Well, with endorsement season a bit underway, I’d like to ask supporters of the various gubernatorial candidates one question I’ve already mooted in comments elsewhere: how would your candidate deal with the greatest obstacle to a progressive Massachusetts? That is of course being our legislature. (Sure, there are Republicans out there, but they’re generally toothless.) As much as I like what many candidates are saying, I have a sinking feeling many of their good ideas have about as much chance of getting through the State House as good federal ideas have of getting through Congress. Witness what happened when Deval Patrick, a governor of several years’ incumbency, tried to put a progressive budget before the Legislature last year. Pretty much D.O.A. With these “Democrats” clogging up the works, are we better off with an insider moderate than a destined-for-frustration progressive? Can we have both?
So fans of Avellone, Berwick, Coakley, and Grossman: how will their progressive ideas get through the Legislature? What experiences or skills do they have that will grant them better luck than Patrick, Romney, et al, in making a mark from the Corner Office?
We need to not see primaries as so taboo. We don’t need Tea Party levels of purity, but some adherence to our own platform would be nice. Neither the Governor nor the President rallied their supporters most of the time to contact their legislators asking them to support their respective proposals either, which I think was a mistake.
…but I’d be curious for the person who downrated this comment to elaborate. Do you not like primaries? Do you think my assessment of the Governor and President are off?
but I know FireFox and Google Chrome both do so you have free to download option. Is it appropriate to say who downrated this or is that too much a Cindy Brady move?
and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.
That’s not an argument against pragmatic compromise, though it might be against compromise for the sake of compromise.
What does an “insider moderate” get us? A warm chair in the corner office?
Pretty much the same thing, with good intentions layered on. There’s a school of thought that a progressive with good intentions and little connection with many legislators — call him BD — would be almost entirely reactive to the Legislature’s intentions. Meanwhile, a more moderate candidate with connections, call her CM — might be able to muscle through somewhat more left-wing ideas, even if it falls short of what BD promises.
I keep hearing that I should just vote for who I want in the primary. I want to vote for the best governor, not the best intentions. Sometimes they’re the same (Elizabeth Warren), sometimes they’re not.
I profoundly do not believe that either, at least not as the sufficient rule. But I also do not believe in trying to second guess things too closely. Too easy to be led by the nose that way.
If an insider moderate gets us nothing, an outsider progressive is the better choice, if that is the only choice (as you would have it). Outsiders can be impotent, but they can also bring fundamental changes. They can inspire and mobilize people; they can nourish and lead movements.
I am not talking about any of the current contenders, however encrypted. Just discussing the abstract question you posed, assuming (as you seem to) the only choice is the moderate and the outsider.
On that score, I know it is a long shot. But the long odds are better than no odds at all.
I’ve been making the same arguments in comments and am glad that it has it’s own thread.
Rosenberg backing Grossman could be a great impact. And if I could do it again I’d pick CM over BD.
Are you talking about 2008? I took CM to be Martha Coakley and BD to be Don Berwick. In that case you can still choose whomever you like!
I seriously doubt that CMs ability to work with the legislature then.
meets much electorally. Beyond the municipal level, pretty much every elected official that I’ve encountered has endorsed Steve Grossman. That’s Hampshire County. I think they endorse differently than we do.
So I appreciate the premise. I would just add, a Governor also makes a whole heck of a lot of appointments, regulations, and oversees a whole range of governmental programs and departments that have a real impact on Massachusetts residents lives. So, it’s not *just* about progressive legislation and the bully pulpit. These things left to the Governor alone can steer Massachusetts toward (or away from) a more progressive vision. I would imagine we want somebody who shares our values (I guess what you’d call ‘intentions’) when it comes to areas as well.
But I do take your point made in the post and it’s a question I’ve been thinking quite a lot about as I make up my mind who to support for Governor. What do you think? Who will be most effective at actually *passing* progressive legislation? Because Governors don’t do that alone – they do that in an ecosystem and they have to work with the Senate President and the Speaker. So if I may take the liberty of re-framing your original question slightly: instead of “who will be able to pass progressive legislation,” the question is, “who do you want to be one of the three main powerbrokers on Beacon Hill?” In other words, which of the following scenarios would you most want to see?
How will the dynamics be different if you have a total inside-track game (which I think Grossman/Coakley would probably take) vs. having a more robust outside game? How might Berwick-Rosenberg team up differently than Coakley-Rosenberg? You know, it’s worthwhile thinking about how, even in instances where Governor Patrick hasn’t been able to pass legislation, having a strong progressive framing the debate (and being the face of MA on national TV on health care and other issues) has been good for progressive causes as well.
At the end of the day, though, this is all hypothetical. The best voters can do is take the information presented to them in the public and vote for who they think will be the best person for the job — the person who will push the issues they care about. All the rest is inside-baseball hypothetical stuff.
All of your alternatives assume that Mr. DeLeo remains Speaker. I suggest that the Deity Himself could not pass progressive legislation on the issues that matter so long as Mr. DeLeo remains in his current role.
It’s long past time that progressives replace Mr. DeLeo.
Because I have heard precisely zero grumblings about an uprising against him, and, honestly I don’t think one is really deserved. You (and I) might disagree with him on policy (like say, tying minimum wage hike to unemployment insurance changes), but that’s no reason for a major uprising from what I can tell.
Extrapolating further: you seem frustrated the Speaker hasn’t been more progressive and hasn’t passed a lot of key progressive legislation. Me too. But here’s the thought that the progressive movement is grappling with in Massachusetts: on any given legislative issue progressives hold near and dear, progressive have been unable to persuade (or build the pressure necessary to force) the Speaker to pass that legislation. So, what does that say to you about the progressive movement in Massachusetts?
(Related: if we can’t convince Speaker DeLeo to pass a clean minimum wage bill, what hope do we have of forcing one down Boehner’s throat in DC?)
Here’s another thought experiment:
Do you think a Baker-DeLeo-Rosenberg dynamic would push DeLeo even further to the right, as he would point to the recent GOP win (leaving Rosenberg as the only true liberal of the three)? Or do you think DeLeo would, in order to assert his power and override Baker’s proposals, have to team up with Rosenberg if he wants to override anything — forcing DeLeo a bit to the left? Honestly asking.
sorry Ari…. (a poem!) …. I wanted to be subtle about acknowledging your true statement that there are not enough self discribed “progressives” in the Mass Legislature to persuade their colleagues , never mind the Leadership to support the progressive agenda. It’s a democracy after all.
Ari, your posts are very well thought out, and I enjoy reading them.
I do think that having power concentrated in the speaker needs to change. I don’t expect a coup against DeLeo but I hope we can get a progressive reformer in the house instead of Dempsey or Mariano when term limits kick in. Electing a Progressive speaker needs to be Progressives biggest fight in the long term.
As for the governors race, Berwick is the Progressive Candidate, and Grossman is to the right but is still very liberal, Coakley is to the right of him.
There are many players on Beacon hill. Part of being Governor is not just the issues you believe in but being an effective leader. I do worry that Berwick doesn’t know how to “play the game” of politics and Grossman has proven he knows how to get stuff done.
I also worry berwick might split votes with Grossman if he gets 15%, and Coakley might end up winning. If there was instant runoff voting things would be different, but unfortunately there is not.
I think between casinos (blech), life sciences, economic recovery, transportation reform and other policies, Deval Patrick has demonstrated an ability to, at times, bend the legislature to his will that was not seen by any of his Republican predecessors. This ability is not complete, nor should it be, but it has been well demonstrated by Patrick. So, I don’t think that last years legislative petulance, which may indeed have been a reaction to the Governors prior years successes, is predictive of the future prospects of the, as-yet, Governor to be named later.
The entire legislature still needs to be taken out behind the woodshed and given a solid ass-kicking for their own good… which probably isn’t going to happen until somebody gets indicted (again). Until that eventuality I suspect we’ll see more of the feckless thrashing, sometimes effective, sometimes ineffective, against whomever occupies the corner office.
ever bent the legislature to his will?
… I’m tempted to ask if you have been paying attention…?
Casinos, for one, which was a non-starter when he first introduced it. As was transportation reform. The 1 billion dollar life sciences initiative in 2007/2006 faced an uphill battle. He got them to agree to ethics reform, though they neutered after… And, most particularly, they raised taxes several times at his insistence, and only after passive aggressively chanting “reform before revenue” incessantly (because they didn’t believe he could follow through on reform)… though they petulantly tried to raise the sales tax when he proposed a gas tax and then, just as petulantly, raised the gas tax when he proposed cap gains increases, loophole closures and other taxes on the wealthy. More was done in six years of Deval Patrick than the entire 16 of the Weld-Rmoney downhill slalom…
I don’t say, for instance, that Deval has the all-seeing eye of Sauron and can have his way completely and always, nor would I welcome such, at all, if he did. But I remember a much more footloose and reckless legislature, and a legislature distinctly disrespectful to Patrick in the early years, that, left to it’s own devices under the (lack of ) leadership during the bungee governorships of Weld thru Rmoney, floundered and flailed. Much has changed and solely and precisely because of our Governor. More need be done, to be sure and the worm can turn in the other way, very easily, with the wrong kind of person in the governorship next… but where we are now is better than where we were.
Seems to me I remember Patrick skipping town when they voted casinos down the first time. Exit Sal DiMasi. Enter Bob DeLeo. Casinos!
Ethics reform? What did it accomplish? I have to do more paperwork as a municipal official. I have to go through a video and online test that accomplishes nothing. The legislature changed how?
I’ll agree with you on the taxes, etc. I don’t know enough to say otherwise. I don’t live in the Boston area, we get limited news out here.
Patrick’s first few years were awful because he didn’t know what he was doing. Didn’t he, for example, screw up submitting his budget? I can’t remember. Didn’t he appoint incompetents to major positions like Chief of Staff and Director of Communications? He didn’t mix with the legislators, didn’t know how things were done. Not that he had to do them as others saw fit, but it’s best to know the rules before you break them.
Patrick has accomplished some good things, and he is infinitely preferable to the GOP or a DINO. No argument from me. Thanks for the response.
We’re not discussing the effect of legislation, we’re discussing Patricks ability to affect legislation. I said that, at times, Deval Patrick was able to ‘bend them to his will’ and you asked for examples. I gave you examples of when Deval Patrick got the legislature to do what Deval Patrick wanted them to do, for good or ill: I don’t say the examples turned out for the best. You cannot deny, skipping out or no, that Deval Patrick was the one who put casinos front and center and then stayed with it in the face of several setbacks until he got what he wanted.
Before Deval: digging of heels and vigorous refusal, no matter the terms. After Deval: discussion and wrangling on terms and passive-agressive deflection but no more knee-jerk refusal and digging in of heels…
Progress! 😉
I’ve been active as a progressive activist voter since 2004. Last year–2013– was the first time it sunk in my head that the governor’s budget and the legislature’s budget plans are pristinely unrelated to each other. What’s up with that? # 1: The House, Senate, and Governor need to sync up their processes and deliver a better budget. #2: Progressive leaders, in office or on the sidelines, need to make more of a deal of this to their supporters.
You’re right, of course, but I’m really getting frustrated in my old age with so-called progressive candidates who then don’t fight tooth and nail for progressive causes. Focusing on candidates SHOULD be enough, but it isn’t.
They have to swim in the right kind current.
Not to disparage electoral work, which is also vital, but I really think working on issues comes first.
I think this is a critical topic, Sabutai. I also think it’s going to be one where we read the tea leaves more than hear verifiable or even totally believable specifics.
Patrick started by trying to activate the grassroots and build personal relationships throughout the legislature. It took real guts. The response from legislative leadership was ‘Those are our members, not yours, and none of your agenda happens’. So he ultimately backed off to the ‘all leadership’ strategy. It appears to have created peace in the building, but he also had to lick some wounds, such as over the revenue bill last year.
Can the next governor afford to take a beating in the legislature for 2 years, run against them while in office, help primary and defeat some of the worst, and actually build a long-term strategy that re-asserts the power of the Governor’s office? We saw how it worked for Mitt Romney (General, not Primary, but same idea). That may be the only way to actually get to what Sabutai is suggesting, because I don’t believe that simply building relationships will get you all that much farther than our current governor — who Petr correctly notes has won more than he’s lost, but who I also imagine tabled some of his agenda.
This works much better when you’re a Republican governor, not so well when most of the people you’d like to boot are nominally in your own party.
Leaning into the mountain is counter-intitutive. How do we get a more progressive legislature? By increasing the number of GOP members.