animal or insult that one may conjure to offend another.
“I know you hate unions.”
May I add, judge much? I won’t deny being right of center but hating unions. Not quite. having been on both sides of the bargaining table, I think I have a unique insight has to how both sides operate. I’ve seen my own union cut their nose off to spite of their face. I’ve seen management trade financial benefit for management rights that they had no intentions of using. Despite your presumption, reasonable unions make life easier for reasonable management. It happens more often than not. Sorry to disappoint.
Dog,
So first I was hyperbolic for pointing out a perceived philosophical inconsistency, and now I’m judgmental for calling the slant of your own personal views to the fore.
Years of observation of your posts on ProJo, here, etc. have shown a pattern where, when a story involving politics occurs, you take the right-wing position. Judgement, based on repeated observation, is among the highest quality judgement one can make. So I could go through life not judging those I talk to, merely standing on the sidelines with no opinion of my own, or, I could use my collected knowledge and wisdom, gained through observation, and make the soundest judgement possible given the circumstances. It’s called induction. And often, without perfect knowledge, it is the best we can do.
And so, I don’t know what qualifies as a reasonable union to you. Nor am I aware of what qualifies as reasonable management in your mind. But this is beside the point. All things being equal, we know with whom you would side. Everything else is just nit-picking and obfuscation.
Thanks for making my point. That’s was a perfectly worded long winded confirmation.
So, let me clarify myself. I said “Progressive is a label that is both pro-union and anti-union, depending on where you stand and what you’re discussing.” I said this because I’ve seen a lot of people clamor to be progressives despite failing to be pro-labor (a number of high profiles Dems in this state, for instance). There are a lot of people proclaiming their progressivism right now, but going “hey, those Chicago Teachers, they’re really being stupid.” And those folks sound like conservatives. There ain’t much difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama on education (I’ve called Race to the Top “NCLB-lite” in the past on this blog).
Let’s be perfectly clear; I believe we need unions and that unions need to be strengthened. I also believe unions need to start rethinking themselves if they want to grow. Unions aren’t perfect (and may never be), but they are vital. I have not divorced workplace rights from any other sort of rights. If anything, I believe the last vestige of monarchy is in the workplace, and that before we spread democracy abroad, we should focus on spreading democracy at home by creating a democratic economy (RI is particularly hostile to democratic workplaces).
I also said I can understand how someone would not vote for someone based on social views. I don’t think that’s particularly controversial. I can understand that point of view. I might even do that, from time to time. But I remain undecided as to whether social rights trump economic rights in life. People place a lot of power on social rights; I know I’d be hard-pressed to tell someone that they couldn’t marry the person they loved because of the economic well-being of the rest of society.
But you know what? Those shouldn’t be played off of one another, they should be united. No one should ever go “well, we shouldn’t be focusing on marriage equality right now, we’ve got to focus on the economy!” There’s no reason we can’t do both, since one has hardly anything to do with the other.
Finally, I want to tackle “progressivism” again. The reason I made that first statement is because progressivism is a malleable word. Two out of the three Progressive Parties to contest the presidency were created from disaffected Republicans. These kinds of progressives weren’t particularly pro-immigrant (though they were better than many of their contemporaries, excepting the Democratic Party) and weren’t particularly pro-worker (though they were in favor of tougher regulations on business). And they did awful things, like advocating eugenics via flawed IQ tests and also using prohibition.
One of my first columns for RI Future was how “progressive” is essentially a meaningless word, and I rightly got criticized in the comments (I expect to be criticized more after this). I’ll amend that now to say that progressive is a highly-contested word. There are people who are afraid of the label “liberal” (which polls dismally) and use the word “progressive” instead (which polls about the same as “conservative”). There are leftists who use it to describe themselves as being distinct from liberals, who have fallen into neo-liberalism. There are people who don’t mind being a liberal or a progressive, and use both (and conversely, there are conservatives who use the two words interchangeably). There are people who use it to mean a proponent of any sort of new, “forward-thinking” idea. There are people who use it to describe the Democratic Party, and people who believe it is an ideology wholly alien to the Democratic Party.
Basically, depending on who you are progressive means a whole lot of things. No one has managed to provide a set of ideological boundaries for progressivism. There is no progressive canon of works, no organized progressive movement, and no obviously identifiable progressive figures. None that everyone who labels themselves progressive can agree on. Personally, I’d recommend abandoning the word “progressive” altogether and figuring out a better one.
This argument about what progressivism is isn’t unique though. A commenter above uses the phrase “economic liberalism” to describe what progressives should stand for. I can point out that up until the 20th Century, the phrase “economic liberalism” meant one thing: free markets. In most of the world, it still does. “Economic conservatism” meant mercantilism or feudalism. In America today, those phrases mean different things. I personally believe in strong “economic interventionism”, because I don’t believe laissez-faire economics are effective or even real. I once told a conservative that they believed in liberal economics and they got all hussy because they misunderstood that market liberalism is not the same as American liberalism.
Anyhow, I’ve really been enjoying the debate, even if I feel like my views have been misrepresented (that’s on me for not clarifying exactly). I think this is perhaps the most vital debate for the American left, what it stands for, and what level of compromise it’s going to accept.
@sam – I meant economic liberalism in the American sense. I’m not even sure what Europeans would use as the alternative.
Anyways, I agree that this is a good debate to have. It’s a debate that should be going on with all these definitions of progressive, conservative, RINO, DINO, etc. I feel that it is difficult in a two-party system to peg a platform that half the country considers themselves part of. Like Rhody, there are a lot of inconsistencies in the various philosophies of the right and left. i really do think we shouldn’t start excluding folks based on a certain sect of policies they disagree with.
I understood that you were using the American sense, I just wanted to make the point about the shifting meaning of political labels. In Europe, left-wing parties are usually social democratic or socialist. So where our politics are conservatives vs. liberals; European politics tend to be conservatives/liberals vs. social dems/socialists.
I agree with you; I think it’s very hard to label people DINO or RINO. I think this partly the nature of the congressional legislature. It tends towards dualism, and parties either adapt to new ideologies or die. The Whigs were unable to adapt, and were overtaken by the Opposition Party and then the Republicans. Democrats adapted to the Populist Party. Both parties adapted to the Progressive Party. The Republicans are currently pivoting to ward off the Libertarian Party, and the Dems are likewise undercutting the Greens.
I tend to think of the GOP and the Dems as two grand coalitions rather than organized parties. Multiple factions make up the parties, and battle for control. Each party has a left-right spectrum. And each faction is not particularly well-organized. The result is a very messy American politics.
I think we are in agreement. I tend to like the European terms myself… it just can’t sell in the states. If I’m not mistaken, the colors are reversed with blue being the conservative and red being the democratic socialists colors. It’s all kind of weird. I also believe that the GOP and Dems are two grand coalitions so that’s why I get so irritated when people start claims tohers are DINOs or RINOs.
I’ve always been a fan of the following articles about the Republican and Democratic factions that make up the party. It’s a little outdated and is before the rise of the tea party but is still an interesting illustration to look at:
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2005/04/02/sunday-review/a-guide-to-the-republican-herd.html?ref=sunday-review
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2006/10/01/opinion/a-guide-to-the-2006-democratic-herd.html?ref=sunday-review
There is a couple of new ones but not as fun to look at:
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/02/sunday-review/a-new-guide-to-the-democratic-herd.html
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/26/sunday-review/a-new-guide-to-the-republican-herd.html?ref=sunday-review
You know nothing of South Kingstown, Spencer Dickinson or Kathy Fogarty. You are just choosing one form of poison over another. You think Kathy Fogarty is the Speaker’s tool because you read it in Spencer’s letter? Sometimes it is better to remember the old Chinese saying: “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than it is to speak and remove all doubt.” Rail against corruption, cronyism all you want, but you brought in names without doing an ounce of research. So, when Mitt sends yo a letter telling you Barack Obama hates America, will you be posting a lament about how our President hates America? Do a little research and look at what was done in this race-by Pat Crowley, Maureen Martin et al, then tell me how Spencer Dickinson is someone who is “unafraid to keep his soul.” He already sold his soul. His rant against Fox was just a put up by his handlers because they, like him, are considered persona non gratis for their devious and underhanded tactics.
.