I wanted to start by quoting from this comment, which really got me thinking, from petr:
I’m willing to believe that your critique of Deval Patrick is a fair one. But I don’t think at all complete, nor encompassing enough of who, exactly is at fault. My question to you, as it has been all along, is simply, “what did you think it would look like?” I’ve asked that question of myself many times. I’ve tried to ask it of others, with varying degrees of success. At heart, it’s a question less about Deval Patrick and more about you: “what did you think it would look like?” The answer that I’ve come up with, not entirely without regret, is that a truly progressive actor, in a state that can still elevate someone like Scott Brown to the Senate, might not be able to induct all that many progressive acts. Sad, but true. Perhaps you’ll come up with a different answer… but I doubt it. In short, I think it would look pretty much exactly like it does now. We would see a progressive actor in a regressive politick; straining against the tide; his allies powerful but feckless; his critics both gleeful and nasty; and a citizenry confused about their role and angry about their confusion.
I also got a call, and had lunch with, a couple of Patrick campaign people, and I asked them to make the case that petr suggests they could, and should, that at least some of what they have done was indeed progressive, in the sense of taking on the powers that be, and rearranging power in a more democratic way. They gave me the following examples, and I was wondering what those of you who may read this, and think of yourselves as progressive, think:
Education Reform — Innovation Schools
Leaving aside the issue of lifting the charter school cap in underperforming school districts for a moment (ed.: I agree that charter schools are oversold as a panacea and are anti-union, so I don’t regard supporting them as at all progressive. I wanted to ask about a different, characterized to me as more progressive, aspect of the reform), the “Innovation School” portion of the education reform bill just signed by the governor, which devotes a substantial amount of resources towards expanding the opportunity for local communities to create in-district pilot schools, is a significant grant of decision making authority to individual school communities, and, according to the Patrick people, significantly enhances the ability of parents and educators to affect their children’s education at the local level.
Closing Corporate Loopholes – The Tax Fairness Bill
Put an end to the practice of Massachusetts corporations hiding income from Massachusetts taxation by shifting it to related subsidiaries out of state, among other things, raising an estimated $475 million over the following four years (ed. note: yeah, but how much more would it have raised if it hadn’t actually lowered corporate tax rates at the same time? Just asking). This was accomplished over the strong and vociferous objections of the business lobby.
Transportation Reform
By consolidating all transportation functions into one agency, streamlining what were four separate fiefdoms and eliminating the Turnpike Authority, the transportation reform bill was a major blow struck against Big Dig Culture by eliminating ossified centers of patronage and hackery and setting up a more accountable and transparent bureaucracy.
This law eliminates lobbyist gift giving, counts “hidden” lobbying such as doing background research and strategizing as lobbying (therefore requiring disclosure presumably), limits the revolving door between lobby shops and former members of the administration, strengthening the enforcement power of Ethics Commission and substantially increasing penalties for violations. Remember that this was passed only after the Governor essentially forced the legislature to pass it after vetoing the sales tax they wanted because they hadn’t enacted ethics reforms.
The Environmental Record
Joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, (ed.: ahh, never mind, just read this, and agree that Patrick’s environmental record is clearly progressive and excellent).
Health Reform
97% of Massachusetts residents now have coverage, and Patrick fought to insure that it’s real coverage for low income people, not just emergency care with $10,000 deductibles provided by veterinarians. Enough said.
So, what do you think? Do you think we’ve had a largely progressive governor all along, or as progressive as we could expect given Massachusetts politics, but missed it because, as petr suggests, we were bedazzled and confused by the glamour of the politicking and too lazy to actually investigate and figure that out for ourselves? I’ve got to say that I’m leaning in the direction of the former, ok, he actually is progressive come to think of it, theory, but don’t subscribe to the latter analysis (no doubt because it would make me look bad). I know there are many things that aren’t progressive about his record, but on balance, when you really look at it, is the arc bending towards progressivism? Or have I been bamboozled?
(PS: not being one to shy from carrying two opposing thoughts in my head at the same time, I still have the feeling that the record so far is not outside of the box, enough, to really shake things up, and, as I said to the Patrick people the other day, people are really in pain, and angry, because really big, bad things are happening to them. We need Really Big changes that people will see as having a chance of actually making a difference in some of the threats that are facing them. A progressive candidate needs to push for at least one or two of those Really Big changes in order to have a chance of success. Otherwise people will vote for Scott Brown. Er, Charlie Baker.)
Oh, and I was assured by the Patrick people that they recognize that it was a mistake to let the grassroots campaign whither, and that they need a plan this time around to keep the grassroots engaged after the election. I found that encouraging. As I was encouraged by this article.
So you may note that I haven’t answered petr’s question: what do I think real, progressive change, would look like, if it’s not the Patrick record, or if I think that the Patrick record could have been better even in this political context. Well, I intend to answer that question. Just not in this post. I’d love to hear what all you progressives think about what the Patrick people had to say.
<
p>Thank you for your posting. As a relatively new participant in BMG I’m impressed by the seriousness and thoughtfullness of many of the participants, exemplified by your post.
<
p>As a community organizer, I’ve for some time come to believe that few leaders elected through the efforts of a progressively styled campaign are likely to feel compelled to stick very closely to a progressive agenda. Because they end up on the left side of the political center, electorally successful progressive candidates will usually feel comfortable enough moving rightward, knowing that there is no practical alternative available to their frustrated supporters.
<
p>In my view, this comfort accounts for Patrick’s shift on school reform, particularly charter schools. Unfortunately for my city, his shift towards charters will be devastating to the central public institution that we see and interact with every day in our town, viz., our children’s schools. The administration has said we’re just one city (the quote is, Gloucester has to take the “tough pill”), and the goods he offers (“Innovation schools”) will profit other cities and towns; in the 10-year plan, the state will have achieved an educational utopia, and our own local loss of neighborhood primary schools is the egg that needed to be broken to make the omlet, or so the story goes.
<
p>Presumably the Gloucester story will not deeply affect many progressives from farther afield. I don’t guess I’d jump ship and vote for a third party candidate if my family and city weren’t living in the sacrificial lamb of the Patrick reform agenda.
<
p>Though our city has been irreparably harmed by this administration recently, I found myself concerned early that the Governor was setting himself goals that were both too ambitious and too easily jettisoned. The Readiness project promised to reinvent education, but gave itself well into the Governor’s anticipated second term to show concrete results. In the meanwhile, he discovered all the reasons for carrying on the reforms of earlier, Republican governors. (Charters, choice, school closings, anti-unionism).
<
p>You mention the resources recruited for education. But what are they? The biggest shift of resources under this Governor’s ed reform falls on the cities who find themselves saddled with new charter mandates. Innovation schools? Whatever else you may say about them, I don’t think you can say that they involve significant new resources.
<
p>As a progressive, I believe that we owe one thing to the priveledge of living in a democracy, viz., to ensure that our vote carries a meaningful message about progressive values, such as the rights of all citizens to high-quality education, health care, and a living wage. At the very least, I don’t think progressivism can ever achieve any degree of success or influence in a generally conservative political environment if leaders elected with our help feel following election that we have forfeited our prerogatives to hold them accountable.
<
p>At any rate, I have left off supposing that my own values as a progressive organizer are in any way assured or generally advanced through organizing on behalf of candidates. The only organizing that I can trust creates networks and coalitions that give rise to new perspectives on what is possible. Without those perspectives, leaders can only rehash the conservative ideas that lie scattered about everywhere, such as charter schools.
<
p>For me, the question of whether Patrick really has a molecule of progressivism when you look for it with the most powerful microscopes and detectors is not an important question. We progressives shouldn’t be fiddling with microscopes, we should be using telescopes to scan the sky for whole new stars (how’s that for an image?!)
<
p>If there’s an important task to do during the election, it probably remains what it is today–organizing and growing the constituency for and the culture of a radical idea: genuine equality, the elimination of poverty, the expansion of democracy into work. As for voting, I don’t think a progressive can necessarily do better than send a message. Find a distinctly progressive voice and vote for it, even if, or especially if it is a third party. A waste of your vote? The only waste of a progressive vote is one that acknowledges that it is captured by the conservative climate that intimdates and compells compliance from our erstwhile candidates, such as Deval Patrick.
<
p>If find the repulsiveness of the Republican contender so great that fear is too strong, at least don’t let the election be the occassion to mute your progressive passions.
Our governmental systems are designed to frustrate sweeping change and foster incrementalism. I wish more of my fellow progressives could take the long view. We elect a candidate in many ways sympathetic to our aims – Governor Patrick, President Obama- and when the entire world doesn’t change in an instant, we’re disillusioned, and instead of fighting their enemies, we turn on our own party. There will be zero progressive change if we don’t have allies in power. That means winning elections. So I see the third-party fantasy or vanity candidacies – I’m talking to you, Jill Stein, Grace Ross and Ralph Nader – as a distraction. Voting isn’t about sending messages, it’s about choosing the best available people to run our government. It also means supporting those people when they win – even they’re not your ideal person – even through some mistakes – and callibrating your expectations about what they can achieve. Keep going in the right direction one step at a time, one election at a time. It took 100 years to make meaningful progress on Civil Rights, whyever should we think that our elected leaders today can fix equally difficult and intractable problems in a single term?
<
p>The problem with Patrick isn’t that he is foiled by legislative inertia and incrementalism! The problem is he’s promoted a conservative revolution in the fundamental institution of progressive government–free, univeral public education. I respectfully call your attention to Patrick’s educational bill that furthers an agenda initiated by his Republican forerunners, promoting charters and choice, taking a historic step towards a two-tiered public education system.
<
p>With allied like Patrick, progressives don’t need enemies. And unless they use their vote to send a message that they are willing and able to hold their one-time allies accountable, they will never make progress. Ergo third party candidates are essential for the health of progressive politics.
<
p>As for civil rights, it wasn’t by accepting compromises such as separate but equal schools that the movement achieved a new measure of racial justice. Patrick has taken a huge, historic step in the wrong direction. How will progressives respond?
I agree with you that as far as big picture policy goes, Patrick has mostly done well. But as far as the nuts and bolts go, I have to give his administration a “needs improvement”. I offer the following examples:
<
p>1. Political interference in enforcement actions by the DEP. I know politics is about helping your friends and contributors but that shouldn’t extend to telling the environmental agency to lay off just because your friend called you or Ian Bowles, or gave you or Tim Murray money. If you want to negatively impact morale at an agency that already suffers from low morale due to deep cuts to its budget and layoffs, then continue on with undercutting the hard and valuable work the enforcement staff does. This administration is the worst in years on this front.
<
p>2. Biomass – it’s good, no it’s bad, wait, we’re not sure. Promoting energy source alternatives is an excellent idea. But perhaps it would have been a good idea to do the studies before providing so much encouragement to the developers. See, for example, the last paragraph in this press release about Construction & Demolition debris and this one about sustainability. At the time this news his the press, there were already four biomass plants under development west of the Quabbin.
<
p>3. Safe Yield under the Water Management Act. This was discussed here a few months ago but this link tells the story of how DEP did something and then whoops! – decided to suspend a recently-made determination after the environmentalists resigned the Water Resources Management Advisory Committee
<
p>If Patrick is re-elected, and I hope he is, I encourage him to get a DEP commissioner who knows how to run a large, public agency and to end the political interference in the agency’s valuable work.
…is that Deval seems less than enthused about politics than most politicians. I’d expect somebody dedicated to real change in the Commonwealth in any direction would see as task #1 finding a way to make that change happen in the Legislature, the place in Massachusetts where change goes to die.
<
p>I’ll give Romney and Weld credit — they backed up their ideas with action, trying to refashion the Legislature in a more pliable direction. Weld succeeded. Unfortunately, Deval made no recognizable effort in the 2008 elections, or the special elections since, in this direction. Legislators elected after or with him have proven little different in disposing of his ideas than 20-year veterans of Beacon Hill. Given that I’m hearing and seeing the same thing for 2010, I wonder how much that will happen.
<
p>Whether you want to “blame” Deval for not creating an environment in the Lege that would be more willing to consider his proposals, I think the number one reason that both Deval and Obama are not achieving their agendas is the awesome inertia of our legislative branches.
<
p>You see that as ‘politics’, I see that as ‘manipulation’, akin to gerrymandering, in a extra-constitutional effort to move pieces on the chessboard he ought not to touch. I think, also, that that’s the easy way: Weld didn’t want to do any actual work, but wanted pliable actors in the lege to rubber stamp his agenda.
<
p>I think Deval Patrick is taking politics seriously on a deeper level: actually doing the work. I think he also takes the lege (or at least the voters who installed the lege) seriously and therefore treats them with respect and not the disdain that Weld showed… or that anybody would show by simply trying to manipulate their way around what the voters want.
<
p>Consider: Deval Patricks initial public offering was casinos for which he was roundly and soundly mocked. He couldn’t give the dogcatcher fleas for all the lack or respect he was shown. Flash forward to 2009 and pension, ethics, transportation reform all get through in more or less the form the Governor wanted. Center of gravity shift? Succeed. Then there is the fact that we went from a deep and earnest 2008 discussion of wholesale repeal of the state income tax (remember when…? Good times…) to a sales tax increase. Leadership shown? Succeed. The Governor wanted a gas tax, to be sure, but the very fact that the lege passed any tax increase whatsoever was a clear nod to Deval Patricks leadership on the issue. Given their druthers, the lege, as you say, would have continued to be the place where change (in this case a tax hike) goes to die. Who put their feet to the fire? Deval. Patrick. I think the fit of pique they showed when raising the sales tax is probably a pretty good indication of what effect Deval Patricks efforts were having.
<
p>
<
p>And I think the inertia of which you speak, while still present, is not as powerful today, as it was two or three years ago precisely and distinctly because of the efforts of Deval Patrick.
Are you really saying that the Governor (or President at the federal level) should NOT try to create a legislative branch more favorable to him? If so I could not disagree more. In fact, I think they should, as long as their own approval ratings are decent, go out and aggressively campaign for candidates and incumbents who support them. It’s up to the voters to judge ultimately of course, but one key factor to judge on is whether or not someone is likely to support the executive. Obviously it’s the voters’ right to consciously choose someone who will oppose the executive as well.
<
p>This is a fair point. I guess it’s a question of degree: I was answering sabutai’s comment which seemed to imply that, strictly speaking, the only form of ‘politics’ of any use is to make the lege ‘pliable’ (which, I’ll counter, is distinct from ‘favorable’). As I (tried to) point out there is persuasion and the daily grind that can be equally (if not more) effective tho’ it might take longer.
You can call it “politics” (neutral), “manipulation” (negative), or “leadership” (positive).
<
p>Anyway you call it, if an executive in our system wants to get their agenda through, they need a Lege that at least somewhat works for them. If you don’t even try, don’t whine to me.
<
p>PS: Weld didn’t want a “rubber stamp”…he never had the allies to propose legislation. He just got a single chamber to maintain his vetoes. Unless, of course, you think single-party rule existence has helped Massachusetts in recent years.
<
p>The space between the phrase “works FOR” and the phrase “works WITH” is, coincidentally (or not…) the exact size and shape as that difference which lies between “politics” and “manipulation”. Checks and balances calls to mind both hockey and high-wire acts… hhmmmm
Do you think the current Legislature works with or for the governor?
<
p>I think they’ve been dragged away from actively working against him. More or less with him, at least in the last year or so (since DiMasi left). As I note, the center of gravity is with Patrick, which has not been the case for many years (I think we’ve had this discussion before =-) and that bodes well, methinks, for future cooperative endeavors. I think there are pitfalls. The sales tax vote indicates (to me, at least) that the lege might try to make policy for appearances sake rather than for policy sake, and that’s always a danger (no matter where the center of gravity is…)
<
p>I make common cause with your argument, tho’, that the number one cause of agenda stall, for both Patrick and Obama, is legislative intransigence. My point is that (I think) the worm has turned for Patrick. It will be interesting to see if there are any high profile legislators who decide not to run in November, which is something I would expect if the changes I’ve noted are proceeding apace.
I’m not sure the DiMasi-DeLeo changeover resulted in much change. True, DiMasi didn’t work with him on slots, and I’m glad of it. He worked with Deval on health care…and frankly worked more strenuously then him on marriage equality.
<
p>I think the Lege is working a bit more productively lately for two reasons — Terry Murray is somebody with whom you can do business, especially if you know what you’re talking about. And secondly, for the first time the greatest enemy of the Democratic legislature isn’t the Democratic governor…but Republican would-be legislators. If both sides sheath their swords, they might both survive the 2010 elections.
Its a fine point I know, but Bill Weld did not succeed getting things done because he endorsed and supported like minded candidates for the House and Senate. Actually he came into office with 8 Senate members, enough to prevent an over ride of any of his vetoes. Lost his veto override proof Senate 2 years later, and never lifted more than a pinky or two to build the Republican party or recruit Republican candidates for the Legislature.
<
p>I would suggest that Weld succeeded because he figured out that running for office and governing are very different indeed. Weld ran for office vowing to change the way Beacon Hill works and cheerfully demonized the Democratic Legislative leadership, and he won.
<
p>Didn’t take long — maybe a month or two — for him to figure out that he had to learn how to work with — (share credit and share blame)– the very same Legislative Leaders he had demonized during election time. Now of course his Lt Gov, Paul Cellucci used his hard earned credentials as a former Rep and Senator to smooth the path, but in the end Bill Weld was a quick learner and well liked by the MSM who were even quicker to give him credit for what a Democratic Legislature accomplished.
<
p>From OnLine News Hour show in 1996
<
p>
<
p>
In addition,one shouldn’t discount the friendship that developed between Weld and (then Senate President) William Bulger even before the 1990 campaign cycle ended.
<
p>For reasons involving the internal feud between Weld’s people and then-Republican State Committee Chair Ray Shamie, Weld always considered the state Republican Party to be expendible, and never lifted a finger for downballot candidates.
I would be the last person to
<
p>
<
p>Weld moved fast to build bridges with Bulger even though Bulger worked hard for his 1990 Democratic opponent John Silber and his running mate Marjorie Claprood.I smile as I type her name and remember that campaign because, full disclosure, like a lot of “liberals” appalled at Silber’s various comments about the poor the elderly and the disabled, I voted for Weld-Celluci)
<
p>Anyway, Bulger moved just as fast to meet Weld in the middle and adroitly let him share credit for good public policy and made sure he and the Republican party was blamed for stupid public policy positions.
<
p>Weld didn’t need the Republican party to get the credit for getting good policy through, and was happy to share the blame with the Republicans for stupid policy positions.
<
p>Smart guy.
<
p>
People know me on this site as a critic of Governor Patrick’s policy to close the Fernald Center and other Department of Developmental Services facilities in Massachusetts. But let me say that I voted for Patrick in 2006 with as much enthusiasm as I’ve ever had for a political candidate.
<
p>At that time, I thought Patrick was the most charismatic and articulate candidate the Democrats had put forth for governor since the days when Michael Dukakis was viewed in those terms.
<
p>Obviously, Patrick’s stance on the DDS facilities changed my viewpoint. And maybe it is no longer possible for me to look at his record with a lot of objectivity. But I’m struck that he has fallen short of initial expectations that we supporters had of him in many ways other than just those involving Fernald.
<
p>First, I’m not convinced the so-called reforms that are listed in the post above and elsewhere are as sweeping or as deep as they are made to sound. The sincerity of the governor’s commitment to education reform, for instance, is being debated elsewhere on this site. The administration’s misplaced support for the Gloucester Charter School and its failure to push for a workable balance between charter school and public school district funding are cases in point.
<
p>And as is the case with the DDS facilities closures, Patrick doesn’t seem to feel the need to react to criticism, much less be proactive, unless the public outcry becomes so great that he feels he must do something.
<
p>That brings me to ethics and lobbying reform. It’s true that Patrick pushed through some tightening of the gift-giving and disclosure rules. But it seems he was forced into it by his own mishandling of his appointment of Sen. Marian Walsh to a nonexistent state agency job. Will these reforms significantly change the culture on Beacon Hill? Pardon me if I’m skeptical.
<
p>And every governor seems to assume it as his or her proprietary right to reorganize the transportation department in Massachusetts. How is eliminating the Turnpike Authority and placing more functions in one agency changing the Big Dig culture or eliminating “ossified centers of patronage?” Patronage will continue.
<
p>And in my view, the Big Dig culture is really the result of the unwise handover of managerial functions to a giant private contractor that had no accountability or state oversight. The MTA was actually put in charge of the Big Dig as a management reform in 1997, after it became clear that the then Mass. Highway Department did not have the resources to properly oversee Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the private design and construction manager. The MTA didn’t do much better.
<
p>In many ways, I’ve been trying to make the argument that the Patrick administration is actually attempting to apply the Big Dig culture to the DDS system by eliminating state facilities and privatizing their functions. But this is not a governor that seems to care about those fine points of governance. In that sense, he seems no different to me than his Republic predecessors. And that’s why I’m personally disillusioned.
Patrick’s legislative record is pretty impressive.
<
p>The one area of legitimate concer is that he has been VERY pro-development. Don’t forget the Ch. 91, filled-in tidelands kerfuffle at the beginning of his term. The water withdrawal permit is also very much a pro-development decision.
<
p>There is also his support for casinos. He also seems to bend over backwards to give help major corporations, but hasn’t thrown many bones to the local mom-and-pop shops.
<
p>I like to think that to be a progressive, one also needs to support basic good government principles. And, for starters, there very much as been a “pay-for-play” air circling above this administration.
<
p>Whenever there was a high-level appointment, you could be sure that there was a maxed-out campaign check nearby.
<
p>The appointment of Jim Aloisi as Transportation secretary? The multiple appointments of friends to fill $100k plus positions at the same time you’re cutting services for the disabled? All kind of sour the air.
is, I think, instructive. The most significant difference between these two Administrations, in my opinion, is the state of the Economy. Remember the “Massachusetts Miracle.” This gave Dukakis the revenue with which to operate. The limits on resources with which Deval has had to operate have caused significant problems. For example, how can you fix “the funding mechanism” for Charter Schools when you don’t have the revenue to do that. Don’t get me wrong, I completely disagree with the Patrick Administration’s Charter School policies. I think Reville should be fired. I just think that in a different economic environment we would see a much more progressive governance from Deval.
<
p>The economic climate is no excuse for Deval’s failure–I’d say his catastrophic failue–to fix the charter funding formula. Funding fixes that are revenue neutral from the viewpoint of the state are there, and they’ve even been put to the legislature.
<
p>For example, a fiscally neutral fix is to take charter school tuition payments “off the top” of Chapter 70 education funding, rather than out of the account for the district targeted for the the charter. This change would spread the cost of charters over the state, rather than concentraing them in the target district, as they do now. The net new cost of this change to the state would be–nothing.
<
p>The cost is only to Patrick’s political capital. Standing up for educational equity would require him to make the progressive case in the face of opposition of the charter lobby (e.g., the Mass Charter Public [sic] School Association, and others). The lobby has actively and vigorously opposed all measures that remove the wall that currently exists between charter evaluators [the state] and charter funders [the cities]. They were in fact instrumental in pressuring Patrick to abruptly change his position on the issue of raising the cap on charters early last year .
<
p>No, its not the economic climate that explains Patrick’s willingness to tolerate a broken charter funding formula. Its simply his fecklessness in the face of an organized lobby, and his supposition that progressives will stick with him even if he caves to conservative-style education reform. After all, its only the small matter of public education.
Fernald is a run-down old facility that represents an out-dated treatment model for disabled people (warehouse them away in facilities where they need never come into the view of everyone else in society). Your endless focus on this one issue is creepy. There are numerous equally supportive housing options available for the people at Fernald. Keeping or closing Fernald is not and should not be a progressive litmus test.
Referring to my focus on Fernald as “creepy” is a personal attack, and has nothing to do with the substance of the arugments I’ve raised.
I don’t believe it is at all outside of the Rules here; certainly many posters have been much more personal in comments to me with no rebuke from the editors.
The word “creepy” has a very negative connotation and implies that there is something deviant in advocating for the Fernald Center and the other DDS facilities.
<
p>And I don’t think your choice of the word “creepy” is accidental. It’s also intended to attack the facilities themselves. In your comment, you also used the terms “run-down”, “outdated,” and “warehouse,” to describe the facilities. “Creepy” is one more loaded term that you’ve thrown in to the mix. Using those terms ignores the entire history of the 30-year litigation in Massachusetts that addressed those issues. Yes, the facilities were run-down warehouses….up through the 1970s. By 1993, Judge Tauro declared that the care in the facilities was “second to none anywhere in the world.” You must know that, and yet you persist in using those derogatory terms every time you post on this issue.
Run-down is a mild description, given that some of the buildings are actually boarded up and completely unsafe and unusable.
<
p>I believe we as a society owe our most vulnerable neighbors safe and appropriate care. I don’t believe we owe them care and housing
in any specific facility, including Fernald, nor do I believe that one’s attitude toward the Fernald facility implies anything about how progressive one is or what’s one’s attitude towards the DD community is. Fernald is no more or less than a complex of buildings; there are many other housing options that would be equally suitable.
No Fernald residents are living in any of the unsafe or boarded-up buildings on the campus. We favor the removal of those vacant buildings. No Fernald residents are being warehoused today. And it is not creepy to advocate for the preservation of their long-time home.
to a decaying campus that was created to keep residents out of the sight of the rest of community. It’s a model of care that is out-of-date and ill-serves those subjected to it.
<
p>And I do find that this single-issue focus and attempt to make a politician’s attitude towards the Fernald facility a proxy for progressive values and concern for DD community in general is wrong-headed at best and creepy at worst.
that you continue to use the word “creepy” to describe those of us who are advocating for the maintenance of care and services at the Fernald Center. You are entitled to your opinion about Fernald. I don’t refer to your opinion as creepy. The word “creepy” implies deviance from social norms. It is a highly pejorative term — a personal attack and an insult to me and to the Fernald League families.
Nor have I seen them here, over and over again attempting to conflate attitudes toward Fernald, a complex of buildings, with how progressive a politician is or what a politician’s attitude toward the developmentally disabled is. So don’t try to drag in the families and hide behind them. My comments are directed squarely – and unapologetically – at your comments.
I also post on the cruelty of closing Fernald and kicking out the people it was intended to serve so the governor can insist on 200 million worth of development in a budget, despite the objections of the town of Waltham.
<
p>This does seem germane to the question of the governor being progressive or not. Others have pointed to his taking the most Republican approaches to revenue — casino gambling is about as regressive a scheme as can be proposed, a harsh tax on those who do not understand math. We were sold the lottery as a safer way to indulge the gambling instinct, then have found state government stoking the gambling instinct with hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising. This is regress, and the casinos will be more of the same.
<
p>Selling off the developmental centers is a measure of the governor’s political stance — this year’s governors budget targets the next best piece of commercial real estate, the Glavin Center just off Rte 9 in Shrewsbury. Unlike Fernald, Glavin was built in 1972, has no mothballed buildings, is inexpensive to run, and serves a specialty function for individuals with dual diagnoses of intellectual disability and mental illness. But it’s another salable asset. If the governor were kicking typically developed people out of their longtime homes to sell some valuable state property, no one would call that progressive. And the bricks and mortar do matter, because with them dies a model of comprehensive treatment that cannot be duplicated in moe dispersed housing arrangement.
<
p>Moving elsewhere in human services, this governor has permitted extraordinary cuts to adult mental health. And here there is no pretense of favoring community-based models over facility care. Last year’s 9c cuts took out PACT teams — the most progressive style of community based treatment — in Cambridge and Springfield. Th new budget is more of the same, and when the governor’s spokesperson answers Sen, Murray that the budget has required an acceleration of “community first,” it debases that language into “shoot the wounded,” because community-based programs are going down with the old-fashioned ones based in state hospitals. (Child and adolescent mental health has been revenue neutral due to a class-action lawsuit settlement.)
<
p>The governor has staffed his human services appointments with out-of-state experts (who have no clout with the legislature) and then hung them out to dry on budget issues. What the left hand giveth the right hand taketh away.
<
p>It’s not so much fun to be governor of any state these days, but this one seems to rushing privatization and imposing efficiency primarily upon the poor and vulnerable. How long before he follows his friend the president into licensing nuclear power plants? It will be hard to get to the right of Charles Baker, but Governor Patrick seems determined to make a run for it. The Scott Brown situation ought to be warning against half-hearted Democratic campaigns, but instead is being viewed as a casting call for half-trained heart surgeons.