In a thoroughly unsurprising move, the Globe endorsed a Republican – Charlie Baker – for Governor. Lots of people saw this coming a mile away. I was one of them. At the end of August, I wrote this, on the occasion of the Globe endorsing Steve Grossman in the primary:
Endorsing a guy who probably won’t win the primary, and in the process setting out all the reasons why Coakley isn’t a good candidate, sets them up perfectly to endorse Baker in the general. I’d say the odds are better than even that they’ll do just that, if Coakley wins the primary.
Two days later, on Sept. 2, I was more emphatic:
My prediction is that if Coakley wins the primary, the Globe endorses Charlie Baker.
And so it came to pass. And, really, the Globe has always liked Baker. In 2010, despite his disqualifyingly godawful campaign, the Globe said this in the course of endorsing Deval Patrick for reelection:
Baker is a very intelligent administrator who would be a forceful and capable governor…. [H]is managerial skills are stellar. Over 15 months on the campaign trail, he’s sought to speak for private-sector workers who’ve suffered from pay cuts and benefit changes and want their state government to share their pain. In important ways, it already has. But Baker, a former state administration and finance secretary and Harvard-Pilgrim CEO, is justified in criticizing Patrick’s reluctance to force municipal retirees to join Medicare or to give cities and towns the power to design less-expensive health plans without union approval. Whatever the state’s economic climate, voters deserve the most efficient government possible, and Patrick must continue to fight for reform even after tax revenues bounce back.
That’s pretty much the line in today’s endorsement: Baker’s an awesome manager, and we need a manager more than anything else.
Effective activist government isn’t built on good intentions. To provide consistently good results, especially for the state’s most vulnerable and troubled residents, agencies need to focus on outcomes, learn from their errors, and preserve and replicate approaches that succeed. Baker, a former health care executive, has made a career of doing just that. During this campaign, he has focused principally on making state government work better. The emphasis is warranted.
One interesting point in all of this is that today’s endorsement makes almost no mention of what the Globe said back in August was most needed from Baker (in the course of endorsing him in the GOP primary over joke candidate Mark Fisher): a vision for governing that goes beyond management expertise.
Charlie Baker has shown himself to have the skills Massachusetts voters often look for in a Republican gubernatorial nominee: He’s a creative manager, committed to rooting out waste and finding new ways to solve problems…. Baker offers nothing like a competing vision [to Deval Patrick’s], only a nuts-and-bolts fix to the bureaucratic machine. But after all the cracks are mended, and the leaks plugged, which way does the ship sail? Mapping out a larger agenda for the state’s success will be a key challenge for Baker, if and when he secures the GOP nomination.
Did Baker rise to the “key challenge” of “mapping out a larger agenda”? You wouldn’t think so to read today’s endorsement, which other than the obligatory nod to Baker’s “full-throated support” for charter schools, is startlingly devoid of policy discussion. Instead, the Globe contents itself by saying that “one needn’t agree with every last one of Baker’s views,” whatever they are, to vote for him, and concludes with this:
At a difficult inflection point in state government, Massachusetts needs a governor who’s focused on steady management and demonstrable results.
In other words, we were kidding when we said back in August that Baker needed to show a vision, or even to talk much about what he actually wants to do other than improve efficiency. We really just want a manager.
Anyway, this is all very interesting, but almost certainly irrelevant to the outcome next Tuesday. As we’ve discussed several times in recent elections, newspaper endorsements have a pretty poor track record recently – just ask Senator Dan Winslow, Governor nominee Steve Grossman, Lt. Gov. nominee Leland Cheung, Treasurer nominee Tom Conroy, Mayor of Boston John Connolly, and any number of other endorsees who have failed to convert a Globe editorial board endorsement into actual votes.
No, what wins is getting your supporters to the polls on election day. You know how to help do that.
Especially after their positions on the questions I thought the Globe was going to re-establish itself as Boston’s left-leaning paper.
The Boston Globe is an affluent white male suburban “business-friendly” Democrat who voted for Grossman in the primary and is now voting for Baker.
The Globe endorsed Grossman because he was a better candidate than Coakley – not because the Globe speaks for ‘white males’. This is ridiculous.
I don’t see how the Globe reconciles its support for Baker with the rest of its endorsements, particularly on the Ballot Questions which are in line with progressive positions. John Connolly can tell us how much the Globe endorsement means… GO MARTHA, GO!
See, according to the Globe, that policy yakkity-yak doesn’t really matter – after all, they don’t actually talk about it. We just need a manager who can fix bureaucratic stuff.
Nothing like putting perceived managerial style over substance. Here’s my prediction: If Baker wins, he will turn out to be more conservative than people think (and more conservative than his campaign rhetoric), and the Globe will endorse the Democratic nominee in four years. Go Martha, GO!
Either that or nobody here works for the state.
it’s been done.
Really? That’s a selling point?
that adds to the conversation?
… you replied to it. I was just reacting to your assertion that breaking a vow was, somehow, a selling point. I don’t particularly care if it was 4 years or 4 minutes ago… dishonesty don’t ever go stale.
could a match be any more made in heaven?
I believe it was part of Baker’s plan to “create jobs”.
who hire managers who operate the government. What we need is a governor who has the right policy beliefs, not one who sees the bottom line as the old place to look. I don’t believe Charles Baker has the right priorities. He’s an “I’ve got mine, pull up the drawbridge” kind of guy.
Especially as a Republican in a blue state.
Why would a selfish person put themselves through that kind of agony?
Worked (sorta) for Willard Rmoney.
n/t
I guess I could get on board with that.
Maybe that’s why he didn’t get all those progressive plans enacted.
n/t
by the desire for control. Baker has run a company, high levels in state government, has money now, this is the next challenge for him, to run the state. It seems the logical next step for him. I don’t blame him. I just don’t have the same belief for government that he seems to have. My first thought at this time is not cutting taxes and who can I move off of welfare. Those are important, but not the first things I think of.
in any party vs party race.
Globe just wants someone from the other party to make the news more interesting.
Think back to Reagan vs. O’Neill or Clinton vs. Gingrich. Those times were great reading for people interested in political news.
You’ve also got the potential for a Baker administration uncovering some scandal, or some Democratic official uncovering scandal in his administration. More good reading.
So the Globe, assuming it thinks it influences voters, is acting in its own self interest.
Or, the Globe is simply making a non-partisan judgement as to who is the best of the two. Usually, the simplest explanation is the true one.
It’s possible to overthink this, I think — I certainly could. The Globe is a political paper, much more so than, say, the Kansas City Star. And they have a long history with state Democrats, and that history has been strained in recent years.
I’m a bit more surprised about the auditor endorsement. I would have expected something like “Bump stumbled early, but has found her footing and deserves reelection.”
But that said … maybe we can take this at face value. Maybe Baker had a better meeting with the editorial board.
that this was etched in stone since primary day.
I see the argument, certainly. But I don’t know. I guess I’d like to think it’s more organic than that. Like being a relative term, since I don’t like the result of their process anyway.
I really think this is driven by the political beliefs of John Henry.
I think it was etched in stone when the closing papers were signed transferring ownership of the Boston Globe to Mr. Henry.
if one reads the endorsement carefully, the Globe outlines Martha Coakley’s superior strengths in terms of governing. They go on to say that people who support the present AG should not change their vote. This means they did not endorse anybody as far as I can see. The only problem is whether people just take in the headline, and don’t read the rest.
Here is a sentence from the article: “And in that spirit, the Globe endorses Charlie Baker for governor.” I think that’s pretty clear.
“Indeed, voters who believe that, by and large, the state government handles most public policy matters well — that it needs improvements here and there but not an overall course correction — can feel confident in choosing Coakley over Baker. Her assessment of the status quo is fundamentally upbeat, and she’s grown increasingly effective at communicating that view. In recent weeks, the side of Martha Coakley known mostly to her inner circle — warm, funny, happy to engage on the minutiae of public issues — has come into greater evidence.”
This sort of dilutes the Globe’s conviction that Charlie Baker is the better candidate.
It’s as if different people wrote different parts. If my students passed this in as a persuasive essay, I’d give it a C and wonder why they spent most of their time arguing the other side.
I can give you plenty of examples of supporter-described technocrat/managers who’ve been disasters as elected officials (President George W. Bush, DC Mayor Tony Willians, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel), but I’m genuinely curious: who are the technocrats who worked out well?
You can add Herbert Hoover to that illustrious list. Had Rahm governed as a true technocrat, he might’ve been more successful, but he has continued the Daley machine priority of backing big business over the people-without the endearing populist charm or patronage jobs of his predecessor (Rahm campaigned against them and then dismantled the IG at the first chance he got).
I think the centrist media would still say Bloomberg was a success, and latter day Broderist Ezra Klein would argue Obama.
To a lesser extent, Deval and the Duke were good technocratic managers in their day to day and handling of the economy. Both lacked the killer instinct to enact their longer term progressive visions.
I saw it first hand, working with companies dependent on state payments (which were often late) and my ex-wife was a state employee (well at first an 03 consultant, another Dukakis invention) and her department was a mess.
At the top level Dukakis did things like delay $500 million in payments to nursing homes from June to July, “saving” that money and balancing the budget.
“Technocrat” was the reputation he ran on nationally, but locally no one thought that.
First to mind for me. It’s not an easy question because they tend to fade away, not having any big initiatives or programs. They just make sure things don’t get f—ed up, which is a severely overlooked skill in modern politics. No way to build a career. We need more executives who see their main job to make sure that things don’t get f—ed up.
My understanding was that Tom Menino was a famous technophobe.
I don’t see including him in any analysis of the performance in office of elected technocrats.
I don’t see a technocrat as someone who needs the latest in whiz-bang technology. Again, a good manager knows you have good staff for that “hands-on” stuff. I see a technocrat as somebody who runs things according to sound principles, not ideology or careerist motivations. Menino wasn’t angling for a top rung, or to promote his ideological worldview. He was managing the city.
… I’ve always thought of ‘technocrats’ as those with a, perhaps naive, faith in the process and the technical aspects of management and leadership, sometimes to the exclusion of the people who have to execute on the plan: technocrats are the ones likely to believe that putting the right process in place, or defining the right outcome, is all that is necessary for both ‘leadership’ and ‘success’.
In this respect I see Menino as having been more ‘hands-on’ and perhaps even micro-managing rather than a straight ‘technocrat’… I think he was more people focused than that. But that’s just me.
As a teacher, perhaps sabutai is sticking to the classical Platonic definition of technocrat-mainly one who manages well. Menino clearly fit this. I think the modern, political definition is ‘an outsider’, typically from business, with centrist instincts, who managed rather than picks sides. I think its the kind of President Bill was, even if he sounded very populist, and I think its what Deval and Obama thought of themselves as primarily, rather than ideological progressives.
To me, Menino was definitely a populist and an old school liberal committed to unions long after that was popular and to gay rights well before it was popular. He stuck to his guns on certain principles, granted, these were pothole principles on issues that effected his city directly, but they were principles.
It’s why he was ultimately better than Kevin White or Ray Flynn. The best Mayors are those focused on their cities and those that do it well find it’s the best job in government. I think Walsh fits this mold as well, and will put in a good 3-4 terms of success and shape the city like few higher up politicians can shape their state or government.
In my view, Kevin White was a giant whose singular and constructive vision made Boston the world-class city it was for decades. In my view, Ray Flynn and Tom Menino spent down a great deal of the “civilization capital” that Keven White created.
In my view, the jury is still very much out on Mr. Walsh.
Unlike them, he never sought higher office. And in that way I think he was most effective at the job he had. White certainly did a lot of good, but some of that urban redevelopment displaced people. Once the harbor and waterfront is fully developed in a mixed use way and people appreciate the South Boston incubator and ICA and other new neighborhoods, the Menino legacy will approach White’s. The greenway is also a great asset that all three fought hard to get.
Wasn’t saying we know yet if he will be as good. I do know (or can reasonably predict) that this will be the highest office he seeks, and that he will likely have it for a few more terms. He seems quite progressive-I guess it’s the casinos?
but most of the rest was being worked on. It was completely rundown.
The South End was scary to drive through.
I agree Kevin White set the city on a path that started it in the right direction, long before trends and demographics became the engine. Boston got a real jump on things.
The Globe has been blowing Baker soft kisses for months, setting the tone with the gushing coverage of his photo-op at a shoe store: he’s so tall, so nice, and he say’s he’s nice now, and he’s a MANAGER. The Globe is also thrilled at the chance to flash bipartisan credentials. I was expecting the endorsement yesterday, but the Globe did not quite have the guts to go with that. Your spot-on with the Grossman endorsement. That was the final setup for this one. It’s actually been quite funny to read the whining in the otherwise vitriolic comments directed online toward other Globe endorsements.
2014: “Even The Boston Globe…”
Mass is full of corp dems, hence the reason why all these local “news” papers, support the most conservative dems. sad, disturbing, disgusting!!!!
meant to specify conservative dems and republicans
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2014/10/globe-endorsement-of-baker-driven-by-population-growth-concerns/