In conversations with progressive activists and legislators since the revenue debacle (the tax package had dramatically less revenue than we need, and was not progressive), it has become clear to us at Progressive Massachusetts that at least five things need to happen moving forward to bring about substantial progressive change here in Massachusetts. We must:
- Elect more progressives to the legislature
- Activate more consistent, timely and effective lobbying by a larger number of citizen activists
- Build a more cohesive and disciplined progressive caucus in both the House and the Senate
- Change the rules of the Legislature – resulting in less power concentrated with leadership
- Elect progressive leadership in both Houses (including the next Speaker and Senate President)
Over the next few months I hope to generate meaningful conversation on each of these challenges on this blog but I actually want to start with the last item – the one that possibly seems the least in our control, the most arcane inside the building kind of process issue – because it actually makes the biggest difference with our current structure and contributed most directly to the failure of the revenue issue.
And it’s timely. Sometime between now and January 2015, we will have a new Senate President. Some of the candidates being mentioned to replace Therese Murray – Stephen Brewer, Richard Moore, Stan Rosenberg, Tom McGee – have very different voting records both last term and this. And the most progressive leaders – Sonia Chang-Diaz, Jamie Eldridge, Pat Jehlen – aren’t even being mentioned.
It would be great to get at least one really progressive candidate in play but may be more realistic to work on progressives to vote as a block for the best candidate available – and that candidate is not likely to be Stephen Brewer or Richard Moore. Alternatively, progressives could stick together and demand very concrete concessions – particularly around rules reform – from the available candidates. This was the opportunity the House had – and didn’t take – when it came time to replace Sal DiMasi. You guys know how this works – it’s like what you see on every cop show when there are two suspects. You put them in separate rooms and offer the “deal” to the one who gives you what you want.
One of the reasons Senator Brewer may have a powerful influence over even some progressive legislators is because he has been and continues to be Ways and Means Chair. This means Senators could have a concern about future funding for their districts – or owe favors for past funding. But that’s not what it means to be progressive. Sure, we love when our Senator gets a park protected or some affordable housing built or our favorite community center funded or some great individual program gets some extra money. But we need social, economic and environmental justice for every part of the Commonwealth. We need progressive policy like new revenue that allows all our communities and residents to thrive.
As an example of that, look at the recent Senate budget deliberations. When the Senate budget debate began, it included $36.8 billion in spending. Two days later, that was increased by only $47 million – clearly not making much of an impact on the priorities that we care about, and yet some legislators trumpet these increases as if they will have a dramatic impact on their constituents.
What can you do? Call your Senator. Have a candid conversation about who they are supporting for Senate President. Get them to vote for a true progressive candidate. Get them to vote for someone who will commit, in advance, to major rules reform, new revenue and progressive policies like earned sick time and a raise in the minimum wage.
Has Murray announced either that she is not seeking re-election in 2014 or won’t seek the presidency of the next Senate?
Christopher,
Good question. The Senate President is term-limited.
I thought I remembered that being proposed, and maybe even implemented, but then not sticking. FWIW I would love to see either Jamie Eldridge or Dan Wolf take the gavel.
One of Rep. DeLeo’s first actions as Speaker was to have the House adopt a rule (Rule 14A) like the Senate has, limiting the Speaker’s term to 8 consecutive years. By my calculation, his last year will be 2017.
Not by your metric. She’s voted AGAINST the progressive position 75% of the time this term. That puts her in the most conservative 25% of the State Senate. She was a progressive last term, but her voting is far too variable for my comfort.
Sonia Chang Diaz and Jamie Eldridge are consistently progressive. We should unite behind one of them.
If her progressive record in the House continues in the Senate.
You caught a transcription error — thanks! Now fixed.
I couldn’t agree more in electing a progressive reformer to become Senate President.
I have a scenario I would like progressives to consider if a pure progressive coalition cannot be reached. Some food for thought perhaps.
There are 4 votes in the Senate we are not considering. The Republicans (depending on the 2014 election). If they elect one of their own they have no chance of winning anything. In fact, they are better off pulling off a Finneran and supporting a Reform minded Democrat. If Progressives and Republicans form a coalition for reform, and make reform the center piece for the next session as opposed to partisan issues, we can make transparency happen.
One thing republicans would like to see is senate committees select their own chairman, that would give them more influence, but also reduce the power of the senate president at the same time.
it’s likely that someone with some seniority gets the nod. I think that may rule out Chang-Diaz and Dorcena Forry. A more likely outcome would be progressives achieving other leadership positions- best case scenario Ways and Means chair.
What are the power dynamics of electing a Senate President (or Speaker)? Is it a secret ballot? Do favors and promises thereof spill out for the promise of your vote?
If we are Blue Massachusetts, why do we consistently have leadership that isn’t so progressive? And realistically, how do everyday citizens rattle our Legislators out of their thrall of the Inside The Building drama?
Because, frankly, it’s become pretty evident (especially in the Revenue Vote debacle), that legislators (particularly in the House, granted) are more tied to the Will of the Speaker than the interests of the Commonwealth and constituents.
I’m ready to lobby (conservadem) Sen. Mike Rush. But I sense he in particular is interested in what constituents think, or maybe it’s just progressive constituents he’s not interested in.
the election ultimately takes place in public in front of the whole body. Prior to that the Democratic caucus is likely to nominate a candidate in a closed cause. Prior to THAT, months if not years of jockeying occurs, not just by the candidates, but also by their early allies, who are seeking leadership positions of their own. Tons of trading and promises in exchange for commitments. Generally leaders of clusters bring in votes for a candidate, hoping to enhance their own positions. Ultimately the leadership team becomes a coalition of coalitions. This is why, for instance, you have African Americans, women, western mass., and the old school ultimate insiders all represented in leadership. That’s not to say that members of those groups don’t deserve their positions, but the way the process works guarantees them.
/
Shoot the messanger if you must and please forgive the sweeping generalization, but modern progressives tend to be pretty weak politicians.
Look at the progessives of old. Teddy, FRD and LBJ (and, yes, I realize that many don’t consider LBJ progressive; we can argue that another day), could fight. Whether in the press, in a convention or in the legislature, these politicians would build a coalition and then steamroll their opposition. They used any and all means to win because they believed they were in the right. Hell, FDR even tried to pack the Supreme Court!
Not only could they fight, though; they could raise money. And they used that money to both pound their opponents and help their allies. What progessive today, other than Obama (and I’m not sure he’s a progressive) can raise money like the progressives of the early 20th Century.
If we really want a more progressive legislature, we need to teach our progressive legislators to be better politicians. Until then, the conservadems will continue to crush us.
Maybe stop buying into the Hills’ veiled fictions about power and leverage, and point out how crappy the last several years have been on progressive legislation (culminating in Revenue debacle in April) in doing things the old way.
I hope secret progressive legislators will start speaking more boldly and with each other, and talk about how to wield power, even from a minority position (teaparty has hijacked the whole nation’s agenda and they’re not a majority in House by any measure!).
This might mean progressive constituent/activists talking turkey with some of our friends, and insisting that they play little more hardball.
1) I have been wanting to have THIS conversation since 2005, it’s or if the reasons I came on this blog in the first place. Progressive Mass is walking the walk and I am very impressed with this efforts. Organization, coalition building is essential.
2) @ Progressive Max-I’ve been saying this as well, I suspect it’s a good idea but we have to make sure the price is reasonable so they aren’t king makers but partners.
Several of the progressives mentioned above are not in the running for Senate President, at least not now. I would suggest identifying people who can pull together 21 supporters, and that means not choosing the left most person in the Chamber. Ideally, you want the 11th or 12th most progressive. Now, of course no one in real life thinks about it this way. But what you want is someone who can get serious support from other groups beyond self-described progressives. There are other identity blocs that matter: women, central mass, southeastern mass, boston, etc. I’d suggest taking a serious look at Rosenberg, McGee, and Petruccelli, (and potential alliances between them) and urging our progressive friends in the Senate to be very practical in trying to count their way to 21 votes.
Give me a State Senate President who is noticeably more progressive than lower house leadership, and we’ve got a win. Ultimately, those two have to work together relatively frequently one way or another, and if they’re too far apart they may get even less done.
Let’s get a Senate President who is clearly more progressive than DeLeo et al, and then we’ll work on getting a more progressive DeLeo. And, of course, there will be a governor’s race soon enough, so there’ll be work to do there as well.
P.S. Obviously, gaining in the number of progressive State Senators will help make this happen, though it’s certainly not a given.
I certainly do think that Eldridge and perhaps Chang-Diaz have the potential for gathering 21. I think that the Rosenbergs, Brewers and other long-timers in the Senate have reached their apex – as has Therese Murray. It is time for new vision and neither of the above are kids. They have real experience, real credentials and real track-records of accomplishment. The question is whether the Brownsbergers, Clarks and Forrys of the chamber are willing to buck the staid political culture of electing the next guy in line or work for the right gal or guy for our future?
I absolutely agree that we need to be practical and realistic.
I believe reform and transparency should be a part of the legislative agenda, and I worry that electing someone with seniority as Senate President would prevent that. Progressives need sunlight to prevent big business from making deals behind our backs.
If they could get together as a block, even if they couldn’t muster enough votes to win, they’d have tremendous pull. Don’t forget that there are only 40 Senators. 3 makes a voting block basically.