Nah, the Times article didn't really tell you anything you didn't already know about Deval and Sal … and actually did tell you some things that aren't true — for instance, that his entire agenda is stalled in the House. Still, the article reflects the conventional wisdom about the Governor's first year-plus in office: Charismatic crusader stymied by establishment. Well, maybe-kinda-sorta.
How did Patrick get into this position? It's only a small part of the picture, but was he blindsided by the fact that many of his supporters couldn't get behind casinos? Well … he didn't ask us — how would he know what we thought?
Patrick continues to be pretty invisible to much of the state. And so the way that most of us see him is behind the drapes curtain of Beacon Hill. He doesn't get out to town hall meetings; he doesn't hold events with the general public to take the temperature of the body politic; in other words, he has indeed lost his political touch.
I don't believe in “political capital”; you're either doing what the public wants, or you're not. And indeed, governing is usually a matter of responding to externalities; if you don't respond to what the public demands, you end up like the Bush administration, with miserable approval ratings that most politicians can't or wouldn't bear.
Governor Patrick has the talent to get involved in that public conversation, perhaps better than anyone I've ever seen. He has the ability to listen, and to be listened to; in other words, to respond to and even create externalities, to shape the Zeitgeist. That was the genius of his campaign: He asked what people wanted from government (eg. property tax relief; an end to a wasteful, unaccountable Big Dig Culture; more generally a strategy of playing to the state's economic and educational strengths) and told them they could have it if they worked for it: Together We Can.
If the Governor gets out of the State House a little more often, he'll slip right back into the flow of the public mood, and figure out how to use it to his advantage, and ours. So far his term has suffered from a bit of a tin ear; he's capable of bringing a lot more poetry to the prose of governance.
A campaign-account funded, weekend-series of town-hall meetings across the state for an extended amount of time would be a good, simple idea.
<
p>Just rent a barn in Athol, a gym in Dudley, a Kiwanis Hall in Florida. Invite people, tell the media and have at it. No agenda, just take questions – for a long time, like 2-3 hours.
<
p>Simple, effective, and a way to hear what’s going on.
<
p>Maybe do it as an annual “Summer Tour” or something, so we know that in July, August and September, Deval will be in our area at some point for a town hall meeting. Then do it in 2008, 2009 and when 2010 comes around, you do it again with an even more political overtone and you also have a record to show you’ve done the outreach. Plus, all this not having done it in 2007 won’t matter. The legislature is out after July 30, so you do it on weekends in July and you have it as your main public events in August while you’re at the Berkshire Governor’s office for the month.
I especially like the denial of political captial–probably the main reason FDR won four elections for President was he was willing to do what the public wanted. His long winning streak didn’t imply too much power in a President–it just meant his track record justified the public giving him power.
The reason for Deval’s invisibility isn’t because he’s shuttered in the State House…it’s because he’s out of state. Whether it’s appearances in Washington DC, or campaigning for Obama, Deval has gotten out of Massachusetts once a week since election. He couldn’t even bother to be around the day of the casino vote.
<
p>Deval’s best bet isn’t spending more time on the campaign trail, it’s spending more time doing his job, and less time aping Mitt Romney.
At the risk of going somewhat contrarian, I’ll disagree somewhat on how it works.
<
p>As I’ve come to see it during the Bush years, “political capital” is real. What it is the resentment in common of a coherent set political blocs to something, turned into a policy position.
<
p>Kerry Healey ran on a now standard Republican platform of trying to find and unite resentments. Thing is, she couldn’t find ones that formed a majority. Trying to gin up the racial one via the white woman menaced by a black man in a parking garage was the last ditch attempt. Her problem was that Romney had pretty much tried and used up every other vein.
<
p>My interpretation of Deval Patrick’s mandate is a bit different. The big one is that with Finneran gone, and relative conservatives like Travaglini leaving, the Democratic supermajorities are unsubverted and coherent in the Legislature. And what they mean, when coherent- as Romney realized bitterly in late 2004 and early 2005- is that the Governor becomes relatively unimportant and loses most of his power to set policy.
<
p>There are also other developments that precede Patrick and limited where to direct his efforts. Flagrant crimes and organized criminality seem at lows; we seem not to have significant sociopathological or organized economically effecting criminality outside the poorest classes. Democrats winning control in Congress did a lot to suppress public fights with the Bush Administration and other states for money and control of various things. Gay marriage also settled, leaving no pressing social issues.
<
p>What Patrick’s real mandate is amounts to two or three things- the lowest tier, bread-and-butter set of economic and ethics/functionality issues. Inside the executive branch, it’s rationalization and decorrupting and de-partisanizing of state government agencies- Big Dig people, the various Romney appointees to e.g. the county courts, fixing up the state college system a bit. The other is to intelligently direct money or effort at what the past couple of Republican governors neglected- minority Boston, the schools, infrastructure, and Springfield-Lowell-Brockton-New Bedford. And do whatever it is to tweak the evolving health care business along. IOW, it’s basically an agenda of dealing with neglected needs, poor management, etc before new things can be done.
<
p>The legislature is presently reflecting some serious middle class voter balking at the details and/or cost. Patrick might be wise to break up the agenda into smaller, individually more palatable bits and get those through. That would mean diffusing most of the credit for the successes to DiMasi and Murray, but he could net improve his standing on quantity of successful small but systematically pursued improvements and projects. That would mean planning for at least two terms as governor, low profile successes, and a number of highly competent and adept people running individual projects/areas. It’s not the fast track career approach and PR-based strategy; it would be about a good amount of delegating and slow, boring backroom work.
<
p>To give the other socioeconomic classes in the state some material to work with and get money flowing, of course there is need to boost frontline industries and retain jobs in less prominent ones. And do enough things that keep the state’s morale up, its attention on progress and efforts to maintain its forerunner status. That’s how I see the casino thing and stuff like Cape Wind, the biotech bill, and the like. If they work out, great. If not, at least the promise remains in the public mind.
I attended one in Lowell regarding the Readiness Project featuring Chris Gabrieli and others, which was attended by both the Governor and Lt. Governor. I found them very willing to listen.
Perhaps I’m overstating my case a bit; how receptive he’s been to public comment probably changes from issue to issue. Do you see such meetings as central to his “governing from the grassroots”? Is he consistent about it?
But—We have a single party legislature. The House Speaker is all powerful. The current speaker is bullet proof at the ballot box. ERGO: Sal DiMasi is and will as long as he so desires, be the boss of Beacon Hill and by extension the state. The governor is powerless and ineffectual. The reps and I think T Murray do as they are told.
<
p>What is it that is so difficult to grasp? Do you actually believe it is on the level? I’ve been watching what goes on there ( the Hill) for over forty years. It hasn’t changed—-not one iota. When there were more Republicans up there the senate president or the speaker had to play ball. Now they do as they damn well please, and it will remain that way until we have a significant increase and power of an opposition party. It could be Whigs for all I care.
Sure, on paper the General Court is overwhelmingly Democratic, not that I’m complaining! However, there are definitely liberal and conservative wings. I wish the rules would change to strip the Speaker of some of his power. Office space should be assigned by lottery, seniority, or committee assignment rather than awarded by the Speaker. Committee chairmanships and memberships should be elected by the whole House rather than appointed by the Speaker. Any legislation passed out of committee should be put on the calendar and not just the bills the Speaker likes.
I believe that items on the House Calendar shows which bills were reported from a Committee or the Ways and Means Committee – I don’t think the Speaker chooses what goes on the Calendar, however he does have influence over which bills are reported by the committees.
I absolutely agree with MCRD.
A one-party state is really a no-party state.
<
p>I’m a Democrat, but my party would be a whole lot better, and serve the public good better, if it faced some principled opposition.
<
p>Unfortunately, there is none. The Greens have demonstrated repeatedly that they are not ready for prime time. The Libertarians have never been serious. The Working Families thing seems to be the first move in a strategy that was never thought out past the first move.
<
p>Doesn’t seem to be anyone else out there, but maybe that will change.
is not more Republicans. What we need are better Democrats. That means picking up open seats; picking off corrupt or overly hack Dems in party primaries; and in any case electing reform minded and public spirited representatives — who can always elect a new speaker.
<
p>Let stop sucking our thumbs and get serious.
Given all the flak he took, from his base of all places, regarding casinos he would have done well to have town meetings on that issue. With certain people going so far as to even question his integrity I wish he had more publicly and consistently defended himself and the decision process on that one.
Patrick won as a genuinely grassroots candidate. I think what we are seeing is that it is hard for him to govern that way. But, if he is to succeed, he probably has to.
<
p>Sure, his oratorical gifts were and are an asset. But the issue is power, where to get it and how to use it. The plan of playing the game on Beacon Hill may bear fruit eventually, but not so far. The gambling gambit does not seem to have advanced this particularly either.
<
p>Patrick’s base lies off of Beacon Hill. Can he tap into it in a form he can use? Or are his options too limited, his temperament too unsuited to that? I honestly do not know.
http://medianation.blogspot.co…
<
p>Glad to say that I’m one of the few that voted for Muffy on this board. Unbelievable…
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…