David and I had an opportunity to sit down with Gubernatorial candidate Juliette Kayyem earlier in the campaign to discuss her candidacy and the issues of the day. I was impressed.
First, this is a candidate from a rising generation. Kayyem’s heavy hitter resume — civil rights attorney, homeland security advisor to Governor Patrick overseeing the Massachusetts National Guard, and Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, among other accomplishments — is remarkable by any standard, but especially when set against her relative youth: she is 45 years old and fluent in the discourse of Generation Y, not to mention Generation Why. Martha Coakley, Don Berwick, Steve Grossman, and Joe Avellone, by contrast, have an average age that is two decades older and are from a different era. Scott Lehigh recently made a similar point.
Second, she has achieved successes in a range of fields, from government to academia (lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School) to the media (CNN analyst and Boston Globe columnist) to crisis management (awarded the Coast Guard’s highest civilian honor for her work helping to coordinate the national response to the BP oil spill). That speaks well to her intellectual agility, management effectiveness, and quick thinking: critical skills for a governor.
Third, her campaign, from its website to the responsiveness of its staff, has been consistently well run and professional. That is of a piece with the competence that leaps from her record, but is not always typical of Massachusetts politics, as many readers of this blog know from painful experience.
Finally, this articulate, determined candidate spoke fluently about her love for the Commonwealth, her ambitions for the state, and the possibilities that government can create when it works for collective advantage rather than the comfortable perquisites of power for insiders.
Progressive politics thrives on change and new voices. Kayyem offers both in an impressive package. Our Democratic Party has an opportunity this weekend to define its identity for the next election cycle and beyond. It will be stronger if it embraces new candidates with proven records of substantive accomplishments.
dave-from-hvad says
an impressive figure and candidate. But I’m a little concerned by your statement:
Despite our anti-age discrimination laws, anyone over 50 who has been looking for a job these days can tell you that that having gray hair is like having to explain a felony on your record. So, reading a statement that dismisses a candidate for a job — and the governorship is after all a job — only because he or she is “decades older” than your preferred candidate and “from a different era,” has a familiar and depressing ring to it.
You seem to have uncritically adopted today’s conventional wisdom that age and experience are liabilities, that people who are older are no longer relevant and are “from a different era.” A youthful, fresh face is a nice thing to have, but when did we decide that youth is a better attribute in a job candidate than experience?
Bob Neer says
My point was simply that the Democratic Party will make itself stronger by embracing “new candidates with proven records of substantive accomplishments.” Kayyem’s age speaks to her status as a new entrant to the political scene.
jconway says
Are you endorsing? Did David endorse? Or is this a close but no cigar ‘profile’ that sounds like an endorsement?
David says
No. I haven’t endorsed anyone yet.
jconway says
Guess this post doesn’t fully qualify as BMG Kiss of Death material then?
jconway says
Is backing Don Berwick. I am tired of slick centrists that package themselves as progressives, I want the real thing. I am up to my eyeballs in student debt, I have had to defray getting married for another year, I’ll be moving either into my parents house or my fiancées parents house come August when my lease is up since I can’t afford any rent in Chicago or Boston. I am on ACA since my employer can’t hire me full time (and thank God there’s ACA). Our transit system is crumbling, health care and college costs are too high, and Berwick is the only candidate who is promising reviving economic populism and fairness in our Commonwealth with real and viable public programs that have proven to work. He has a team in place with the legislators that have endorsed him to get the ball rolling.
This Millennial is unimpressed with fancy websites, social media messages, or the vague “change you can believe in” promises of yesterday. I think Elizabeth Warren has shown what a great blue state progressive Senator can do when she sets ambitious goals and achieves them-Don Berwick will continue that legacy in the Corner Office.
dave-from-hvad says
to the state’s political scene, right? But you lumped them in with the folks from that different era. The post frames the argument in terms of age, not whether they are new to statewide politics.
HeartlandDem says
Thank you for posting your impressions of candidate Kayyem. It is good to read about the positive accomplishments and skills that she has to offer. I admire the energy, commitment and hard work that goes into campaigning and credit her and her family for the sacrifices that they are making.
I have stated in previous comments that my observations do not lead to the conclusion that Ms. Kayyem is qualified for the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth. Her expertise is limited in scope and even with an impressive resume, she has not been an impressive candidate with the breadth of vision or presence to garner my confidence or support for her as Governor. I am not even clear how she sees that she is qualified herself. Her career direction seems appropriate for a policy position in homeland security or even consideration for EOPSS Secretary.
Berwick with his white hair impresses me as the genuine progressive with the vision, experience and maturity to manage the commonwealth and all of the departments, needs and diverse challenges.
danielmoraff says
Bob, we’re all aware that the main knock on this person is that she doesn’t agree with us. That she’s not particularly “liberal”. That she’s a good manager who embraces a corporate centrism that’s miles away from what anything we might reasonably call “the left”. That is The Question, and a pretty serious one.
How does this post convince anyone otherwise?
-She oversaw the National Guard
-She worked for the Department of Homeland Security
-She is a young person, having lived 20 fewer years than the other candidates–i.e., they are “older” people
-Scot Lehigh pointed out that she was a young person
-She is liked by: the Kennedy School, the Boston Globe, CNN, and the Coast Guard
-She has a good website
-Her staff called you back
-She is a good public speaker who talks about “collective advantage”
So except for that last bit (which describes the lip service given by everyone who’s run for the Democratic nomination since Silber), this is all fairly meaningless when applied to the is-Juliette-Kayyem-a-corporate-technocrat-who-thinks-kids-should-have-their-soul-tested-out-of-them-because-she-likes-data question.
I don’t know the answer to this question, but she’s-a-good-manager certainly doesn’t do it. Charlie Baker’s a good manager, Bob. Harvard and CNN love the guy. What are we even talking about?
Trickle up says
Okay, Bob. But if she said anything about, say, what we should spend money on and where we should get that money from, (you know, Governor stuff), you did not pass that along.
JimC says
The best I’ve seen her. I’m sorry to hear she didn’t make the ballot.