The Phoenix has a good editorial on Governor Patrick's political style, or lack thereof. While I recommend everyone read it, really, there's only one person who needs to see it, and that's the governor himself. The Governor seems to think of himself as a Chief Operating Officer, making sure a steady stream of initiatives keeps coursing through the pipes of state. I get the emails and press releases — there is no lack of activity in the Corner Office, and beyond. “No need to sweat the petty stuff — after all, we're taking on big reforms,“ the Gov seems to say.
But I simply cannot agree with the attitude that it's “too early to focus on politics.” Governing emphatically is politics. The governor is a politician. A governor (or president, for that matter) who doesn't care about what the public is talking about, who doesn't pay attention to polls, who doesn't feel the Zeitgeist … will not keep his job, and at the very least will not pass his agenda intact. It's that simple.
I am not diminishing the importance of actual policy and management. But that's why he has a cabinet and a (very busy and hardworking) staff. The Governor himself, on the other hand, needs to engage the public — to set priorities and themes, and a few achievable goals. Only the Governor can do this. Does this sound like a figurehead job, or like PR? Like “government by soundbite and photo op”? Guess what? It is. But that's actually an enormous responsibility.
The lack of focus, visibility, and message discipline has had a political cost, which can indeed end up in substantive, policy costs. In spite of the whirlwind of activity, the public is unsure the governor is actually accomplishing anything. We shouldn't be surprised that the Governor's poll ratings show him in trouble. And my sense, unfortunately, is that this is not just a snapshot of a politician during a bad week. I have friends — folks generally inclined to be supportive of the Governor — asking what exactly has he accomplished?
Now, I can answer that pretty easily. (Biotech, transportation bond issue, gay marriage, keeping health care law together and strong, health care costs law, oceans, renewable energy, corporate tax loopholes, police details, auto insurance, broadband to western MA; and ethics reform, transport reform, and pension reform this year.) But most people can't — even the well-informed. And that means that a.) maybe these reforms just aren't that salient in their lives, and/or b.) most folks haven't been engaged persistently enough to be made aware.
People don't trust the state government. And trust is built by small gestures, not just the grand ones. As the Phoenix says, we have a communications problem between the Governor and the populace. They're talking past each other: to the public, Marian Walsh or the sheriffs becomes the flashpoint for all the cynicism about government. These things are the tip of the iceberg — simply a part that represents a much, much bigger whole: The hundreds of stories that don't see the light of the Herald's front page or Andrea Estes' notebook.
In letting these stories find traction, the Governor permits the public to imagine that he doesn't care about the bigger issues embodied by these specifics — i.e. the Big Dig Culture at large, the suspicion that government essentially works for the benefit of the well-connected, not the broad public. Surely this is an impression that the governor would wish to correct. Restoring trust begins with the small stuff — people won't trust you on the big stuff otherwise.
Times are tough right now. People do not feel that the governor is solving their problems. And maybe he can't: The commonly stated agenda items of a few years ago — property tax relief, longer school year, etc. — these things are simply not in play, given the current fiscal situation. We will not see them anytime soon. The best we can hope for is that the stimulus money keeps us from sinking too fast until the economy comes back. (Hoping against hope.) And the Governor must hope that the public gives him credit for paddling hard upstream.
Therefore, there's a ton riding on the Big Three Reforms this year. My guess is that of all things the governor needs politically, it's taking down the tolls west of 128. It's good and fair policy on the merits; but it's also one of those tangible, noticeable things one can point to — where even detractors can say, “At least he took down the tolls.”
Right now — March 2009 — is a pivotal point for Governor Patrick's term; when the public's perceptions become hardened, and possible rivals decide whether to jump in. It's long past time for the Governor to play some politics. He's good at it, after all.
PS: All this being said … the Caddy stuff is still stupid, and, yes, trivial. Give it a rest, everyone.
Mr. Rubin- Have you thought about a position in your administration for a guy who thinks as clearly as this? You could do worse and some may argue you have.
The Caddy stuff is trivial, but it shows that he still doesn’t get the politics of it. No one is saying he should hold a press conference announcing that he’s now going to drive a 1998 Ford Fiesta, but would it have killed him to quietly shed the car for something a little less expensive (or at least symbolically expensive) in solidarity with the citizens of the Commonwealth who are also scaling back?
It’s here. His summary:
<
p>
Governing by politics will drive perverse results.
<
p>Any action will make both friends and enemies, but probably more enemies than friends. For example, instituting civilian flag wavers made a lot of cops very mad. I don’t think it made the rest of the population equally happy, I doubt it won over any voters, yet I’m convinced it drove some away.
<
p>The political thing to do would have been to do nothing — like every Republican governor we had over the past 16 years.
<
p>Regarding taking down tolls outside of 128, that will require raising the gas tax — revenue has to come from somewhere. So that will make a lot of voters very unhappy — probably enough to vote against Patrick. I don’t think it will convert an equal number of opponents to his side.
<
p>In short, accomplishing anything even somewhat sigificant and controversial results in an electoral loss. I guess that’s why things get drawn out in government — gives you more time to do the non-controversial things.
<
p>If you sit down with a conservative or even one of the people raring Patrick as unfavorable and tell them “I’ve got a guy who will reform state pensions, eliminate the Turnpike Authority, replace expensive cops with civilian flag wavers, and put in ethics reform”, they’d be drooling. But tell them it’s Deval Patrick and they reel in terror. Why? I think because of the gas tax and the circus that is surrounding it — a populist fire being fanned largely by Patrick opponents in this state.
It still seems to miss the point.
<
p>Chunks of concrete are falling off the Bowker underpass!
<
p>Governor Patrick ran on a campaign of change — and then doesn’t seem to have changed anything.
<
p>Here some questions I’m hearing from my neighbors (all folks who supported Governor Patrick in the last election):
<
p>When was the last time all three travel lanes of the Tobin bridge were open? When are they scheduled to open?
<
p>When was the last time all underground Green Line stations didn’t look like eyesores? When will the mess be cleaned up?
<
p>Why isn’t anybody doing anything about the collapse of the MBTA?
<
p>Where on earth will we get the billions of dollars needed for our bridges, tunnels, highways, and mass transit?
<
p>Most frequently, and most loudly:
Why isn’t Governor Patrick doing anything about the corruption?
<
p>This last question is why the Marian Walsh thing has been so devastating. It isn’t just her salary. Rightly or wrongly, it has given the impression that Governor Patrick uses public resources to reward his friends and supporters just like “the rest of them”.
<
p>That, my friends, is devastating. Governor Patrick will have a very hard time running on “change you can believe in” the next time around — unless he makes some very dramatic changes right now.
<
p>I don’t take the Tobin, so can’t comment specifically. However, active construction sites are exactly what we’re talking about when we discuss “shovel ready” road & bridge projects — which means lane closures and driving inconvenience. The nightly closures of Storrow Drive make me crazy, but I recognize that it’s necessary. If the lanes have been closed for ages with no progress, though, that’s a different thing.
<
p>
<
p>A good question … but, actually, progress is being made. Kenmore is finally almost done, and Arlington is actually getting there. The delays have been inexcusable (not to mention the incompetence that led to damaging Old South Church in the Copley Sq. project). But things are finally moving.
<
p>
<
p>Are your neighbors lobbying their friends, neighbors, and legislators, to support the gas tax increase?
<
p>
<
p>Here, I agree that the Governor could be doing much better. His ethics bill was a good effort that contains many worthy reforms. But the bigger picture is the essence of Charley’s post, with which I entirely agree.
In October of 2008 we get this headline on MassLive.com.
<
p>Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick to cut $1 billion from budget in wake of financial turmoil which shows these cuts:
<
p>
<
p>It doesn’t matter what the rational or funding for the hiring of Marian Walsh or Carol Aloisi, it’s all in the perception, how it looks, and what people are taking away from what they do and don’t see in the media.
But isn’t this just sleight of hand?
<
p>Every time there is a fiscal crisis involving layoffs, there is always an argument made that goes like this:
<
p>”Why are we landscaping the schools at the same time we are laying off teachers”.
<
p> — or —
<
p>”Why are we hiring a new manager in the school department when we are laying off police”.
<
p>Those arguments assume that it is possible to serially rank every task and function in an organization, and then eliminate them from the bottom up. That’s a false assumption, in my opinion — yet it relies on taking two unrelated data points from two unrelated places and comparing them in a way that seems outrageous.
<
p>In reality eliminating the landscaping of the schools probably isn’t going to save many teacher jobs — but it sure will make the schools like abandoned, won’t it? Yet there is this false linkage brought up by people who are dissatisfied when their service is affected.
<
p>Deval Patrick was correct when he said that the Marian Walsh thing was trivial, though it was a politically stupid thing to say. Presumably her salary comes from his budget, a budget that he can decide how to use. The money just isn’t that fungible from place to place within the same year — and it isn’t on the same scale. If he didn’t hire her, tolls wouldn’t go down.
<
p>Yes, a lot of this is appearance, but appearance can be deceiving. I don’t know what Marian Walsh is going to do, but I have more faith in Deval Patrick to assume that he is just going to be paying her to sit at a desk. I realize that his detractors don’t have that kind of faith, and that others are on the fence and can be easily swayed by a few of these data points.
<
p>So what is the best defense?
the best defense is to tell someone what Ms. “I’m not worth $175K; I’m worth $125K” Walsh actually will do:
<
p>1: HEFA is a dinky little non-profit that via the magic of a tax statute turns taxable bonds into non-taxable.
<
p>2: Her position is a position within said dinky little non-profit that has been empty for over a decade.
<
p>3: It’s a dinky little non-profit that one person operating from his desk with a part-time secretary could run because it relies 99.9999% on onside professional who actually execute the bond issue and sale-leasebacks.
<
p>So, fine, it’s not trivial. Bad choice of words; all agree. Defend the move by – you know – actually telling the world i) what the lady’s job will entail and ii) why she’s qualified to do it and iii) what the other people, similarly paid at this I-R-Friends-of-the-Gov Inc. actually do from nine to five.
in the article mentioned in my above above comment.
<
p>
<
p>If this had been equally conveyed in the article, it might have made a difference in perception. It was briefly mentioned I think in a three sentence paragraph.
<
p>
I imagine the greatest threat to Deval’s re-election is another Democrat, whether or not s/he runs as a Democrat. The conversation isn’t so much as “how is Deval better than nobody” or “how is Deval better than Healey”. The electorate has easy answers for that, and this is not the real choice at stake.
<
p>How is Deval better than Gabrieli, Reilly…or Cahill? What has Deval done that they wouldn’t have? I look at that list and can’t find anything Chris Gabrieli wouldn’t have done…and maybe he’d have cleaned out the corruption that Deval has apparently decided to tolerate.
<
p>Yes, our governor has the political tone-deafness of a first-timer, which he is. And were he the governor in Pennsylvania, Oregon, or Iowa, his staff would probably be proofreading their resumes. But as long as he rules in Massachusetts, he’s still a safe bet for re-elect — pretty much not matter what.
PA, Oregon or Iowa, his current staff wouldn’t be working for him. They are guilty of malpractice in another state but in Mass all they have to do is hop on the BMG newsgroup, recite ‘civilian flaggers’ as if it’s the Lord’s Prayer, and continue to run for reelection.
The writing was on the wall…
Patrick got into his car headed to NY for the book deal in the midst of the casino vote, Doug Rubin should have either stood in front of the car until someone talked our CEO governor off the ledge or resign. He did neither.
Not much is happening on the Tobin, the Green Line stations, the MBTA fiscal meltdown, or most of the tunnel, airport and other transportation-oriented assets because the governor has little control over them despite his board appointments.
<
p>And they’re protected by the legislature from any interference from the corner office or outside reforms.
<
p>Ditto for corruption. The political support required,the votes needed, to implement ethics reform must, by definition, come from the patroons engaged in the corruption (or related by blood or marriage to those doing it.)
<
p>Fat chance. One Party Rule, Forever!
I think his window of opportunity to get out there and start making his case is getting really narrow. From the Phoenix link above
couldn’t be more true.
<
p>He does have to get out there and speak to the people much more than he has been. They are crying out for it. Be our leader, set the tone, bring back a spirit of pride and trust and faith.
<
p>
Early in his term the Governor held town hall meetings throughout the state, but I haven’t heard about those in a while. I’m concerned about the suggestion he should look at polls more. That strikes me as a big criticism of President Clinton’s style – that he governed too much by following public opinion rather than leading it. Finally what is the Governor to do about corruption? Most of what we hear about is from the legislature which separation of powers pretty much requires they clean up on their own initiative. Appointing Marian Walsh does not make the Governor corrupt unless he was bribed to do it a la Rod Blagoivich, and nobody has suggested that.
I believe the Governor has been going on “town meeting” tours every year as soon as the budget cycle ends at the end of June. You can see videos of the ten he did in 2008. http://www.youtube.com/massgov… He did one on NECN last night and there may have been others (I don’t Twitter).
How many people actually hear and see what goes on at town meetings? The Governor should do what Obama is doing now – get on TV as much as possible and sell his program.
<
p>His strength during the campaign was his ability to speak to political ideals and inspire people. He has to do that now in a way that answers the concerns about corruption, etc. tht people have.