So the scrambling continues through Sunday to gather up votes for House Speaker, now that Gordon Fox has stepped down.  I haven’t been doing the digging and vote tallying that others have (hey, I had to put together a basketball hoop, yesterday, among other things at a much higher priority than reading tea leaves as to who will help march Rhode Island into the pit), but if I had to characterize the way the sides are taking shape, it looks like the relatively conservative, but mostly establishment, bloc backs Nicholas Mattiello (D, Cranston), while the progressives are charming others who are disaffected into support of Michael Marcello (D, Cranston, Scituate).

In general, my attitude is that nobody who really wants reform should get wrapped up in these squabbles.  Viewed alongside the amount of change that Rhode Island needs — and the speed at which we need it — the difference between Marcello and Mattiello is not much greater than the spelling of their names.  To invest this caucus race with any credibility as a battle between Reform and the Status Quo does harm to the cause of real reform.

However, I do find disconcerting the fact that progressives have been so quick to proclaim the magnificent diversity of the Marcello camp, when I’ve poked them.  They give the impression of people who see an opportunity, and the types of reform that would so excite them could be worse than the status quo.  If I’m morbidly obese, taking the radical step of forming a marijuana habit isn’t necessarily the kind of bold reform that would help.

And yet the back channels that find their way to my cell phone insist that Mattiello is a bought-and-sold union man.

Let’s put aside the assumption that strengthening the hand of people who want to move Rhode Island further toward divisive class warfare, social dissolution, and economic socialism would be preferable to maintaining the strength of people who want an unsustainable advantage for workers.

(Actually, before you put that aside, ask yourself if it’s really plausible that those two groups will in any meaningful sense be opponents where it matters for Rhode Island.)

The first question to answer is whether the characterizations are true.  Looking at campaign contributions, I’d say that they are not.

Yes, Laborers’ International Union gave Mattiello $1,000 in December 2012 and RI Laborers’ PAC gave him $1,000 this month.  But then again, Engage RI, the PAC best known for support of pension reform gave him $1,000 in 2012, and entrepreneur Angus Davis, generally known as reform-minded (especially with respect to education) gave him $1,000 in 2010, as did Democrats for Education Reform (which also gave $350 to Marcello).

Marcello, not being as high-profile as Mattiello, has about one-sixth of the contributions, but two of his four $1,000 checks have come from the International Association of Firefighters (2008 and 2010). Cranston Firefighters Local 1363 seems to give him $500 checks regularly, with the United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 328 being a little less generous, but also regular.

One could spend a long time sorting through the 1,600+ donations that the two Democrats have had between them (most of them to Mattiello, to be sure), but painting one as the union guy seems like a convenient narrative, based on campaign donations.  It’s also questionable, if one considers that the National Education Association of Rhode Island is arguably the hub of Rhode Island progressivism, and if the progressives are really unified on the Marcello bandwagon, it might be more true that he is not yet a bought-and-sold union man.

If representatives with reform intentions (in whatever direction) want to form a coalition on the issue of a new Speaker of the House let them join together in demanding an open and well-considered process.  Insist that Speaker Pro Tempore Elaine Coderre (D, Pawtucket) take care of the day-to-day operations of the speaker for a week or two, while the candidates for the office make a public case for their intentions.

That way the public can help to keep them accountable if they fall back into the same, objectionable ruts, and those who favor real reforms can extract more-substantial promises.  That way, our representatives have a little more time to weigh this very important vote.

Otherwise, given the coalitions that are forming, the actual changes are likely to serve some special interests well, but Rhode Islanders poorly.