I’ve spent a lot of time on the “Democrat vs. liberal” thing because it’s fundamental to what’s wrong with Keller’s book. Really, the whole book is premised on a strawman, namely, the notion that Massachusetts has for years been run by liberals, and serves as a “working laboratory for their policies.” We’ve just emerged from 16 years of Republican Governors, for God’s sake, along with conservative Dems running the legislature. I’ve already noted some additional problems along those lines in an earlier post.
After a curious shot at how tough it is for people of color to run for office in the state that just elected only the second African-American Governor in the country since Reconstruction, the rest of Keller’s introduction spends some time describing the “other” Massachusetts — the one where there’s rampant crime and depressed economies, and where money flows like water through the leaky Big Dig into the harbor. And he’s right to do so. Those are serious problems that deserve serious treatment. But doing that, and then ending the intro by saying that “the Massachusetts model is driving American liberalism off a cliff,” doesn’t bode well for the serious treatment we’re looking for.
In chapter 1, after a brief historical overview, Keller’s at it again. From page 20:
Massachusetts has become a prime test kitchen for the boomers’ liberal impulses and political culture. We are quick to expand the notion of commonwealth, most recently defining it to include universal health coverage and full marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
Whoa, Nellie!! As Jon no doubt recalls, Mitt Romney was a significant force behind the health care law, and was the original architect of its most dramatic departure from past law, the individual mandate requiring all MA residents to carry health insurance, whether they want to or not. If that’s “liberal,” the word has lost all meaning.
And as for marriage, I wouldn’t exactly call what just happened “quick.” To the contrary, for years domestic partnership and civil union legislation was stifled in the House by MA’s favorite conservative, Democrat Tom Finneran. It was only after the Supreme Judicial Court (6 of whose 7 Justices were appointed by Republicans) bypassed the body that defines the “political culture” around here — namely, the legislature — that marriage hit the agenda. Squawk if you want about judicial activism — that’s a later chapter. But let’s not pretend that same-sex marriage sprang fully-formed from the head of some mythical liberal legislature that runs things around here.
Next comes some more history, and a brief foray into Keller’s childhood memories of biking “through clouds of pot smoke on the Cambridge Common.” Keller recalls the famous bumper sticker, popular here after Nixon’s 1972 49-state election win: “Don’t Blame Me, I’m From Massachusetts.” Keller says that was “smug.” Well, it was also right, but whatever.
Anyway, we now get to one of the recurring and quite annoying features of this book: non-identification of sources. From p. 25:
[A] late 2006 study found costs for the average worker’s health care had soared to nearly $10,000 a year, fourth-highest in the nation. “Labor is strong, so benefits tend to be rich,” noted one health-care analyst. “High-end providers such as teaching hospitals have higher unit costs for surgery, and there are many insurance benefits mandated by the state.”
What study? What analyst? I have no reason to think that the data are wrong, but I’d like to know who did the study so that I can see what the numbers are based on, and I’d like to know who this analyst works for. I can’t see any reason not to identify that kind of thing.
And it gets worse on the next page.
[A] 2006 study by a Boston think tank found that “on average Massachusetts firms have costs 20-30% higher than similar companies in Texas, North Carolina and New Hampshire in nine key industries.” … We are only the nation’s thirteenth largest state, but rank fifth in median housing costs, ninth in per-capita state and local tax burden, ninth-worst in economic burden on small businesses. We have the fourth-highest average auto-insurance and natural-gas bills, the sixth-highest electricity prices.
Regular BMG readers have been through enough detailed discussions of whether MA really does or doesn’t have high taxes to immediately recognize a passage like that one as of the “lies, damned lies, and statistics” variety. Again, the numbers may all be technically accurate. But I really want to know where they come from; what the study authors didn’t consider in their analysis; and what other studies of similar statistics have concluded. But I just can’t do it, because Keller doesn’t tell us where he got the stuff. Very strange.
The book then transitions to a discussion of the growing income gap between wealthy and poor residents — an unfortunate phenomenon that is hardly unique to Massachusetts, though Keller cites a Mass. Budget and Policy Center study (finally, he gives us a name!) saying that the gap is increasing here faster than anywhere but New York and Arizona. From there, Keller recounts Deval Patrick’s victory based in part on his position that it was more important to cut property taxes than to reduce the income tax, and opines that it’s “unclear, to say the least” whether Patrick will pull that off. And then, bizarrely, he starts talking about Patrick’s
10,000-square-foot summer mansion in the Berkshires — dubbed the “Taj Deval” by a competitor in the Democratic primary ….
Uh, what? And this is connected how, exactly, to whether or not Patrick will succeed in doing something about property taxes? Keller doesn’t tell us. Instead, he recounts the Patrick inaugural (which some here objected to as well, though not because it had anything to do with property taxes), and then sums it all up (p. 31):
Egomania and the shameless bait and switch have been consistent characteristics of liberal boomer stewardship of Massachusetts.
Wait — I thought we were talking about policies that do or don’t successfully address the income gap. Instead, we’re playing the class warfare card, talking about how rich Governor Patrick is, and generalizing from there to “egomania and the shameless bait and switch.” Sorry, but I’m lost.
Keller caps off chapter 1 with righteous anger directed at the rampant hackery found in places like the Lawrence school system (where, apparently, a superintendent spent state education money on a fancy SUV), Massport, and the Turnpike Authority. And while Keller’s more or less blaming 9/11 on “political appointees masquerading as managers” at Massport may be a trifle unfair (neither the hijackers themselves nor the box-cutters with which they were armed were red-flagged at the time), in general the critique is appropriate.
Except that it started with this:
If the facts of who doesn’t prosper in the bluest state aren’t enough to undercut liberal boomer credibility, the sight of who is benefiting seals the indictment.
*sigh* Again with the “liberal boomer” business. First, it’s not the liberals, it’s the Democrats, and they’re not the same — as I’ve said over and over by now. Second, to pretend that this phenomenon is unique to Massachusetts is silly. BMG regulars raj and bostonshepherd — neither of whom is exactly “liberal” or a big friend of the Democratic party — put it well in comments on my earlier post:
[raj:] First with politics. Democratic Massachusetts politics has not been liberal. They have been corrupt. The politicians pay off their buddies, who in turn support them for re-election. It’s incestuous but real.
But, is that different than in other states? Decidedly not. In recent years there have been reports of Republican corruption by at least Taft in Ohio, Ryan in Illinois, the former governor of Connecticut (whose name I don’t recall [it was Rowland -ed.]) and, more recently, Stevens in Alaska. That is just off the top of my head, but I believe that if I were to dig deeper, I’d find a lot more Republican corruption. It isn’t just Massachusetts, and it isn’t just Democrats.
…
[bostonshepherd:] I bet you’ll find as much corruption on both sides of the isle depending upon who is in power.
Because of the Democratic majority in MA, most MA political corruption is Democratic.
I’ll bet it’s the same nationally. I posit that political corruption is highly correlated with positions of power; when the Dem’s are in, they control the levels and the money and corruption swings their way. When the Republicans are running Congress, it’s goes the other way.
Exactly right. See, all you really need to do to understand this stuff is come to BMG. And we don’t even charge $24.95!
The tragedy of this book is that it is fundamentally a screetch of rage — evidently bottled up far too long for the author’s own good — rather than meaningful analysis. Thus, the nonexistent citations and stream of consciousness ranting. What it will serve very well for, however, is to push Keller toward the bright lights of Fox News. I’ll post more later, but I think at this point we need to start thinking a bit about the well being of The Bluest Pundit — after all, he’s one of us Massholes. He obviously has been under far too much stress in recent years. In a certain sense, I wonder: might one read all this as a desperate, coded cry for help? Could John Keller be the pre-enlightenment David Brock of Massachusetts?
Beware of anyone who doesn’t define terms pretty carefully. If Keller never defines what exactly “liberal boomer” politics are, then everything descends into incoherence.
<
p>
So far, what I’m getting is:
<
p>
*Ted Kennedy is bad.
*”Boomers” are self-indulgent, narcissistic.
*”Boomers” are liberal.
*Massachusetts sucks.
*It’s all Ted Kennedy’s fault. And boomers. And liberals. Or something.
<
p>
To quote Owen Meaney, this book is “made for television.”
“seals the indictment”?
<
p>
Meaning no one ever heard about it?
<
p>
Huh?
…seals the indictment refers to a practice in which the fact of the indictment is made public, but the specific charges, and the facts alleged in the indictment are not. There is a rather significant difference.
<
p>
The procedure was probably originally meant not to taint the potential jury pool prior to selection.
BTW – Please visit Red Mass Group (right there on your BMG sidebar) and order the book via the Amazon.com web page there!
<
p>
Mine will be shipped WHEN THE BOOK IN PUBLISHED.
… relied on or talked about a book review before deciding to expend time and or money reading it?
that I haven’t read any of the book.
…and you have done a stellar job with your smack down of Keller.
<
p>
A few observations, from upper to lower.
<
p>
From your blockquote “High-end providers such as teaching hospitals have higher unit costs for surgery…”
<
p>
well of course they (the teaching hospitals) will have higher costs. Why? because they are not just committing surgery, they are also teaching. Where does Keller believe that the next generation of Chirurgs–sorry, surgeons–is supposed to come from? Non-teaching hospitals? That doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
<
p>
Re your blockquote starting at And it gets worse on the next page.
<
p>
We are only the nation’s thirteenth largest state, but rank fifth in median housing costs Easily explained. Nobody particularly wants to live in those other states. That’s why they flee to the Northeast and the West Coast. It is that phenomenon that drives up housing prices in the Northeast and the West Coast.
<
p>
ninth in per-capita state and local tax burden>o? This is patently absurd, as I demonstrated here several weeks ago. I’ll tell you a little story (I love little stories). Several years ago, some friends of ours moved from MA to TX for a job transfer. They were able to buy a house in TX for a fraction of the cost of their rather luxurious abode in MA. TX has no state income tax. But, do you know what? Their property tax on their purchase in TX was several times what the property tax was in MA. The government will get it, regardless of how they put it.
<
p>
ninth-worst in economic burden on small businesses. Doubtful.
<
p>
We have the fourth-highest average auto-insurance Possible, but I note that Keller switched from “median” to “average.” There is a difference, as any statistician would tell you.
<
p>
and natural-gas bills, the sixth-highest electricity prices. This is also moderately interesting. But I doubt that the electricity providers in the NE are subsidized by the federal government. Unlike in the most of the rest of the country.
If not, it will probably be in his next screech. (Or is it screed?) Something must have happened to get Jon Keller all crazy. (Or is it more crazy?) Maybe he’s mad that Alison King of NECN got to spend so much time with Governor Patrick and he didn’t.
<
p>
I thought Jon Keller was a professor somewhere. (I don’t know why I think that.) Did he not learn about footnotes?
<
p>
BMG shows up in a couple of later chapters. There’s a taste of what’s to come in this post.
I wonder wheich quotes I would cherry pick as representative…..
Perhaps he’s trying to pre-spin reviews of the book.
<
p>
You do have the option of not reading his comments until you’ve read the book, if that is your real concern. They’ll be archived, no?
Seems, you, or Keller, ought define what’s Liberal. (maybe the book does)
<
p>
To me anyway, Left versus Right is essentially a struggle between individual leanings of equality versus liberty. Then you have the hot-button issue that defy a liberal or conservative label: abortion, immigration, crop subsidies to name a few.
<
p>
If my definition is the context, then there’s really no question in my mind that Massachusetts with its various safety nets, high taxes (and say what you will, the taxes are high), restrictions on business and landlords, government favoring of unions, etc… is Liberal.
<
p>
Mass: Liberals and lobsters.
<
p>
Furthermore, there’s no question that Romney is conservative and ran on a moderate conservative platform in 1994, and will again in 2008.
<
p>
<
p>
He ran on a no new tax pledge, proposed means tested voucher system in education, opposed taxing businesses to pay for health insurance. Come on. Not a conservative in ’94?
… I know Eric Alterman is working on a new book that covers that issue.
<
p>
You’re right though that the term often gets thrown about in ways that obfuscate what is meant by it.
As to what is “liberal”,…
<
p>
…as far as I can tell, a “liberal” is any other person who agrees with those who proclaim themselves to be “liberal.”
<
p>
Similarly with “libertarians.”
<
p>
Conservatives in the US seem to have a mind control central that dictates to is and isn’t a conservative.
<
p>
I actually do prefer “pragmatic” to “liberal,” “conservative,” “libertarian” or whatever. Identify a problem, agree that there is a problem, figure out a way to solve the agreed-upon problem, and get on with solving it. That strikes me as being pragmatic.
i see pragmatic as being a characteristic possibly held by anyone, whether they be liberal, conservative, etc. after all, the pragmatist must decide how to go about solving the agreed-upon problem. since there is always more than one way (a liberal way, a conservative way, etc), the pragmatist must decide which avenue to take. the liberal pragmatist will choose option A, the conservative pragmatist will choose option B, etc.
<
p>
here is an example. the agreed-upon problem: too many abortions. Liberal Pragmatist solves problem by increasing access to family planning clinics and birth control supplies and institutes comprehensive sex ed in the schools. Conservative Pragmatist criminalizes abortion, and sets up nanny-state adoption services and orphanages to handle the influx of resultant babies. Both people had a pragmatic approach to the problem, but solved it according to their different world views.
the agreed-upon problem: too many abortions. Liberal Pragmatist solves problem by increasing access to family planning clinics and birth control supplies and institutes comprehensive sex ed in the schools. Conservative Pragmatist criminalizes abortion
<
p>
Is it likely that the solution of the conservative “pragmatist” will reduce the number of abortions? We know quite well that that solution will not: it was what was called “back alley abortions.” So it is not a solution at all. What it is, is a subterfuge. And I’m being kind in not calling the fraud a fraud.
<
p>
I’ll let AmberPaw address the issue of foster care and adoption.
on how best to solve the problem. they merely agree on what the problem is (sometimes). the particulars of my example were given only as example of how two pragmatists with differing world views will approach solving the same agreed-upon problem. you’re missing my point if you start to argue one side or the other. the point is that not all pragmatists think alike. some lean left, some right.
that although some pragmatists lean left and some right, i don’t mean to say that none will lean one way on certain issues and another way on other issues. some pragmatists seem to approach the issues in a way the neither qualifies them as left nor right.
They think that aborting a 1 month old fetus is the same as killing a child, so even if their policy drove abortions underground, they’re doing a job well done! They’ll just arrest those murdering would-be mothers who need therapy and health care instead of jail… but that’s all moot. My point is it’s important to try to understand how they think.
… is interesting because:
<
p>
video
the agreed-upon problem: too many abortions. Conservative Pragmatist solves problem by increasing access to family planning clinics and birth control supplies by toppling decades old refusal of Democrats to allow contraception to be covered as medication, and institutes revised sex ed in the schools to allow message that kids do not have to engage in sex to be happy, and that young women deserve respect and self respect and young men deserve to be free from exploitation and peer pressure, complete with free copies of book by recent Milton Academy graduates, Restless Virgins. Liberal Pragmatist criminalizes abstinance education, and sets up nanny-state explicit sex tutorials to encourage safer sexual experimentation, and weakens parental notification laws to handle the influx of resultant abortions.
which you must not have seen
i will therefore not comment on the particulars of the example.
And I agree about Pragmatism. It’s why I’m here – to try to keep BMG Reality Based.
I think a true pragmatist picks and chooses. Increasing access to family planning and birth control supplies PLUS banning and criminalization of some extreme abortion procedures such as late-term and/or partial birth abortion.
<
p>
This is why pragmatists–which is an excellent descriptor of middle of the road types most likely to identify as “independent”– didn’t get all that fussed over the partial birth abortion battles over the last few years. And, from the other side, why they didn’t get all that fussed over RU-486.
I had wanted to offer a revealation to Laurel about what I considered to be very ‘loaded’ language; you have taken the best of both scenarios and arrived at a genuine pragmatic solution.
<
p>
Which is what we need much more of!
I doubt that Laurel would consider my suggestion so much a solution as an affront. As long as James Dobson also would consider it an affront, I am content.
<
p>
Though I can out to your “right” on that wacky questionaire thing last week, it is appareent that this is not so.
you don’t bother to read my comments before replying to them. Your loss.
… I’ll discuss the themes if you like. I know that it was interesting to read in the beginning of John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience, the conundrum he faced in defining “conservative”. Certainly these concepts have been bandied about enough so as to be difficult to define in any consensus, but the exploration of definitions that have been attempted is edifying.
First, liberal meant what it did in Europe and elsewhere – openminded.
<
p>
Then, somewhere down the road in America, it went on to mean left-wing.
<
p>
Then, especially during the protest movements of the 60s, the liberals were stinking up the joint as badly as Republicans… and the word became tainted to progressives such as myself, as well as conservatives, becoming something akin to incompetent leftwingers.
<
p>
Now, two things are happening: conservatives are trying to label all Democrats, even moderates such as Hillary, as ebil liberals. Other Democrats want to take back the term. Why they want it back? I don’t know. I see little sense in being liberal without being progressive. Just favoring left-wing policies without thinking about why they’re important doesn’t really serve to adjust the systemic problems of this country. For example, it’s nice to favor marriage equality and other equality rights, but it’s important to understand and address why that discrmination exists – which, to me, shows the fundamental differences between a progressive and liberal.
At least on the “no new taxes” pledge. From the Globe:
<
p>
I voted for that guy. I wish he had been governor.
Excellent comment.
Thanks for doing the dirty work David.
<
p>
You make a good point about Finneran, who was arguably the most powerful state pol for what, a decade?
<
p>
I caught two minutes of his radio gig this morning where he was bemoaning the Democrats who are “weak on defense” & “soft on terrorism”. He was complaining to a caller about the leading presidential candidates pandering to the “looney left” and “ignoring the center”. He actually invoked Lieberman.
<
p>
Tom Finneran = Liberal Boomer
It didn’t take long to find one of Jon’s sources on the MA economy: The Pioneer Institute put out a white paper titled “Measuring Up? The Cost of Doing Business in Massachusetts” last October.
From that very paper, which incidentally was produced by Global Insight:
<
p>
<
p>
And generally, one of the “liberal boomer” Patrick’s major goals was to increase the state’s economic competitiveness. And so far I’d say he’s doing a fine job — we’ll have to evaluate after a few years of effort.
Does so much of it have to be front-paged?
<
p>
zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
Maybe a longer bit of it on the front page the first time around was justified. But we know what it is when we see the headline now. No more than a paragraph or two is needed.
<
p>
For someone that’s not interested in reading the entire thing (me) it’s a pain in the kazoo to scroll past it all to find posts I might be interested in.
<
p>
If someone wants to read it, they’ll click beyond the flip.
…I agree with you that, now that we know what they are, even only a headline will suffice. And perhaps a paragraph.
<
p>
The bothersome thing about lengthy posts on the front page is that they push older posts into purgatory.
David, the problem here is that you’re using facts and reason to discuss a book, which is apparently concerned with neither. It’s sort of a Battle of Sisyphus, but I applaud you for taking it on.
…before Finneran ran the state from his perch in the House, Bolger ran it from the Senate. He wasn’t particualrly liberal either (to say the least).
<
p>
Not only that but the Turnpike Authority had Republican appointed leadership, as did Massport (Virginia Buckingham for pity sake) and hasn’t Lawrence had a Republican Mayor since 2001 (maybe before)?
<
p>
Perhaps they sniffed the liberal influence in the state and it twisted their minds?
<
p>
On national issues, clearly Massachusetts is on the liberal side. But on state and local politics it has a mixed bag viewed with a longer lens. The current state of the Republican Party in Massachusetts is a result of lots of bad decisions on their part…not the least of which was supporting Finneran for Speaker. Since then they have been on a long, and swift decline.
<
p>
But in the end what Keller shows contempt for is not liberals, but the will of the people, expressed democratically at the ballot box. All these folks were elected by someone…liberal and conservative, Dem and Rep.
…Republicans at the state level haven’t had a respectable presence in MA since the John Volpe, Frank Sargent, Edward Brooke days. They have been able to win governorships, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot.
<
p>
I’ll return to a theme of mine. In MA now, it isn’t an issue of party, it’s who can win the party’s nomination in the primary election. If conservatives want to advance, they have to give more attention to the primary than to the general.
<
p>
Example from Somerville: Scorentino (sp?) beat Cimapa (sp?) by working his butt off in the primary. And he and his supporters won in the primary. Ciampa tried to run a sticker race in the general, and you know who won. It wasn’t Ciampa. Republican candidate? Was there one? It was the moderately liberal Dem vs. the conservative Dem in the primary, and no Repubican to be seen.
<
p>
If Republicans are unable to even field a stable of candidates in the general election in at least half the districts (they didn’t come close in the last election, they don’t have a prayer in the legislature. Charley, David or Bob, what has happened to the Republican party in MA in the last 30 years?
They tend to be just as liberal – or more so – than a solid 1/4 to a 1/3 of Democrats. Hell, most of the Republicans ended up being key allies in the marriage equality debate, including their entire “leadership.”
I would be overjoyed to vote for a moderate or liberal (well, moderate) Republican locally.
<
p>
The trouble is that in order recapture this independent, the local GOP is going to have to open up some serious daylight between it and the national party. Admittedly, that is intensely difficult to do. But that is the challenge they face.
Good stuff. You’re making a good argument on “Democrat vs. liberal” distinction which I find thought-provoking.
<
p>
Still, NY Times has called Massachusetts “possibly the bluest state” in the country. It’s not just Keller.
<
p>
How about this bumper sticker…
<
p>
“MA: Bluest state in USA, but not nearly as blue as you’d think”
We’d be a hell of a lot better off, corruption-wise, if conservatives voted for Republicans as God intended. We’d be less blue, more coherent, and less corrupt.
<
p>
A Mass house run by a GOP Finneran with a slight GOP majority is better than a Democratic Finneran running the entire state as his fief.
I said this already, but Finneran is sort of an outlier — he became speaker because he cut a deal with GOP legislators.
<
p>
Bulger is a better example: he was a conservative Democrat, and he was adept enough in the Beacon Hill environment to eventually run the place.
<
p>
So to your frustration, CMD, I think the Mass. Democratic Party is diverse enough to house some conservatives, whereas the Mass. GOP does not have enough moderates to peel away more Democratic seats. I could be wrong, but that’s how it looks to me.
<
p>
As a crazy, left-of-left liberal, I’d much rather have some honest Republicans in office over some of the conservative Dems that we have now and have had in the past.
<
p>
Of course, I have no desire to see control switch parties, just some house cleaning on the Dem side. I agree we’d end up with better debate, probably more transparency, and less good-old-boy collusion.
would really do wonders for our state government.
<
p>
Of course, I think it would be better for contro, to swap back and forth from time to time (keeps the power in the middle where it belongs) but that’s just me.
in which Mitt says…
<
p>
I am not a Liberal and I have never been a Liberal…
<
p>
I am not a Moderate and I have never been a Moderate!
The more I hear of this book, the more I get the impression that the lion’s share of it was written a few years ago, awaiting the moment when publication would give the author the most publicity. The recent stuff feels so tacked on.
With Deval’s election and Mitt’s candidacy, it appears that time was come.
The premise only makes sense when you white-out “sixteen-years-of-Republican-governors” and Finneran and Bulger and all that.
<
p>
OK, hereafter I’m shortening “sixteen-years-of-Republican-governors” to 16YORG. I’ll have to use it a lot in discussing the book.