Here’s another sorta parallel.
Spitzer’s first hostile act as governor-a gentle one, by Spitzer standards-occurred in his inaugural speech. “Like Rip Van Winkle,” he pronounced, “New York has slept through much of the past decade while the rest of the world has passed us by.” The remark, evocative and accurate as it may have been, struck many present as indecorous, disrespectful not only of George Pataki, his predecessor, who was in attendance, but of Bruno and Silver, the presumably somnambulant collaborators, who were seated right behind Spitzer. “That was a cheap shot,” Jack McEneny, a Democratic assemblyman, told me. “Save it for the Bronx Democratic dinner.”
Patrick annoyed the powers-that-be in his inaugural address as well, not because of what he said, but because of where he held it — outside, in a break with longstanding tradition. This annoyed the old guard.
Patrick’s attempt to overhaul a long tradition has set off opposition among legislators, who say privately that they do not wish to sit outdoors for the festivities in the January cold…. Neither Travaglini nor DiMasi would comment on Patrick’s plan, but some legislators privately scoffed at the idea. “It’s freezing cold out there,” said one state senator. “No one will show up.”
Of course, large throngs showed up — helped by the unseasonably warm weather on that day. I said at the time that the outdoor inauguration was a great idea, and I continue to think it was. It was an excellent symbol that government really is for the people, not for the folks inside the building. I actually wish Patrick would do more stuff like that. If I have one major criticism of Patrick’s first year in office, it’s that he needs to get out more.
Here’s another good one from New York — a direct quote from Spitzer.
“Editorial boards desperately want reform but yet desperately don’t want the discomfort of seeing people fighting. And so there is a sort of a schizophrenia. They see us fighting and they say, ‘Can’t you guys get along?’ Well, the answer is, you know, maybe not.”
I really like Spitzer’s comment about editorial board schizophrenia. We’ve got the same situation here. Remember this Globe editorial?
Governor Patrick’s simmering dispute with the Legislature over slow action on his initiatives is threatening to escalate into a boiling feud. The issues facing the state are too important – and the areas of policy agreement too broad – to allow personal pique to become a roadblock to progress…. It is time to take a deep breath.
Complaints about the sclerotic House and Senate are hardy perennials on Beacon Hill. The Legislature moves at its own pace, often with a flurry of activity at session’s end. This year is no different…. Patrick ran as a reformer who wanted to shake up the status quo. But the products of government are as important as the process.
On Tuesday, House Judiciary Committee chairman Eugene O’Flaherty may have said it best: “Let’s just rewind and restart our relationship.” The voters want, and deserve, leaders who know how to get to yes.
Now, that’s not completely wrong. But it is partly wrong, IMHO — it reflects exactly the discomfort with actual confrontation that Spitzer was talking about. Confrontation is not always bad. Politicians like Patrick and Spitzer are trying to walk a very fine line — they really do want to get stuff done, but they also want to continue tapping into the public’s frustration with business-as-usual governance. That’s what got them elected, and that’s what can help drive their agenda, if they play it right. Playing it right is difficult, as both men have learned. Here’s hoping they keep at it.
Oh, and by the way, neither of them is completely averse to doing things the old-fashioned way.
To some astonishment, the three men [Spitzer, Senate leader Joe Bruno, and Assembly speaker Shelly Silver] managed to come to an agreement on a budget by the April 1st deadline, but they did so in a closed-door session that gave rise to bitter complaints that Spitzer had condoned and participated in the kind of secrecy that he had promised to eliminate.
Sound familiar?
Next, this part of the article sums up a problem that is not unique to NY or to MA, but that reflects coverage of politics in general. We’re seeing it right now in the presidential campaign.
The problem for Spitzer, and for the citizens of New York, is that the actual substance of state governance (the policy) and the application of it (the politics) are numbing. Health-care-reimbursement formulas, county-government structure, development-agency debt structure: these are not the things that capture a citizen’s-or an editor’s-imagination.
And yet, those are the things that really matter. As mind-numbing as municipal finance and pension reform may be, those are the kinds of things that determine whether there’s enough money to pay the cops and hire the teachers. And on the national level, CNN would rather ask the candidates whether they believe every word of the Bible than how they would fix Medicare or have a serious discussion about Iran. (There is hope, though — NPR, to its great credit, recently held a two-hour debate among the Democrats (they are trying to schedule a time with the Republicans too) that covered only three topics: Iran/Iraq, China, and immigration. Well done.) The media has a real role to play in covering this stuff, and it ought to play it.
Finally, some up-summing that seems relevant here as well as in NY.
Executive-branch history is strewn with lousy first years. People often compare Spitzer with Rudy Giuliani, for his aggressive tenure as a prosecutor and for his combative, enemy-strewn governing style. But there are other useful analogues: Michael Bloomberg, whose billionaire’s scorn for political ritual and collaborative capital in his first two years earned him abysmal public-approval ratings; Bill Clinton, whose ill-advised or poorly handled initiatives (gays in the military, health care) derailed his first-term agenda and handed Congress to the Republicans; and Teddy Roosevelt, another hard charger, whose confrontational ways as governor so infuriated the powers that be in New York that they had him drafted as President William McKinley’s running mate, just to get rid of him.
And similarly (now quoting Spitzer),
“The media says, Oh, Spitzer, you went to Albany, you were going to change everything. It’s October. What’s happened? My attitude is, Guys, I’m playing for the long game. . . . I’m patient. I don’t look it. I don’t act it. You know what? I’m disciplined to know this isn’t a one-inning game. And I’m learning that. I’m learning that.”
Spitzer started out charging very hard; made a lot of people mad; made some quite big mistakes (TrooperGate being the worst); and now his approval ratings are lousy and he’s got a lot of rebuilding work to do. Patrick started out slower — some (like me) might argue too slow; early on he made some smaller mistakes that nonetheless got a lot of press coverage; but lately he’s had a string of modest successes, a
nd his ratings aren’t bad. He’s also got some big and far-reaching stuff teed up — keep an eye out for it.
So far, Patrick is looking rather like a tortoise to Spitzer’s hare. And so far the tortoise is looking pretty good.
He has done absolutely nothing. Nothing. It’s hard to believe, all that talk, “Much sound and fury signifying nothing”. Together We Can. And as many pointed out out: Together we can—what.
<
p>One thing can be said re the governor: his status quo policy has certainly kept everything as is. He has helped no one, he has hurt no one.
<
p>The governor has certainly stated he will do this and that and made declarations, that are soon whimpers, then nothing.
<
p>He’s not all bad. I can live with that.
I love the smell of government gridlock in the morning….
<
p>The Deval v. Spitzer comparison seems to end right after, 1) they’re both new Governors and 2) they have no articulated agenda.
<
p>Spitzer’s ineffectiveness derives not only from his lack of an articulated vision, but more importantly his nastiness: recall early on when he tactfully called opponents factually wrong, legally wrong, morally wrong, ethically wrong. Way to win compromise! Spitzer, now as governor, continues his same old ways which was, and is, attempt to destroy anyone who disagrees with him, like he did when he threatened to destroy Goldman Sachs exec John Whitehead.
<
p>Spitzer can’t persuade anyone with anything short of a large club. Funny how people resist that, or worse for him, fight back.
<
p>Patrick, on the other hand, seems like a nice guy: congenial, well spoken, conciliatory and certainly no nastiness. But unfortunately, he enters with a nice pedigree, but also no real goal. Change. Whatever that means: More casinos? Gay marriages legalized? Loopholes closed? Government waste in Medicaid addressed?
<
p>I means, seriously, what’s this change you seek? If you could snap a finger and change something in Mass, what would it be?
<
p>You said it, if he’s not doing anything, at least he (Spitzer or Patrick) hasn’t hurt anyone.
DP will have been of real benefit to the state if he accomplishes only what he’s done so far: reversal of Romney’s 9C cuts that would have devasted human services, returning the state to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, defending marriage rights for same-sex couples, initiating responsible conversation about funding options for the services we need, and focusing on economic development and longer term planning for the state, for example the Readiness project. It’s only been a year – we can expect much more over the course of his term.
I can’t agree completely. Patrick doesn’t have nearly the role of Terry Murray and Sal DiMasi in defending marriage equality. I don’t see how “initiating a responsible conversation” is anything other than a series of speeches, especially given a common gripe here is that nobody significant is joining the “conversation” — it’s just Patrick and his supporters admiring each other. If DiMasi is ignoring Patrick, how responsible a conversation is it? I just don’t see anything here that is unique to Deval, rather than having a mildly competent governor who is a Democrat.
<
p>And if Patrick gets his way introducing casino gambling and its attendant social burdens, most of his “accomplishments” get wiped out in balance.
<
p>Stuff I don’t say here, I say here.
They were talking about reducing the income tax rate, while property taxes went through the roof and overrides were tearing towns apart. The lege isn’t agreeing with every cost-containment and funding option DP has proposed, but at least we’ve got some serious proposals on the table and parts of the Municipal Partnership have already passed. We’ll see some more good work out this Governor before he’s done.
He is obliged to try to persuade lazy and somewhat corrupt career politicians to take positive action, which is something they are very unaccustomed to doing. As long as he keeps trying, I can’t say a bad word about him. He’s infinitely better than the Mitt-bot.
Very interesting, well-written essay, David.
<
p>I wonder only about
<
p>
<
p>It seems you’re combining 2 things. One was charging hard on policy and reform. Spitzer did that and settled in to the 54 support/38 oppose range in his first several months of office.
<
p>Then Troopergate. It first hit in July, and really festered in August. Since then, his negatives are up by 10+ points without much new on the policy side.
<
p>So I question your wise tortoise/silly hare set-up. Spitz was rocking as a tortoise. Troopergate would have sunk him whether he was a tortoise or a hare.
that the damage from TrooperGate (and other Spitzer missteps) was considerably worse because of Spitzer’s hare-like determination to piss off every member of his own party. When the sht ht the f*n over TrooperGate, no one stepped up for him. No one even pretended to give him the benefit of the doubt. They were all enjoying it, Dems and GOoPers alike. Had he not unnecessarily alienated most of his own party over the Hevesi business and other matters, it wouldn’t have gone that way.
I wish I could take comfort in one of Aesop’s wonderful fables to characterize favorably the results of Governor Patrick’s first year in office. A more apt characterization of Gov. Patrick’s first year would be his performance as Winnie the Pooh in the A.A. Milne story of Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Pot. In the Patrick administration version, Gov. Patrick takes so much time contemplating, tasting, soliciting, and gorging honey (i.e. various social and economic policies) from the honey pot (the Mass. Legislature), that the guiding hand of the Governor gets stuck in the honey pot. Presently, it appears that Gov. Patrick will need the efforts of external intervention (grassroots supporters from Team Patrick) and a parent bear (his new chief of staff and senior policy advisors) to try to pry his hand from the clutches of Speaker DiMasi’s honey pot and advance his policy agenda in a successful way.
<
p>Whether its his casino gambling plans, the corporate tax resturcturing initiative, or the Fernald school redevelopment and community-based care for its residents, Gov. Patrick spends an inordinate period of time personally investigating, soliciting, weighing, and deciding to execute his social and economic plans and programs. This gives his political opponents in the Legislature, in the business community, and in the various advocacy communities ample time to organize their opposition to his floated and ciruclating policy plans and programs. Consequently, by the time the Governor announces his final proposal to address an issue, it becomes termed by the Legislature and/or key interest groups as “Dead on Arrival.” Then, the Governor must negotiate with the Legislature and other interest groups from a politically disadvantageous position.
<
p>Initially, I believed that the reason for Gov. Patrick’s deliberateness in his decisonmaking process represented an admirable commitment to democratic participation and intellectual curiousity. However, after reviewing the dubious substance and policy incoherence of his many of his proposals, I have come to the alternative conclusion that the protracted process by which Governor develops policies and program proposals actually reflects his paucity of substantive policy knowledge and his absence of any previous professional experience with many pivotal government fiscal and social matters.
<
p>There is a more than a strategic drawback with the Governor conducting a six-month field teaching/learning seminar on key public policy issues before developing a proposal to address that social or economic issue. It is that too often Gov. Patrick’s final proposals reflect a potpourri of contradictory and inconsistent policy ideas and programs designed to mollify all sides of a contentious issue, but result in just unecessarily increasing the fiscal and social costs to Massachusetts. The Governor’s proposal to build three casinos in Massachusetts while simulataneously substantially expanding monies to combat increased gambling and alcohol addiction and crime connected with casino gambling illustrates but one example of the Governor’s mish-mash, incoherent, and overly solicitous approach to policymaking.
<
p>I do not question Gov. Patrick’s motives or intentions. He seems to truly desire making the state a better place to be educated, work, raise a family, vacation, and retire. If the Governor does not expedite and enhance the quality and coherence of his decisionmaking process, he just may end up as turtle soup in Nov. 2010 served to a Republican party starving for a comeback victory after four years out of the Corner Office.
But Governor patrick has absolutely no idea what he is dong. Unfortunately the first three months of his tenure were excused as being misteps, but in fact, this is who he is: Pablum.Lukewarm. Inoffensive. He’s ho hum. It’s really hard to get angry with the guy because he is so mediocre. He’s like the little kid on a H.S. football team who is a bench warmer, but everyone loves him because he is very likeable.
<
p>Worse he seems to surround himself with the same kind of people. Very nice, inoffensive , and ineffectual. I would rather a John Silber, or a John Bolton. Miserable bastards that get stuff done.
<
p>Three more years of scrambled eggs—hold the picante.
I appreciate your very careful analysis here eddiecoyle.
<
p>There was a post a few months back about how the policy development apparatus in our state government had been whittled away. Sixteen years of lowering the expectations on government will do that.
<
p>Quite possibly, this does not reflect a deficiency in Patrick’s policy making ability so much as an institutional deficiency.
<
p>I think an Administration that wanted to push stuff through the legislature would probably have proposals that appeared fully formed so that opposition cannot be lined up. Just as you suggest. That’s not the kind of politics Deval Patrick seems to like or want.
Your points about the decaying of the policy development apparatus in Massachusetts government and sixteen years of diminished expectations about state government are well-taken.
<
p>Maybe, Speaker DiMasi could shop at at second-hand rugs and furniture stores and pass on the savings to restoring the moribund Legislative Research Bureau, which used to provide state legislators and executive agencies with quality research on a broad spectrum of public policy and management issues
David, that was an interesting comparison…but one section you quoted :
” At a Sept. 7 debate, Patrick said: “I have no obligations, no debts to the political establishment on Beacon Hill. If you want the same old same old, the politics of money and connections, I’m not your guy. But if what you want is the politics of hope and a change of culture on Beacon Hill, I am your guy, and I want your vote.” When he won the Democratic primary Sept. 19, he exulted, “Let them hear that on Beacon Hill.” He has since aired a television commercial linking Healey to “the failed politics of Beacon Hill.”…
<
p>Change the words “Beacon Hill” to “Washington DC”…and the name “Healey” to “Hillary”…and it sure bears a striking resemblance to the rhetoric of the presidential primaries…my concern is that Obama’s campaign is just a national version of Patrick’s effort here in Massachusetts…long on rhetoric, short on specific action plans…it makes one nervous to anticipate an Obama Presidency…long on hope, short on action.
Caving to enemies! A la N. Chamberlain.
I think that what we’ve learned about changing culture on Beacon Hill is that it isn’t going to happen in one election. It’s sadly going to take some baby steps.
<
p>Specifically, we need to change things in the House of Represenatives. We need to elect progressives throughout Beacon Hill. We need to make sure leadership is inline with our thinking on having adult conversations on how to address our revenue issues, on how to make health care affordable, on how to improve our educational system so everyone is able to benefit from the nation’s greatest k-12 program.
<
p>These are things that are going to take a long time, but we can and – I truly believe – we will accomplish it. We just need to focus on the grassroots, focus on the small elections. My grandmother always likes to say, “watch your pennies, because dollars take care of themselves.” Well, I think we need to watch our state leg and senate seats, because the Corner Office will take care of itself.
I’d say that, at this rate, it’s not going to happen.
<
p>The choice is not clear and polarized. It’s muddy and murky. It commands little interest. Representatives get re-elected based on constituent services and local aid more than for the ship-of-state reasons we would want. So instead of “Republicans versus Democrats” we have “these Democrats versus those Democrats” with the theses and thoses very hard to distinguish.
<
p>Until progressives (possibly with the Governor’s help) can articulate a clear vision so that voters can say, “I want that!” we will see glacial changes in the House of Representatives.
<
p>It’s like we need a Plan for Massachusetts. People campaign on the Plan. “I’m for it,” some will say. “I’m against it.” At least voters will know. Something might change.
There are many more progressives now than 4 or 6 years ago. Even the leadership is a gazillion times more progressive than then. Slowly, progressives have been entering races and winning them. They’re having a difficult time doing it against incumbents, but just check out Carl Sciortino’s seat to see that even democratic incumbents in democratic, fairly conservative districts can lose to progressives.
<
p>Why? Because we believe things that the populace at large do, too, despite the fact that they haven’t been served well by their incumbents in getting those things. Affordable, universal health care is the best example. However, the environment, universal quality education and all sorts of other things are perfect examples, too.
<
p>If a progressive runs a competent, grassroots campaign – IDing voters, raising money, knocking door to door every day (including the candidate) and getting volunteers to knock and use phones – all in the quest to both deliver the message and ID the support, then we can beat just about anyone. There are a lot of intelligent progressives running these campaigns – such as Carl Sciortino’s – paying dividends on Beacon Hill.
Sciortino’s district is not that conservative. Some of it is, but the Davis Square/Tufts area was not Vinnie Ciampa land.
<
p>A related problem, by the way, with this not being clear and even polarized, is that there is insufficient continuity between campaigns. I don’t know where the Robert Reich IDs disappeared to, but, in my home town, they’re gone. They would have been useful.
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…