Ninety percent of all the sons in all the world who ever survived childhood followed (if they knew them) into their fathers profession. This has been true for farmers, soldiers, grocers, truckers, engineers and baseball players. And this is true for fisherman and for politicians. We are truly blessed, in America, to be able — with a straight face — to call a father ‘selfish’ who may or may not have ‘forced’ his two sons into fishing. That’s a recent development in the history of mankind. One hundred years ago it wouldn’t be more than an assumption that, of course, the sons would do what the father did. Charlie Baker, also, is following in his fathers footsteps as administrator and politician.
Personally, if the choice was between an honest profession like fisherman and a profession of cruelty like football player, I’d chain my children to six foot plank, give them lines and a hook and set them adrift. In a heartbeat. And I think a football scholarship just uses education as bait: college sports are a business every bit as cruel as the game and a sports scholarship can actively impede an education. You can’t get a degree in CTE. So I don’t blame the fisherman. According to Charlie Baker, he made the choice I would have made. And yes, I have two sons.
Does this mean that I believe Charlie? To an extent, yes. Oh, I can imagine that he embellished some, and confused some details and swizzled in the confusion common to most free-marketeers… but in its essence I can believe the basic outlines of the story: a fisherman had two sons; they followed him into his industry; the industry collapses; the father worries for the boys future and holds himself responsible. I believe it.
And because I believe Charlie Bakers story I’m even more determined to vote for Martha Coakley.
The core of Charlie Bakers story, and the ‘punchline’ obscured by his tears, was that government can help these people: that, in fact, government must help these people… and further that the problem is so large and so thorny and so complex that no one else could possibly help these people. And I think that is true also. The reason I won’t be voting for Charlie Baker, despite belief in the truth of his story, is that Charlie Bakers entire career is an attempt to refute the story: I think he believes that most voters believe in government and is flattering their desire for help and for good government without actually being willing to engage in it. I offer as proof his entire career. In particular his time as health care executive. Anybody who can recognize the problem as so large and so unwieldy that only government can solve it (the fishing industry) would be expected to do the same in other places (the health care industry) and, thus, would not have taken such a job in the first place (never mind profit from it).
From the Big Dig to Health Care, Charlie Bakers entire career has been inside problems too big for anybody but government to deal with… But even when he was in government he fucked it up. The Big Dig was the most epic boondoggle the CommonWealth has ever seen and Charlie Baker held the broom that swept the problems under the rug… while they were occurring. And all his talk of saving one of the largest insurers in the CommonWealth makes no mention of the enormity of the problem.
The problem is that I believe Charlie Bakers story, but I don’t think that Charlie Baker really does.
Martha Coakley is campaigning in areas being devastated by the collapse of the fishery — and aligning herself WITH Mr. Baker in opposition to the federal regulations.
It seems to me that when push comes to shove — when the moment demands integrity, insight, wisdom, and most of all political courage — Ms. Coakley joins Mr. Baker in competing for the “Profiles in Cowardice” award.
I’ll resist the temptation to respond to your mis-characterization of the Big Dig. I agree with you that the fishery problem is so large and so thorny that ONLY government — and, in fact, only the FEDERAL government — can solve it.
The fatal flaw of your argument is that Martha Coakley is spending the last days of the campaign railing AGAINST that absolutely vital federal regulation. She is competing with Charlie Baker in disgusting lies about who the good guys and bad guys are. BOTH candidates point the finger at the feds, and away from the fishing industry itself.
In my view, this last weekend demonstrates the assertions I’ve been making all along about Ms. Coakley, her views, her priorities, and most of all her political courage, leadership and integrity — or lack thereof.