Democrats will drown in the blue wave if they don’t understand where it comes from.
Heading into the Massachusetts Democratic Convention, there is a sea of discontent with establishment Democrats, which activists propose to fix with more progressive ideology. Yet if ideology was all that mattered, why is Republican Governor Charlie Baker so popular with Democrats? With a 65% approval rating, we need to ask if 2/3 of Democrats have abandoned their ideology or if there is something else at play. Something that matters so much that Massachusetts, the bluest state in the nation, has the most popular governor in the nation. The solution to Baker’s popularity isn’t ideological purity. The choice isn’t even between Progressives and Centrists; instead, it is between constitutional ideals and an autocratic approach to governing. There are indeed sellouts within the Democratic Party, but their lack of integrity is not tied to their policies; it is tied to a culture of protecting oneself at any cost. To win over voters, the Democratic Party needs to learn from Charlie Baker. To win, Democrats need to address the trust gap.
Primary candidates speaking Saturday morning are tripping over themselves to seize the title “most progressive”, with gubernatorial candidate Bob Massie touting the Our Revolution Middlesex County endorsement and opponent Jay Gonzalez the nod from Progressive Massachusetts. According to Politico reporter Lauren Dezenski, at a recent primary debate, Massie differentiated himself from his opponent, who was Secretary of Administration & Finance under former Governor Deval Patrick, by saying “that he was not a government insider who just wants to go back to the Patrick days”. Last week I was at a meeting of the Cambridge Ward 6 committee where candidate Donna Patalano said she hesitated to even use the word ‘progressive’ to describe herself because “everyone uses it so much these days it almost has no meaning”.
The last time I checked, Deval Patrick was still considered one of the most progressive leaders Massachusetts has ever seen. Yet these days, he is considered moderate by some Party activists. Meanwhile, the Sphinx in the corner office has mastered the role of an ideologically-balanced pragmatist and the voters like it. More importantly, they trust Baker. Many establishment Democrats, however, are suspect, and this is reflected in the gubernatorial primary.
Massie has received just a handful of endorsements, which may play into his outsider approach, though he was unable to persuade Bernie Sanders’ Massachusetts co-chairs he is the best candidate. Senate President Harriet Chandler this morning endorsed Jay Gonzalez, on the heels of endorsements from insiders Auditor Suzanne Bump and former Treasurer Steve Grossman. Under the “establishment = sellout” formula, this may backfire with activists at the convention. Look for Massie’s speech to allude to a message that Gonzalez is business as usual. But if Gonzalez can distinguish himself as a Democrat who will rebuild trust, he might set himself up as the candidate to advance progressive goals through Charlie Baker’s pragmatic, insider approach.
This morning we learned in the latest WBUR poll that voters remain largely unexcited by or even unaware of Gonzalez and Massie. While within the margin of error, in a head-to-head match-up with Baker, both dropped a point since the last poll in March. But at convention parties tonight, the takeaway on delegates’ lips will be the fact that Baker’s unfavorables are lower among Democrats than Republicans.
Similar to the national Democratic Party, in Massachusetts a battle between Progressives and Centrists is being waged for the “soul of the party“. Yet the fight is based on a misdiagnosis of the illness and Democrats are applying the wrong cures. Progressives conflate Centrism with sellout politicians. Centrists conflate pragmatism with protecting poor behavior. But voters don’t want to choose between ideas they approve of, and the ability to work effectively within the system to get things done. What they don’t like is us activists implying they must choose between the two . And their discontent with the Democratic Party is, in fact, a frustration Democrats who are more concerned with the accumulation and preservation of power than with making their constituents’ lives better.
For too long within the Democratic Party, staying in office at any cost has been an end unto itself. Incumbents rarely risk the consequences of speaking out when members of their own party behave egregiously. Indeed, in Massachusetts, we have Democrats who close ranks when a member of their institution is accused of corruption, ignore the principles of democracy within their institutions, and prefer coasting to re-election to leading.
Voters have had to hold their nose when they go into the ballot box and consequently, some have chosen to vote for the other party or not at all. Delegates would do well to acknowledge that many Democrats voted for Baker because they wanted a check on the Democrat-run Legislature. It’s time to nominate candidates with the guts to speak truth to power, even if it costs them. It doesn’t necessarily matter whether they stand for free college or a renewed infrastructure program, whether they are Progressive or Centrist, but they’ve gotta support the integrity of the system. Voters want politicians they can trust to work for their interests.
Party activists are conflating a lack of leadership on Party or Progressive Values with a lack of leadership period. Centrists are conflating Progressives with impractical idealogues. The reality is the Party is capable of producing Centrists who lead (Speaker Tip O’Neill) as well as pragmatic Progressives (Sen. Ted Kennedy).
At last night’s debate on Greater Boston, Jim Braude challenged Gonzalez and Massie on their narrative voters want a more progressive agenda from the governor and the idea that insiders are inherently sellouts. Referencing Democrats who praise Baker’s leadership like Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and former State Senator Linda Dorcena-Forry he asked: “Are all those Democrats hacks?” Neither had a good answer.
As we head into the Massachusetts Democratic Convention, Democrats need to do some soul searching. To win back swing voters, the Massachusetts Democratic Party needs to learn from the trust Governor Baker has engendered.
The best way to win over those voters isn’t to convince them they were wrong four years ago. It’s to show them they can have their cake and eat it, too. They can have a steady hand at the helm and call out bad behavior, rule-breaking, and hypocrisy within their own party. They can have strong management and encourage small ‘d’ democratic values such as the shared leadership model former Massachusetts Senate President Stan Rosenberg instituted, elimination of consolidated amendments in the Massachusetts House budget process, and allowing bills with 2/3 of the membership listed as co-sponsors to come up for a vote.
As Frank Phillips and Matt Stout and the Boston Globe ask, “Democrats have a lot of energy this year. But in Mass., where do they put it?” The answer is staring us in the face: creating accountability for Democrats who are untrustworthy.
At tomorrow’s convention, delegates have an opportunity to ask more of their leaders: ask the candidates at the convention if they will commit to shining a light on Beacon Hill. Will they call out officials for unethical behavior? Will they encourage a more democratic process within the House? Will they restore the trust delegates, activists, and most importantly, swing voters need? Ask your state legislators the same questions. Demand it. Expect it. The Democrat Party deserves – and can afford – nothing less.
When we are asked to choose between Massie and Gonzalez ; Zakim versus Galvin; and primaries in the 3rd and the 7th congressional districts, the calculus must include more than purity. It’s easy to cheer for applause lines about ideological conviction. But we will be a better party if we are cheering in our hearts for candidates with integrity and trust. Because people in the voting booth care more a lot more about those things than all the planks in our party platform.
Stefanie Coxe is an alternate delegate to the Massachusetts State Convention from Cambridge. She is the founder & principal of Nexus Werx LLC, a political training company offering the Learn to Lobby line of online and in-person training products: Effective Activism 101, Lobbying 101, and Campaigning 101. Sign up for her e-newsletter to get activism training & lobbying training tips. Follow her on Twitter @stefcoxe and Facebook @effectiveactivism.
Originally posted on nexuswerx.com.
I think reality is FAR simpler than all this.
I think the reality is that rank-and-file “Democrats” are just as self-centered and greedy as independents and rank-and-file GOP voters. I think rank-and-file “Democrats” want to hear “No new taxes”, or “Lower taxes”. I think the reason why Charlie Baker, and to a lesser extent Bob DeLeo, is so popular is that Mr. Baker tells voters what they want to hear.
In my cynical view, that’s the most likely explanation for the 65% approval rating of Mr. Baker.
I think “trust” has very little to do with any of this, with one HUGE exception — the accurate perception that corruption in state government is rampant.
“The best way to win over those voters isn’t to convince them they were wrong four years ago. It’s to show them they can have their cake and eat it, too.”
Sorry, no sale.
Civilized society costs money, and that means that civilized society requires taxes. The idea that we can “have our cake and eat it too” only perpetuates the lie that no new taxes are necessary.
“Civilized society” means, among other things:
– A public transportation system that works for everybody
– A public education system that works for everybody
– A health care system that works for everybody
Massachusetts is, today, failing miserably at these three things. We are failing at these three things because we irresponsibly imposed prop 2 1/2 nearly 40 years ago and we have NEVER replaced the lost tax revenue.
We MUST have new taxes. One reason why voters refuse to go along with this besides sheer greed is that voters believe that our government corruption is so pervasive that new taxes will only enrich the pigs already at the trough.
Voters were not wrong four years ago when they concluded that Democrats would do nothing substantive about the entrenched corruption voters saw all around them. Our nominee, as Attorney General, did absolutely nothing to counter that perception — either as Attorney General or as our Democratic nominee.
Many voters are voting with their pocketbook because they are suffering from the extreme wealth and income concentration that plagues us. The only thing on the radar today that might begin to address that elephant in the room is the Fair Share amendment. That’s on the ballot because we Democrats have flatly refused to make even a token effort to do anything.
I think this is not going to be a good election for Democrats in Massachusetts.
We need to rebuild our party from the ground up. We need to make the “Democratic” brand mean something — starting with the official Massachusetts Democratic Party.
More than anything else, we need to aggressively attack the pervasive corruption that still permeates our party and therefore our government — starting with Bob DeLeo.
We will never raise the taxes we need so long as have unindicted co-conspirators running our legislature.
Tom and the OP make points that are not mutually exclusive. The average voter simply does not know or does not care to know about the state legislature. Even my friends in the “resistance” who will take time out of their workday to protest ICE detentions have no idea how bad Baker is on immigration or how he enables the behavior they abhor. The hard hat construction worker voting for lower gas taxes for his pickup has no idea how badly Baker has stacked the local labor relations board to impede card check. The suburban teacher may be thankful he is killing sheltered immersion but has no idea she may be compelled to give up the immigration status of her students to state authorities under this Governor. Or that he is raiding her pension and health insurance with help from the Democratic legislature. Too many bad local Democrats are protected by our national brand like Sen Ross and Timilty who did not draw primary challengers this “blue wave” cycle despite their conservative voting records. People of color, especially women of color, and Latinos are largely shut out of visible leadership positions in our party at the federal or statewide level. So we need to fix these problems and just be blunt about what’s wrong and who’s at fault. The reluctance of prominent Democrats to criticize Baker and DeLeo, from Warren to Walsh, helps perpetuate the cycle where they have high approval from Democrats and the unenrolled.
Indeed, I think each point you make is true.
The selective ignorance that you describe is at least partially self-serving. The hard-hat construction worker is going to vote for lower gas taxes whatever this or any other governor does about organized labor. At least some hard-working and severely underpaid suburban teachers care more about what happens to their next paycheck than about pension and health insurance shenanigans. People of color, women of color, and Latinos are shut out of visible leadership positions in our party because we remain a racist and sexist culture no matter how vigorously we pat ourselves on the back for our “progress”.
I highly recommend the movie “RBG” for those who have not seen it. One inescapable insight from the movie for me is how different our culture is today from the mid-1970s and even the 1950s. While it is true that we were sexist and racist then, America of that era had a deeper and more fundamental commitment to classical renaissance thought. When someone like Ms. Ginsberg showed us our sexism, America listened. I cannot IMAGINE today’s Supreme Court being swayed by her compelling arguments that won so many decisions during her early years.
In an earlier time, when America was shown compelling evidence of flaws, we listened. Today, our response to that same evidence is to condemn the speaker.
I think we have to rebuild our party and our state from the ground up.
I’ll echo all of these. That doc is on my watch list. I did devote part of my Supreme Court lesson to the pathbreaking legacy of Marshall, O’Connor, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor. It really does change the law when women and people of color are in the room where it’s made.
Our party’s national woes are amplified at the local level. Black and Latino activists feeling shut out and unwanted, a decline in trade unionism and the coalition building it allowed for, and an unwillingness to invest in grassroots campaigning. Hopefully we can change some of this.