I generally like the commentary from Peter Ubertaccio, but in cautioning progressives who chafe at Speaker DeLeo‘s relative conservatism and lack of adherence to the Democratic platform, I think Professor U is missing a few things.
To summarize his argument:
- DeLeo’s a real Democrat, selected in primary by Democrats in his district, and then in the House.
- Party activists, who write the platform, are not necessarily representative of party primary voters, much less the general electorate.
- Politicians and voters routinely ignore the platform anyway.
Prof. Ubertaccio concludes the lecture:
American parties are complex organizations. Be wary of those who suggest they speak for a party in its entirety.
I’d suggest this misstates the problem. I’m pretty sure that frustrated progressives are aware that it’s a big tent party, and you have to get the votes. The platform isn’t everything; but it’s not nothing either. It is supposed to be a consensus document of that party. And the Senate, as Jonathan Cohn points out, has been much more willing to take the lead on many progressive issues. At the very least, that indicates that — given their druthers — elected Democrats might prefer to enact more ambitiously progressive legislation.
The problem is not “those who suggest they speak for a party in its entirety”. The problem, as we see it, is twofold:
- The top-down nature of the Speakership, who has basically limitless power in the House. He is elected by the membership — in a forthrightly partisan manner, as a Democrat, by Democrats. But because of his power over the membership, in assigning chairs and so forth, these votes are not exactly freely given. They are coerced.
- DeLeo’s own views are in conflict with the wishes of the party as expressed in the platform; and likely in conflict with a good chunk of his membership, if not a majority. But that doesn’t often get expressed publicly.
The Speaker speaks for the House, in its entirety. But if he’s not representing the consensus view of his membership, there’s a tension. And it’s not one easily remedied from within the House itself.
I want to revisit the comments of Rep. Denise Provost when former Sen. Dan Wolf made his suggestion that DeLeo could be primaried:
… “He thought that the only thing that would make a difference is if somebody ran against the speaker from his district in a primary,” said Rep. Denise Provost, who attended the forum with fellow Somerville Democrat Rep. Christine Barber.
She said, “I think that what the senator said put Rep. Barber and myself in a very uncomfortable and awkward position.”
Provost and Barber (e.g.) are quite progressive, repping progressive districts. Like my rep (Garballey), they’re trying to squeeze what they can out of their positions on behalf of their constituents. As long as I’ve been paying attention, there’s been this tension and awkwardness when talking to Reps about the Speaker — whoever it’s been. Again, I’d say it’s DeLeo that puts them in that uncomfortable position, by bottlenecking their priorities.
DeLeo is simply more conservative than his party’s platform for certain, and very possibly the median House membership as well. But what are those points of pressure? A primary is a blunt instrument, but what else is there? We might assume that he’s representing the will of his constituents in Winthrop — perhaps even at the expense of other Reps’ districts — but how can we know if there’s no choice at primary time?
Ubertaccio seems to make an argument that DeLeo’s speakership represents some kind of political equilibrium in the Commonwealth. At the least, there are ample structural reasons to question that.
I think the platform is a grand pander, and its fate is entirely separate from DeLeo’s.
The thing is, I’m not entirely sure DeLeo does not reflect the entirety of the membership. He doesn’t reflect the delegates, but the delegates are the most active people and (by definition) not representative.
A real progressive, to earn the label, would be a pain in the ass to the Speaker, and not give a damn where his/her office was, or what committees he/she sat on.
I’ll be more generous and say the platform is “aspirational.” As I’ve said elsewhere, Reps do care what they can get for their districts, and they can get more by having positions, which are granted by the Speaker. I mean, Ed Markey famously rode being exiled right into Congress – “they can tell me where to sit, but they can’t tell me where to stand” – but … he had to leave the State House.
I don’t get why a primary challenge is the right venue. The House elects its leadership. If the membership is dissatisfied with DeLeo, they should elect someone else.
Well, my whole point is that the vote is not freely given. The Speaker has such power over the membership that it’s essentially coerced — once he becomes speaker.
Well the membership needs to get over its Stockholm Syndrome and change the rules. The House is still a Democracy. It’s convenient for Progressives to say, “oh, there’s nothing we can do”, but that’s not actually true. 81 Reps could get together and reduce the power of the Speaker or elect a new Speaker, ideally both.
The people at the convention are the canvassers, the phone bank people, the sign holders……and they are being duped.
There is another option other than a Primary challenge – more debate (and dissent) in the House. If progressive reps were more willing to challenge the Speaker on important issues, and the Speaker was more willing to allow debate (and even dissent – heaven forbid) we may have a better chance of actually passing progressive issues that are in many cases supported by over 70% of voters in Massachusetts.
I believe the real issue falls on both the Speaker – for his tight reign on the House – and the progressive reps – who seem afraid to publicly challenge him on issues they and their constituents care deeply about. I don’t think we should let the progressive reps off the hook in this discussion by focusing solely on the Speaker.
That’s more or less what I said. Better progressive reps would help (and also, the less progressive reps should object to the iron fist).
Protesters have been dogging Senate and Congress members at their town meetings and offices. This is also a strategy that progressives could use. They wouldn’t need to be obnoxious or combative. On the other hand, many don’t want to anger their legislators, whom they need.
District voters elect someone to represent them; Districts vary in politics. Winthrop is not Amherst, which is makes up most of my district.
Not all Democrats are progressive. We are the party on the Left, but that doesn’t mean all of our voters are lefties.
The Speaker responds to two external stimuli:
1) His Members
2) His Constituents.
Any activism that tries to lobby the Speaker should be directed at those two potential pain points. It’s an uphill battle. #2 is a dead end. A primary will fail. Robert DeLeo is a lifelong resident of Winthrop, a local boy who made good, and someone who has deeply embedded ties throughout the district. A lot of councilors, school committee members, and State Senators served on his campaigns or in his district office. A lot of politicians outside of his district have been helped by him in the past. Similarly, a lot of constituents have been helped by him personally. He takes his district seriously and has taken care of it. I’ve heard more than one person compare his diligence to constituent services to the late Ted Kennedy or Mayor Menino.
As for #1, a majority of his members also apparently like him. I’ve had progressive representatives and legislative aides tell me behind closed doors that he was instrumental in passing the transgender rights bill and that the caucus would be less cohesive or progressive if he were replaced by someone else. I’ve heard this more frequently than criticism.
I’ve also heard dissenting progressive reps and legislative aides complain that he is too top down, that debate and dissent is crushed or held behind closed doors, and that the House has become a far less interesting place to serve because everything is predetermined and individuals representatives have a lot less agency than they used too. These include members who purport to be public allies. I’ve heard transgender rights lobbyists argue he was an obstacle-not an asset.
The biggest obstacle to progressive change in Massachusetts is the insular culture of Beacon Hill. It has less to do with the individual Speaker and more to do with the culture that elects and re-elects him and likes the top down way he leads. The culture that likes the three men in a room model of ordered governance. We do not see the kind of debate, the kind of rancor, or the kind of public input we see in Boston as we do in Washington DC. And I think shining the brightest light we can on that culture and forcing our local representatives to hear our demands for debate, for recorded votes, for committee votes, and for public hearings and public access to those hearings is the best we can hope for. And working outside the system through tactics like the Fair Share Amendment which is driving the debate and moving the Speaker and Governor in a more positive direction on revenue.
Totally agree.
But those Democratic reps who are progressive, and represent districts with a majority of progressive voters, have to be more forceful in pushing a progressive agenda – even if the Speaker is opposed to it. In my opinion, they too often talk a good game but are not willing to publicly oppose the Speaker to try to bring these important issues to a vote, or at least raise the profile of these issues to try to generate public pressure on the House to take them up.
Absolutely agree. They should bring controversial issues to the floor just so the public can know where everyone stands. I think the speakers motivations aren’t ideological-it’s about putting points on the board and making it look like they function better than the Feds by always having cooperation and bipartisanship on everything. The approach is better than the tea party one-but the issue with that approach in a supermajority D caucus is that they never tackle anything hard.
It’s governing defensively-and frankly our majority can afford to take more risks. Make Baker veto stuff, let moderate and conservative D reps show their hand so voters can know where their reps actually stand.
The saddest thing about the trans bill fight were the number of reps who didn’t care about the issue one way or the other but were terrified of taking a stand and getting voted out. And it doesn’t help our side that the stacks of mail they got on that issue were 3-1 against. Ditto tax issues, ditto other social issues especially those dealing with immigration or welfare benefits. The conservatives are a minority in this state but they send mail, they call offices, and they get heard. Moderate/conservative Democrats fear then far more than they fear a progressive primary.
IF it could be determined that, in fact, our progressive reps are prevented from moving the needle very far, and that the exact same supermajority bills would pass regardless of which committees our progressive reps run, THEN it would justify their taking an openly hostile stance against the dictator/speaker. Once a handful of voices committed to voting him out, it would be possible for others to consider joining their ranks.
However, as in many political arenas, the immediate need to make small improvements usually trumps the temptation to make a big gamble. Also, as jconway mentions above, apparently a lot of members actually like DeLeo? I’m sure he’s got a likeable personality, and I’m sure moderate Dems like him fine, but if a progressive says they like him, I suspect they are just terrified of being quoted saying otherwise.
And granted, the Speaker is not himself enforcing some particular agenda, he’s mostly protecting his members from controversy. But that is a disservice to the Commonwealth and our reps need to start treating it as a harmful regressive agenda.
I was told by one Progressive Rep that the Speaker just does what he thinks all the members can agree on. And that if we get rid of him, the next Speaker will be the same. If that is in fact the case, then the answer is not a Primary of DeLeo, but primaries all across the Commonwealth. That is why I am thrilled to see so many new chapters of Progressive Massachusetts springing up. A network with a cohesive agenda and shared resources ought to be able to out-organize the status quo.
This sounds like less an objection to an all-powerful speaker and more objection to those things which everyone (currently) agrees upon.
The thinking, it appears, to go like thus: Primary everyone, with progressives, and the all-powerful speaker will continue to do what he thinks all the members can agree upon…. only, if all the members are sufficiently progressive, it’ll be ok since they’ll all agree on good things and the all-powerful speaker will be forced to act on those good things…
I don’t think it works that way. And, even if it does work that way it will only be for a short time. That’s the nature of politics. I doubt very much it can work like that in any sustained fashion… that is to say, more than a few months. After it all breaks down in the flood of competing progressive absolutism, we’ll continue to have an all-powerful speaker. The Republicans in the congress have every last position they want, and they are paralyzed. Progressives in that position won’t be any different.
You can’t make that deal with that devil. You won’t get what you want. An all-powerful speaker is a danger, whether the lege agrees or not. Whether the lege is progressive or not. And you’ll leave your progressive ideals at the mercy of the all-powerful speaker.
After all, perhaps the most progressive of all positions is a straight up, forthright, and transparent, process. This, and this alone, is what may separate those who are willing to lie and cheat their way to power from others along the ‘conservative’ progressive spectrum.