Even as these questions are posed, one must remember that Teddy wasn’t Teddy in 1962. Save for a Jack Kennedy or Barack Obama, talent grows slowly in the Senate. Achievement is measured in decades, not years. The attractions of the presidency tempt those who grow tired of the Senate’s saucer-cooling languidness. In Massachusetts we Democrats know these temptations well – Kennedy 80′, Tsongas 92′ and Kerry 04′. Patience will be required to see this 100th Senator, standing, as they will be, at the bottom of the greatest of institutional pecking orders, become a master of the Senate, if they themselves can wait that long.
Both Michael Capuano and Martha Coakley have sound records in public office. They both started in local and regional politics, working their way up the chain to statewide and national offices. I believe either could make a fine Senator given their clear capabilities and that both would pursue a progressive agenda befitting the State they’d represent. Who though could reach greatness at some point in the office – best ticking the question boxes I have set out above?
I’m not sure at this point. I like Coakley’s intellect, her workmanlike demeanor and ability to pick out issues of substance that aren’t always headline grabbing. Her thoughtful approach to legal work could suit the Senate, where thoroughness and effective case making are prized skills. I like Capuano’s passion and experience as a problem-solving Mayor and legislator. He quickly was able to become a player in Congress, which should bode well for his success in the Senate, and is fearless in advocating a progressive agenda. We therefore have two good choices to pick from even if it is difficult to predict what type of Senator either would be.
You will have noted that I have not included Congressman Steve Lynch in this dissertation. This is because, while respecting much about his story and political skill, I do not believe he would offer Massachusetts the strong progressive voice our State and nation needs. Too often he seems to reflect a cynical center-right populism, which, while underrepresented in our State’s congressional delegation, would not do our State any favors if brought to the national stage via our votes. There is already one Joe Lieberman in the Senate. Two would be two too many. Other candidates though may emerge that could offer such a progressive voice and of course I will consider them as well.
During the next four months I will be seeking hints from Coakley and Capuano as to who can go beyond their obvious skills to suggest they can best fill this storied seat. Four months we have to make a decision that we will likely live with for decades. No small stakes those and no small shoes to fill either.
Appreciate and concur with how you’ve framed this, especially the first and fifth points. One small distinction: Ted’s political greatness was bigger than, “…the passion and outspoken belief in government and service as means to provide social justice.” It was passion for social justice itself.
<
p>The class warfare that Reaganism fomented in the ’80’s pitted a rapacious, backward laws-of-the-jungle ideology versus the enlightened ideal of a just society rooted in a patriotic social contract. Right-wing conservatives fundamentally oppose social justice and believe conservative elites should reign; in the face of ruthless right-wing assaults, Kennedy never surrendered his belief in the truth that social justice is a precious ideal toward which we must continually strive and bequeath to all Americans –regardless of wealth, status, religious belief, or race.
<
p>As for the Coakley & Capuano: both seem skilled, workman/woman-like and committed to core progressive values. I don’t see either of them degenerating into neo-con/DLC sellouts. Capuano strikes me as likelier of the two to get in the face of a Chuck Grassley or Mitch McConnell when necessary.
<
p>At the same time, I see neither as especially capable of inspirational, high-impact, idea-driven leadership that will represent us as the national innovators and trend-setters we are when at our best.
<
p>In short, Caokley and Capuano exhibit a sufficiently solid and necessary progressive floor or foundation to be the kind of Senator you describe (Lynch does not).
<
p>Their challenge, I think, is that they also seem to have a solid ceiling that limits their potential to be such a soaring, nationally-impactful Senator.
I’m done with Martha Coakley. Too little, too late. I’m glad to see Mr. Pagliucia in the race, though I’m very unlikely to vote for him.
<
p>I like Michael Capuano. I like his fire, I like his boldness. He reminds me of Barney Frank.