Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

The Speaker and the progressive Catch-22

June 6, 2017 By Charley on the MTA 15 Comments

I generally like the commentary from Peter Ubertaccio, but in cautioning progressives who chafe at Speaker DeLeo‘s relative conservatism and lack of adherence to the Democratic platform, I think Professor U is missing a few things.

To summarize his argument:

  • DeLeo’s a real Democrat, selected in primary by Democrats in his district, and then in the House.
  • Party activists, who write the platform, are not necessarily representative of party primary voters, much less the general electorate.
  • Politicians and voters routinely ignore the platform anyway.

Prof. Ubertaccio concludes the lecture:

American parties are complex organizations.  Be wary of those who suggest they speak for a party in its entirety.

I’d suggest this misstates the problem.  I’m pretty sure that frustrated progressives are aware that it’s a big tent party, and you have to get the votes. The platform isn’t everything; but it’s not nothing either. It is supposed to be a consensus document of that party. And the Senate, as Jonathan Cohn points out, has been much more willing to take the lead on many progressive issues. At the very least, that indicates that — given their druthers — elected Democrats might prefer to enact more ambitiously progressive legislation.

The problem is not “those who suggest they speak for a party in its entirety”. The problem, as we see it, is twofold:

  1. The top-down nature of the Speakership, who has basically limitless power in the House. He is elected by the membership —  in a forthrightly partisan manner, as a Democrat, by Democrats. But because of his power over the membership, in assigning chairs and so forth, these votes are not exactly freely given. They are coerced.  
  2. DeLeo’s own views are in conflict with the wishes of the party as expressed in the platform; and likely in conflict with a good chunk of his membership, if not a majority. But that doesn’t often get expressed publicly.

The Speaker speaks for the House, in its entirety. But if he’s not representing the consensus view of his membership, there’s a tension. And it’s not one easily remedied from within the House itself.  

I want to revisit the comments of Rep. Denise Provost when former Sen. Dan Wolf made his suggestion that DeLeo could be primaried:

… “He thought that the only thing that would make a difference is if somebody ran against the speaker from his district in a primary,” said Rep. Denise Provost, who attended the forum with fellow Somerville Democrat Rep. Christine Barber.

She said, “I think that what the senator said put Rep. Barber and myself in a very uncomfortable and awkward position.”

Provost and Barber (e.g.) are quite progressive, repping progressive districts. Like my rep (Garballey), they’re trying to squeeze what they can out of their positions on behalf of their constituents. As long as I’ve been paying attention, there’s been this tension and awkwardness when talking to Reps about the Speaker — whoever it’s been. Again, I’d say it’s DeLeo that puts them in that uncomfortable position, by bottlenecking their priorities.

DeLeo is simply more conservative than his party’s platform for certain, and very possibly the median House membership as well. But what are those points of pressure? A primary is a blunt instrument, but what else is there? We might assume that he’s representing the will of his constituents in Winthrop — perhaps even at the expense of other Reps’ districts — but how can we know if there’s no choice at primary time?

Ubertaccio seems to make an argument that DeLeo’s speakership represents some kind of political equilibrium in the Commonwealth. At the least, there are ample structural reasons to question that.

Please share widely!
0
0

Filed Under: Editor

15
Leave a reply

Please Login to comment
5 Comment threads
10 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
petrGumbyjconwayMark L. Baildoug-rubin Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
JimC
Member
JimC

I think the platform is a grand pander, and its fate is entirely separate from DeLeo’s.

The thing is, I’m not entirely sure DeLeo does not reflect the entirety of the membership. He doesn’t reflect the delegates, but the delegates are the most active people and (by definition) not representative.

A real progressive, to earn the label, would be a pain in the ass to the Speaker, and not give a damn where his/her office was, or what committees he/she sat on.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote10You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
Charley on the MTA
Author
Noble Member
Charley on the MTA

I’ll be more generous and say the platform is “aspirational.” As I’ve said elsewhere, Reps do care what they can get for their districts, and they can get more by having positions, which are granted by the Speaker. I mean, Ed Markey famously rode being exiled right into Congress – “they can tell me where to sit, but they can’t tell me where to stand” – but … he had to leave the State House.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
marcus-graly
Member
Member
marcus-graly

I don’t get why a primary challenge is the right venue. The House elects its leadership. If the membership is dissatisfied with DeLeo, they should elect someone else.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote10You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
Charley on the MTA
Author
Noble Member
Charley on the MTA

Well, my whole point is that the vote is not freely given. The Speaker has such power over the membership that it’s essentially coerced — once he becomes speaker.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote20You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
marcus-graly
Member
Member
marcus-graly

Well the membership needs to get over its Stockholm Syndrome and change the rules. The House is still a Democracy. It’s convenient for Progressives to say, “oh, there’s nothing we can do”, but that’s not actually true. 81 Reps could get together and reduce the power of the Speaker or elect a new Speaker, ideally both.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote20You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
johntmay
Member
Noble Member
johntmay

The people at the convention are the canvassers, the phone bank people, the sign holders……and they are being duped.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
doug-rubin
Member
Member
doug-rubin

There is another option other than a Primary challenge – more debate (and dissent) in the House. If progressive reps were more willing to challenge the Speaker on important issues, and the Speaker was more willing to allow debate (and even dissent – heaven forbid) we may have a better chance of actually passing progressive issues that are in many cases supported by over 70% of voters in Massachusetts.

I believe the real issue falls on both the Speaker – for his tight reign on the House – and the progressive reps – who seem afraid to publicly challenge him on issues they and their constituents care deeply about. I don’t think we should let the progressive reps off the hook in this discussion by focusing solely on the Speaker.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote50You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
JimC
Member
JimC

That’s more or less what I said. Better progressive reps would help (and also, the less progressive reps should object to the iron fist).

You Must Be Logged In To Vote10You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
Mark L. Bail
Member
Noble Member
Mark L. Bail

Protesters have been dogging Senate and Congress members at their town meetings and offices. This is also a strategy that progressives could use. They wouldn’t need to be obnoxious or combative. On the other hand, many don’t want to anger their legislators, whom they need.

District voters elect someone to represent them; Districts vary in politics. Winthrop is not Amherst, which is makes up most of my district.

Not all Democrats are progressive. We are the party on the Left, but that doesn’t mean all of our voters are lefties.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote10You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
jconway
Member
Famed Member
jconway

The Speaker responds to two external stimuli:

1) His Members
2) His Constituents.

Any activism that tries to lobby the Speaker should be directed at those two potential pain points. It’s an uphill battle. #2 is a dead end. A primary will fail. Robert DeLeo is a lifelong resident of Winthrop, a local boy who made good, and someone who has deeply embedded ties throughout the district. A lot of councilors, school committee members, and State Senators served on his campaigns or in his district office. A lot of politicians outside of his district have been helped by him in the past. Similarly, a lot of constituents have been helped by him personally. He takes his district seriously and has taken care of it. I’ve heard more than one person compare his diligence to constituent services to the late Ted Kennedy or Mayor Menino.

As for #1, a majority of his members also apparently like him. I’ve had progressive representatives and legislative aides tell me behind closed doors that he was instrumental in passing the transgender rights bill and that the caucus would be less cohesive or progressive if he were replaced by someone else. I’ve heard this more frequently than criticism.

I’ve also heard dissenting progressive reps and legislative aides complain that he is too top down, that debate and dissent is crushed or held behind closed doors, and that the House has become a far less interesting place to serve because everything is predetermined and individuals representatives have a lot less agency than they used too. These include members who purport to be public allies. I’ve heard transgender rights lobbyists argue he was an obstacle-not an asset.

The biggest obstacle to progressive change in Massachusetts is the insular culture of Beacon Hill. It has less to do with the individual Speaker and more to do with the culture that elects and re-elects him and likes the top down way he leads. The culture that likes the three men in a room model of ordered governance. We do not see the kind of debate, the kind of rancor, or the kind of public input we see in Boston as we do in Washington DC. And I think shining the brightest light we can on that culture and forcing our local representatives to hear our demands for debate, for recorded votes, for committee votes, and for public hearings and public access to those hearings is the best we can hope for. And working outside the system through tactics like the Fair Share Amendment which is driving the debate and moving the Speaker and Governor in a more positive direction on revenue.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote10You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
doug-rubin
Member
Member
doug-rubin

Totally agree.

But those Democratic reps who are progressive, and represent districts with a majority of progressive voters, have to be more forceful in pushing a progressive agenda – even if the Speaker is opposed to it. In my opinion, they too often talk a good game but are not willing to publicly oppose the Speaker to try to bring these important issues to a vote, or at least raise the profile of these issues to try to generate public pressure on the House to take them up.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote10You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
jconway
Member
Famed Member
jconway

Absolutely agree. They should bring controversial issues to the floor just so the public can know where everyone stands. I think the speakers motivations aren’t ideological-it’s about putting points on the board and making it look like they function better than the Feds by always having cooperation and bipartisanship on everything. The approach is better than the tea party one-but the issue with that approach in a supermajority D caucus is that they never tackle anything hard.

It’s governing defensively-and frankly our majority can afford to take more risks. Make Baker veto stuff, let moderate and conservative D reps show their hand so voters can know where their reps actually stand.

The saddest thing about the trans bill fight were the number of reps who didn’t care about the issue one way or the other but were terrified of taking a stand and getting voted out. And it doesn’t help our side that the stacks of mail they got on that issue were 3-1 against. Ditto tax issues, ditto other social issues especially those dealing with immigration or welfare benefits. The conservatives are a minority in this state but they send mail, they call offices, and they get heard. Moderate/conservative Democrats fear then far more than they fear a progressive primary.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote10You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
Gumby
Member
Gumby

IF it could be determined that, in fact, our progressive reps are prevented from moving the needle very far, and that the exact same supermajority bills would pass regardless of which committees our progressive reps run, THEN it would justify their taking an openly hostile stance against the dictator/speaker. Once a handful of voices committed to voting him out, it would be possible for others to consider joining their ranks.

However, as in many political arenas, the immediate need to make small improvements usually trumps the temptation to make a big gamble. Also, as jconway mentions above, apparently a lot of members actually like DeLeo? I’m sure he’s got a likeable personality, and I’m sure moderate Dems like him fine, but if a progressive says they like him, I suspect they are just terrified of being quoted saying otherwise.

And granted, the Speaker is not himself enforcing some particular agenda, he’s mostly protecting his members from controversy. But that is a disservice to the Commonwealth and our reps need to start treating it as a harmful regressive agenda.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
Gumby
Member
Gumby

I was told by one Progressive Rep that the Speaker just does what he thinks all the members can agree on. And that if we get rid of him, the next Speaker will be the same. If that is in fact the case, then the answer is not a Primary of DeLeo, but primaries all across the Commonwealth. That is why I am thrilled to see so many new chapters of Progressive Massachusetts springing up. A network with a cohesive agenda and shared resources ought to be able to out-organize the status quo.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
petr
Member
Noble Member
petr

I was told by one Progressive Rep that the Speaker just does what he thinks all the members can agree on. And that if we get rid of him, the next Speaker will be the same. If that is in fact the case, then the answer is not a Primary of DeLeo, but primaries all across the Commonwealth.

This sounds like less an objection to an all-powerful speaker and more objection to those things which everyone (currently) agrees upon.

The thinking, it appears, to go like thus: Primary everyone, with progressives, and the all-powerful speaker will continue to do what he thinks all the members can agree upon…. only, if all the members are sufficiently progressive, it’ll be ok since they’ll all agree on good things and the all-powerful speaker will be forced to act on those good things…

I don’t think it works that way. And, even if it does work that way it will only be for a short time. That’s the nature of politics. I doubt very much it can work like that in any sustained fashion… that is to say, more than a few months. After it all breaks down in the flood of competing progressive absolutism, we’ll continue to have an all-powerful speaker. The Republicans in the congress have every last position they want, and they are paralyzed. Progressives in that position won’t be any different.

You can’t make that deal with that devil. You won’t get what you want. An all-powerful speaker is a danger, whether the lege agrees or not. Whether the lege is progressive or not. And you’ll leave your progressive ideals at the mercy of the all-powerful speaker.

After all, perhaps the most progressive of all positions is a straight up, forthright, and transparent, process. This, and this alone, is what may separate those who are willing to lie and cheat their way to power from others along the ‘conservative’ progressive spectrum.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
2 years ago
wpdiscuz   wpDiscuz

Election Day 2020 Countdown

Election Day 2020Countdown

Recommended Posts

  • The Squirrely Arguments Against Impeachment (4)
  • Biden's Foreign Policy Experience: An Unexpected Trump Card For 2020 (3)
  • My "I know Joe" new button idea (3)
  • The Press Lets Our Polity Down Yet Again (2)
  • Time to play hardball with fascist pukes (2)

Recent User Posts

Time to play hardball with fascist pukes

December 14, 2019 By fredrichlariccia 2 Comments

Attend a DNC Caucus Training Near You!

December 13, 2019 By Christopher Leave a Comment

The Squirrely Arguments Against Impeachment

December 11, 2019 By terrymcginty 18 Comments

My “I know Joe” new button idea

December 11, 2019 By fredrichlariccia Leave a Comment

No One is a Progressive Angel, So Let’s Stop Pretending

December 11, 2019 By BKay 48 Comments

Biden’s Foreign Policy Experience: An Unexpected Trump Card For 2020

December 10, 2019 By terrymcginty 43 Comments

Recent Comments

  • Christopher on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentRecused himself from what? VPs don't have any power exce…
  • fredrichlariccia on Time to play hardball with fascist pukesThe Russiapublicans installed that urine soaked orange c…
  • SomervilleTom on Time to play hardball with fascist pukesThe historical "solution" most often turned to in cases…
  • SomervilleTom on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentExchanges like this — not to mention the entire GOP mant…
  • SomervilleTom on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentHere are your exact words (emphasis mine): Trump is cash…
  • SomervilleTom on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentIt appears to me that "they" are a projection of you, ev…
  • Christopher on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentYou made the comment about a distinction without a diffe…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Blue Mass GroupFollow

Reality-based commentary. Necessary but not sufficient. Doing the other things. Massachusetts and beyond.

Blue Mass Group
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
jglarussoJoe LaRusso 🔌 🕳🐇@jglarusso·
7h

Great threaded summary by @ssteingraber1 of remarks by @howarth_cornell relating fracking to rise in quantities of methane released into the atmosphere. https://twitter.com/ssteingraber1/status/1205901002467106816

Dr. Sandra Steingraber@ssteingraber1

1/ FRACKING THREAD. I’m here at the Ithaca Community School for Music and Arts to hear world methane expert @howarth_cornell present new science on #fracking and the climate crisis. Will try to live tweet. Full house! Lots of legendary grassroots leaders here.@MothersOutFront

Reply on Twitter 1206212676357099520Retweet on Twitter 12062126763570995204Like on Twitter 12062126763570995201Twitter 1206212676357099520
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
Curt_Nordgaard⛰🏔⛰@Curt_Nordgaard·
8h

The Massachusetts coastline flooded yesterday.

What happened? A high tide around the full moon. That's all.

Tell people around you that the global humanitarian and ecological crisis of climate change has already started. https://twitter.com/dotmalo/status/1205936919944847363

Dot Malone@DotMalo

It’s fine, I’ll wait til low tide to leave the house #Dorchester

Reply on Twitter 1206190924654624768Retweet on Twitter 120619092465462476839Like on Twitter 120619092465462476871Twitter 1206190924654624768
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
AlexSteffenAlex Steffen@AlexSteffen·
12 Dec

Our entire public debate is decades behind the realities we know we face now, and as we understand those realities better, most of our findings will reveal our problems to be even more pressing than we thought they were.

That's just what the 2020s are going be like. https://twitter.com/DrNoelHealy/status/1204204976953626624

Noel Healy@DrNoelHealy

This final slide from @MichaelEMann is devastating. The time for incremental climate policy is over.🚨He estimates annual emissions may have to drop by 15% a year (rather than 7.5%)🚨. In other words we have zero years to tackle climate change. We need a #GreenNewDeal now #GND

Reply on Twitter 1205201555386814465Retweet on Twitter 1205201555386814465213Like on Twitter 1205201555386814465361Twitter 1205201555386814465
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
TPMTalking Points Memo@TPM·
20h

Terrible, Terrible, Terrible https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/terrible-terrible-terrible

Reply on Twitter 1206017639035867136Retweet on Twitter 12060176390358671366Like on Twitter 120601763903586713614Twitter 1206017639035867136
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
TheViewFromLL2Susan Simpson@TheViewFromLL2·
24h

The take away of this story doesn't seem to be that impeachment is bad for Democrats. It's that opposing impeachment is so bad for Democrats they can't remain Democrats. https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1205949264515481600

Andrew Desiderio@AndrewDesiderio

NEWS: Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat who opposes impeachment, plans to switch parties and become a Republican.

Staff were informed today. Question now is when, not if, he makes it official.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036

Reply on Twitter 1205961091282604034Retweet on Twitter 1205961091282604034541Like on Twitter 12059610912826040342115Twitter 1205961091282604034
Load More...

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2019 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.

wpDiscuz