David asked about public safety: Given the rash of violence in Boston and elsewhere, what role does the governor have? Harshbarger sees the Governor as a coordinator between various stakeholders, i.e. AGs, DAs, mayors, federal state local law enforcement, neighborhood groups, social agencies and other professional constituencies where turf wars are commons. He explained the success of the mid-90s crime approach as “zero tolerance, not sad-but-inevitable,” a matter of equal justice and civil rights. “People say itâs idealistic â but the fact is, we know what to do, what works … It wasnât just one thing, it was groups working together … Weâre all gonna get the blame and weâre all gonna get the credit.” Harshbarger was optimistic that these structures of cooperation could be rebuilt, with leadership from the top: “This state has been recognized consistently for this kind of thing. Thereâs a whole generation of cops and law enforcement people who came up in this system” of cooperation, accountability and efficiency.
Bob mentioned that there’s been speculation at BMG that the legislature might prefer a Republican governor, weakened by a veto-proof Democratic majority in the legislature — and in the cases of Weld, Cellucci and Romney, careerist Wanderlust. In his own case, Harshbarger vigorously agreed: “My biggest challenge was the leadership in the Democratic Party. I was perceived as too independent.” Referring to Patrick’s reliance on a grassroots power base, “We need someone supported by the people.”
I asked about the Big Dig: What can the next governor do? Patrick has addressed this question himself; but Harshbarger was happy to land his punches as well: “How about if the governor had acted for four years the way he’s acted for the last few weeks? … No one thinks itâs going to be solved by firing Matt Amorello. The problems here are not the fault of Matt Amorello.” No one wanted to be in charge of overseeing the Big Dig; now everyone wants to be in charge, but very few in the political establishment have clean hands. He echoed the call for an independent oversight body, and said Sen. Marian Walsh’s proposal for such (criticized in some corners, though I don’t really follow why) meets many of the criteria for independence and effectiveness.
David and Bob both asked about taxes, and how Patrick’s refusal to endorse the rollback to 5.0% puts him in the trickiest spot. Harshbarger remembers the irony of his 1998 run where his “friends in the media” wondered why he didn’t take a no-new-taxes pledge: “No one expects you to keep it!” they said. “I have no doubt it will be a major theme,” Harshbarger says. But he counters: “Paul Cellucci didnât tell the truth” about taxes; he made his no new taxes pledge, and then raised tolls.
But Bob asked bluntly if it isn’t cynical to oppose the rollback, since a large majority of voters supported it in 2000. Harshbarger countered that the supporters of the rollback were cynical, playing on the idea that the work of government doesn’t really matter, “that it’s all waste, fraud and abuse; give us back our money and government will still function. That’s irresponsible.” And he pointed to the very idea of representative democracy: that we elect people to pick and choose between the conflicting desires of the electorate. To Harshbarger, an elected official is more honest to claim the responsibility of using his judgement, rather than saying “I will give you whatever you want.”
It’s fascinating to hear someone with Harshbarger’s topsy-turvy electoral experience talking about this year’s race. Standard bipolar Dem-vs.-GOP frames of reference pretty much go out the window in this state. There’s always something else afoot: new dynamics, power centers and power-dislocations. We’ll see if the Patrick campaign really represents a new power center, and how much it can flex its muscles over the next seven weeks.
