Nick Cook
11/17/2019
Interview Analysis with Josh Wronski
For my continuing project on [something something Vermont something something rural something identity whatever it is at this point], I interviewed Vermont Progressive Party Executive Director Joshua Wronski. The Vermont Progressive Party is unique in American politics as it’s a successful, independent, left-wing, third-party operating on the state level (while also technically being the most successful third-party nationwide). I talked to Josh about his start, moving to Vermont for college, his career as a union organizer in the state, then moved on to discussing the politics of Vermont and the various facets of the Progressive Party.
In terms of traditional labovian narrative analysis, the interview was somewhat lacking. We jumped from topic to topic without much of a coherent transition. There was no abstract in terms of “a summary of the story to come” (Patterson 4). It would be fitting to start the story off with something like “here’s the how and why I became interested and involved in Vermont politics and why I believe the Progressives are the future of the state” or something of that nature.
I asked Wronski about the basics of his life which provided our orientation. He grew up in Guildhall, New York and came to Vermont to study at Saint Michael’s College. After getting a provost’s grant to study the Progressive Party he became fascinated with Vermont politics. He has also lived in South Africa for six months on an extended study abroad program, as well as living for brief times in Washington DC, Minnesota, and Wisconsin while a national union organizer. Before settling down here for the past 5 years. Following that, I asked him about how in his perspective, having lived in so many different states, what is different politically about Vermont compared to say Minnesota. He said that a major difference was that “there is far less class politics” in Vermont, that labor unions play a much stronger role in those states and while Vermont unions will give an endorsement and maybe some money—they are simply just not a big driver of turnout and volunteers like the unions in the rest of the country are. This was an informative insight for me because I had no idea of how unions operated in the state and the influence of class politics here.
This would lead to what I believe was the complicating action of the interview. We talked about the economic drivers of rural Vermont, the limited amount of job opportunities, and what this means for the future of Vermont politically. Forming “the skeleton” of the interview as Patterson would call it. He talked about organizing the home healthcare industry in rural Vermont, how it’s one of the few large industries in the area. Giving a sense to how atomized communities are in rural Vermont how home healthcare services are the only type of healthcare available in these communities. This branches off into a conversation about the impasse many young Vermonters now face when it comes to staying in Vermont. He gave a personal story about how he was only able to afford the house in Burlington he currently lives with his partner in because a longtime family was moving out and didn’t want to see the house become an expensive multi-unit rental and gave it to them at a discounted rate. He talked about how much of a privilege this was and how most of his friends have had to leave the state because of the unaffordability of Vermont and the lack of jobs.
I don’t fully understand De Fina’s thing about how the interviewer takes part in the construction of the identity and whatnot, but if I were to select one area from the interview where that process was crafted it’d be here. Josh and I both related experiences about being young, millennial, leftists, living in Vermont and how we had the same fears. That the state was rapidly aging and there was little growth outside of Burlington and Chittenden County and how he believed that even that “was just a bubble based on land speculation”. In terms of a rural/urban divide Wronski didn’t “believe that it was any different than any other states with one major city and the countryside surrounding it” and that Vermont “wasn’t special in this area” this is a big counterargument compared to my original research intent but after reading multiple sources I would hasten to agree with him.
Coming into the evaluation, I think the biggest question is why does this matter. Tessa Muncey in her work talked about responses to stories and how to navigate them. Looking at her strategies I believe the ones of “resonance” and “legitimacy” would be the best answers to that question. Legitimacy, the ability to fall back on your source as a reliable base, matters here because Josh has worked his way into achieving this high-level position of power in the party and has spent over a decade working on local elections in the state. I would choose resonance because I believe that our conversation spoke at least some truth to the current economic struggles of young people in our state because both of us have experienced it ourselves and shared our stories in an accurate and stirring manner.
To finish off and give a coda to our interview. I asked Josh a final question, whether or not he believed that there is a special Vermont identity that is the reason for the political situation. He answered no. He told me “that he doesn’t believe that there is any kind of special identity or Vermont excellence” that there’s no such thing as a true Vermonter and having generations back doesn’t make a difference. He said that the progress Vermont has seen is because of “hard-working people who spent decades winning and coming back when they lost” such as Bernie Sanders and former Progressive Party Chair Martha Abbot and it’s through the doggedness of people alone that Vermont has seen political achievements be made. With just a smidgen of help from how small scale and local are elections are as well.
Recent Comments