Yep, it seems impossible, but the latest Morning Consult poll of gubernatorial popularity (Mississippi’s Tate Reeves bringing up the rear) shows that our very own Phil Scott actually improved his top-of-the-nation standing from his customary perch in the high 70s to… 84 percent. In a state where Democrats have a nearly 30-point edge over Republicans.

The poll was received with applause from Scott fans and many of those who draw paychecks from him. One of the gov’s top Democratic boosters, Ed Adrian, suggested I try to blog my way through this. Because, as what Dorothy Parker would call my Tonstant Weaders are aware, I’m not exactly on Team Phil.

For many reasons I find him an underwhelming leader. He’s not a creative thinker. He’s been in office for nearly seven years, and I can’t think of a single bold policy idea he’s put his weight behind. Well, he used to claim that he could reinvent state government and save tens of millions a year, but that was a complete bust. He took strong action that one time on gun legislation, following a credible threat of a mass shooting at a Vermont high school (which inspired one of the best columns I ever wrote, so don’t say I won’t give him credit where it’s due).

Otherwise his tenure has seen Vermont’s most intractable problems get worse: Housing, opioid addiction, workforce, demographics, climate instability, and more. He himself cites these issues at every turn. And yet his proposed solutions tend to be lukewarm. He nibbles at the margins instead of sinking his teeth into the issues.

So why is he so overwhelmingly popular?

Well, let’s start with this: Popularity is not a measure of quality. Bud Light is popular. Potato chips are popular. “The Macarena” was popular in its day. Indeed, I will argue that broad popularity requires a fundamental inoffensiveness. A song or foodstuff or bestselling book can’t be difficult or challenging. It has to be accessible, first and foremost. And boy oh boy, from an ideological perspective, Phil Scott is nothing but accessible.

Now, I wouldn’t suggest that Phil Scott is the Macarena of Vermont governors. Achy Breaky Heart maybe, but Macarena no.

Kidding. Actually, Phil Scott is the potato chip bag of governors. Immediate sensory appeal, no nutritional value whatsoever.

Most things that are popular don’t hold up well over time. If you look at any list of bestselling books or music for any year, you’ll rarely find more than one or two with any lasting value. Phil Scott is likely to last longer in history than, say, the collected works of Hanson or Harold Robbins, but only because of longevity, not for any real impact or direction.

American history is full of inoffensive presidents. None of them occupy the top ranks. The standouts — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the two Roosevelts, the JFK/LBJ combo except Vietnam — moved the country in definitive ways. They made their share of enemies. They weren’t afraid of conflict in a good cause.

Phil Scott has earned enough political capital to fill a Scrooge McDuck swim-in safe. He has rarely spent any of it. He did so on the gun issue in 2018 and has given the issue a wide berth ever since. He vetoes a huge number of Democratic bills, but he seldom ventures very far in promoting clear alternatives. His big investments in areas such as climate change and broadband have been entirely funded by federal Covid bailout money. He complains constantly about the workforce shortage but his “solutions” are incremental and unproven incentive programs.

Other factors. The Democratic Party hasn’t gone all-in on contesting Scott since Sue Minter in 2016. Indeed, prominent Democrats are more than happy to share a stage with the governor, even during campaign season. This is especially true of the Congressional delegation, and that’s unlikely to change. I was told by a Dem with national connections that Phil Scott is Joe Biden’s favorite Republican because he’s a throwback to the Good Old Days of bipartisanship that Biden is such a sucker for.

Most of us aren’t as nostalgic for smoke-filled backrooms as Dark Brandon, but there’s an undeniable appeal to the times when both parties shared a commitment to public service. I hail from Michigan, which used to be a hotbed of moderate Republicanism. I grew up during the governorships of George Romney and Bill Milliken, exemplars of that now-endangered species. I voted for Milliken more than once, and for the moderate Republican Congressman who then represented Ann Arbor. Yes, Ann Arbor.

However. Nostalgic appeal doesn’t make Scott a good governor. I put him firmly in the “cromulent” category. He’s an adequate steward, but not a visionary. Indeed, his default setting is in favor of the status quo, of continuing to do things the way we’ve always done them.

And that has tremendous appeal for a Vermont electorate that takes such pride (warranted and otherwise) in this place exactly as it is. Hearing Phil Scott reciting our most sincerely-held beliefs about ourselves is a balm to our souls. After his lopsided 2022 victory, I called him Vermont’s Reagan. Actually, a better version of Uncle Ronnie:

Unlike Reagan, who was an actor playing a sunny American, Scott sincerely believes all of those myths. You see it in his public speaking and in his approach to managing the state: His default setting is that our [policies, systems, laws] are plenty good enough, so why mess with them?

Vermonters eat this stuff up. This is, after all, the land of Grandfather’s Lightbulb.

(“How many Vermonters does it take to change a lightbulb?” “Change it? That was my grandfather’s lightbulb!”)

The fact that he’s a self-described Republican only adds to his Vermont-exceptionalism allure. See, Vermont really is a unique and special place! We’re all liberals, but we’re so open-minded that we’re happy to have a Republican governor! Ticket splitting is a real-life expression of the idea that Around Here, We All Get Along.

This voluntary self-anesthesia comes with a price, of course. Vermont is drifting in dangerous directions on a number of issues, and Phil Scott is not the kind of leader who’s going to grab the wheel and steer us on a new course.

But sure, 84 percent, hooray.

One More Thing. Scott has benefited tremendously from the diminution of Vermont’s political media. Peter Shumlin and his predecessors had to deal with a lively bunch representing the Burlington Free Press, the Mitchell family papers, Seven Days, VPR, and some real hound dogs from WCAX and WPTZ. Now we’ve got VTDigger, plus smaller representation from Seven Days, Vermont Public, and the teevee folks.

Digger is the only outlet that’s even trying to provide broad coverage of state politics and policy. But its crucial role as a catch-all means less bandwidth for in-depth and investigative work. If there’s a scandal or problem in the Scott administration, there’s a pretty good chance it will go unreported or underreported. Plus, there’s so little competition that good stories are more likely to sink like a stone. If there are multiple organizations chasing the same issue, the journalistic echo chamber will ensure that significant stories get proper attention.

Just as a for instance, there’s been some good reportage on the partially self-inflicted crisis of homelessness — but nothing consistent or ongoing. People are still being exited onto the streets, even in early winter, but nobody in the press is holding the administration’s feet to the fire.