This comment explains Massachusetts politics today—and Romney
Today we have the astounding news that the uber-liberal Boston Globe has endorsed Republican Charlie Baker over Democrat Martha Coakley for governor of Massachusetts.
You may recall that Coakley is the person Scott Brown defeated for the Senate. She is an exceptionally tone-deaf and uncharismatic politician, and that’s been true in this campaign as well. However, there’s more going on here; the Globe doesn’t have that much to lose by endorsing a Republican. Every now and then the state of Massachusetts gets a hankering for a tad more efficiency, but just a tad. When that feeling comes over the electorate, it goes for a Republican. But it really doesn’t matter all that much, either on a national scale or a local one, because of the peculiar nature of Massachusetts politics.
During the 2012 campaign I tried to describe the political situation in Massachusetts in post after long-winded post. Here a commenter at Althouse does it in two succinct paragraphs, on a thread about why Charlie Baker may win:
The reason they don’t fear a Republican governor is because the Dems have enough state congressional seats to override any veto. They can push through any law that they want. Who cares if the governor is a Democrat or Republican? It’s a position of prestige, maybe, but little power.
Please remember that state-wide universal health coverage wasn’t Mitt’s idea. The legislature was pushing that through come hook or crook. Mitt tried his best to make it as market-friendly as possible, but he got rough-shodly run over, and now most people think Obamacare was based on Mitt’s ideas rather than the Democrat hacks that foisted it upon the polity.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not going into this again because I think Romney should run again. I don’t. I think someone new is needed in 2016. But it still annoys me that so many people swallowed a lot of garbage about so-called “Romneycare” hook, line, and sinker, never bothering to learn the complexities of the actual situation.
The Massachusetts law is different in important ways from the plan that Romney pushed as governor. Few voters know, for example, that Romney strongly opposed the employer mandate and wanted an escape from the individual mandate — allowing people to instead be able to post a bond if they were uninsured and had big medical bills. When Romney signed the law, he believed it contained the escape hatch, but legislators removed it before final passage.
Romney vetoed eight provisions of the Massachusetts bill, and every one of his vetoes was overridden by the legislature. Should Romney have known this was likely? Yes…
And then along came Romney’s successor, Deval Patrick:
In the end, it didn’t matter what Romney thought about the employer mandate. The Democrats controlled 85 percent of the legislature. After the bill-signing ceremony was over, they went back to the State House and overrode each of Romney’s eight vetoes.
More crucially, as Jennifer Heldt Powell and Josh Archambault describe in a new book, The Great Experiment, it was Democrats and progressive activists who ended up implementing the Massachusetts health law, especially after Romney left office in January 2007. They took the law in a much different direction than Romney would have liked. And while Democrats have sought to credit (or blame) Romney for the passage of Obamacare, it is more accurate to say that the federal Affordable Care Act is modeled after the Democratically implemented version of the Massachusetts law, as opposed to the one that Romney had sought…
Everyone needs to understand the situation faced by a Romney, or a Charlie Baker, or any Republican governor, in a state such as Massachusetts, where the power for Republicans to change things is limited.
You might ask why Republicans run in Massachusetts, then, if it’s that bad. I think those Republicans who do want to change things are aware of how hard it will be, but want to do what they can and are not afraid of fighting overwhelming odds. Romney, for example, felt that the state was going under financially (which it was at the time), and he felt that he could at least help a little, even with the obstacles the Democrats would put up. And he did help, a little. But it required the sort of compromise that many conservatives don’t tolerate in a politician, and afterwards much of the good he had accomplished was undermined and undone by the left.
I hope Baker wins, and I wish him much luck. And I wish that people would look on subsequent national runs of any Republican who has had face the necessity of working with a strongly veto-proof Democratic legislature as not being indicative of what that person would do if he/she had more legislative support.
One could just as easily argue that “not being indicative of what that person would do” is an argument against a Republican using governance of a deep blue state as a launching pad for national office. Impossible to know if we’d end up with a progressive or a severe conservative.
What I remember is how proud Romney was about his accomplishments as governor (though he did not run again because he knew he would lose) and his record of working with dems. They only people who think working with dems is a noble thing are establishment types. I’d be a lot more respectful if he’d say that he tried his hardest but the corrupt one-party apparatus blocked real reform and that what MA needs more than anything is political reform because the government does not do anything as well as the private sector.
Good column.
Excellent post Neo. I wish people would take it to heart. But, as the first two responses indicate, they will not.
We squandered the chance to elect a really good man, whom I believe would have been the President we need at this time, in no small part because of demands for 100% ideological purity by a segment of the punditry and electorate. As I often comment, those who make that demand often hold up Ronald Reagan, who was closer to the Romney mold than they will ever acknowledge, as the standard.
That was and is my understanding of the situation Romney faced in Mass. as well and was a major factor in why I have never been anti-Romney, even though he’s an establishment candidate.
I was living in California when Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Gov. and something similar happened to him. Even back then, the democrats had long dominated the state legislature and refused to work with him. So Arnold tried to go around the legislature using California’s proposition system. The teacher, firefighter and police unions castrated him. Claiming that he wanted to gut funding when all he wanted to do was cut the rate of increases. Sound familiar?
All of this said, re:
“When Romney signed the law, he believed it contained the escape hatch, but legislators removed it before final passage. … Romney vetoed eight provisions of the Massachusetts bill, and every one of his vetoes was overridden by the legislature. … After the bill-signing ceremony was over, they went back to the State House and overrode each of Romney’s eight vetoes.”
I don’t know how Mass. legislative procedure works but I’ve always assumed that State procedures generally follow Federal procedures and I really don’t see how legally it could be otherwise. If so, it makes the above assertions blatantly false.
Specifically, once the Executive signs a bill, it can’t go back for ‘overrides’. As if it did, it would no longer be the bill that the Executive signed into law. Vetoes may be overturned by a sufficient number of legislative votes but the bill passed over an Executive veto has to be the exact same bill that the Executive vetoed, as any additions would make it an entirely different bill and thus still subject to a new Executive veto.
Oldflyer,
I agree. I get really annoyed because so many conservatives (mostly commenters) are willling to knock down a good person on a single issue they disagree with. And they are not necessarily well informed. Nor do they do a good job of making a case to the wider public. Instead they make it easier for the left and MSM to categorize all conservativeas as uncaring, big money, scientific illiterates who hate women and blacks.
Addendum; a bill vetoed by the Executive can be added to and approved by a veto proof majority, in which case it becomes law whatever the Executive does, perhaps that’s what was meant.
“so many conservatives (mostly commenters) are willling to knock down a good person on a single issue they disagree with.”
That may be true of a small minority of those disgusted with the GOP RINO establishment but IMO that is not true of the majority of those who refuse to vote for RINOs. In general, their position is the result of “a long train of abuses” such as to make irrefutable the assertion that the GOP has no intention of doing anything more than slowing down the democrat juggernaut.
This also leads to another matter, lately it appears to me that many of those who advocate voting for RINOs as a necessary vote for ‘the lesser of two evils’ appear to be caricaturing those who oppose voting for RINOs in simplistic and demeaning terms and assigning to them base motivations. Quite frankly, this is reminiscent of the left’s tactics, little rebuttal to the charge of repeated, consistent and highly likely continued betrayal by RINOs and instead, just demonizing our motives as self-serving immaturity.
Geoffrey Britain,
It depends on those who oppose voting for RINOs. If they are doing something to make their principles appeal to a wider audience, if they have really studied the issues, then fine. But I read comments from some who seem more interest in yelling than in moving people to their POV. I have the same feeling about people who think they are arguing for a social principle by citing a bible quote. I have great respect for people whose opinions are formed by religion. But it is foolish to think an atheist will listen them. Better to make a strong argument on rational, experience based claims.
Oldflyer: I get the point Neo is making. my point is that an actual track record is probably better than hoping a candidate will do the right thing.
And how did we squander the chance to elect him? His name was on the ballot. I voted for him but a majority chose not to.
Yes, he is a nice guy. But if he had won, I bet one of his first speeches would have been on how he would be able to make Obamacare work based on his experience in MA.
The NYT and WaPo and Alphabets wouldn’t tell us THAT!
KL Smith. Fine if you voted for him, then you are not among those who with held their vote. If you did not denigrate him publicly, as many Pundits did leading up to the election, you did not influence others to with hold their vote. But, the fact is that too many did; and the Romney campaign had a false sense of security as election day approached.
To borrow a famous quote: “There you go again”, with your speculation about what his first speech would have been. What we do know is that he was dead on with much of what he said, and was mocked for, during the campaign. Events have proven his points and demonstrated his wisdom.
As to the future. Sadly, I am afraid that another Romney run would be unsuccessful. He is politically damaged by the thinking you express and viewed as old, even though he would only be 69 when he took office. Nor do I welcome a Jeb run. Scott Walker, if he survives the current assault; Bobby Jindal, or some other younger, fresher face who has proven Executive Competence and election winning experience. One of the women governors; e.g. Martinez might fill the bill. She looks impressive, but don’t know enough about her at this point. Ben Carson would meet my criteria for VP.
I can’t speak for Speaker Pelosi, or K Street… but for Barry 0-care is — in his mind — replication of HAWAII’S health care law.
It was the biggest thing in Hawaii politics during the 1970s — and simply HAD to be the big topic at his dinner table.
In Hawaii, that law was (and still is) considered to be the GOP killer law. Virtually every GOP legislator that railed against it was promptly defeated at the polls… never to come back.
THAT’S why Barry was always totally on board with such a program.
His open borders strategy is of the same desire: a one-party state.
I tell people that the best way to think about Massachusetts politics is that it is Louisiana with Harvard. The pervasive graft and corruption thrives through a quiet deal with the Cambridge/Suburban axis. The liberal elites get to act like MA is an paragon of progressivism while the old irish mob/unions get to siphon off as much as they can get.
Mitt got elected when the stench of the Bulger years got too much even for Massachusetts. When your state is really run by the crooked brother of a psychotic mob hitman it begins to show.
expat @ 5:28,
In principle, I have no disagreement with that qualification. Perhaps I assumed of you a more categorical position than you intended. But my observation, that some in your camp imply, that all opposition to RINOs is immature and self-serving remains.
Geoffrey Britain,
I just don’t want to see us go through another flavor-of-the month circular firing squad again.
Seems like if they cared enough to go through the begging and pandering and kow-towing necessary to get elected in a state which doesn’t want them and won’t let them do anything they would care enough to move.
Everyone needs to understand the situation faced by a Romney, or a Charlie Baker, or any Republican governor, in a state such as Massachusetts, where the power for Republicans to change things is limited.
That’s no different for America at large. Yet people think it will be different.
We must plan on perfidy from the left. That’s what they do.
In this respect, Romney’s tenure was foolish. He only served as a shield for the liberal statists. We got none of the credit (not that there was much to crow about), and all of the blame.
This had been commented on during the presidential debates; how Romney was unable to attack Obama on the ACA.
Still, a good piece. It makes me think that being a Republican governor of a blue state is worthless.
Over time, a small change in trajectory will have a huge impact on the final destination. THAT, my friends, is the benefit of a Republican Governor in a so-called blue state.
I live in Jersey. I know.
Matt_SE:
It really depends how you define “blue state.” For example, Scott Walker is the governor of a blue state in terms of presidential votes (Wisconsin has voted Democratic in every election since 1972, with the exception of the Reagan years). But the legislature is relatively close R/D, nothing even remotely like that of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts and California are the two states where it would be pretty thankless to be a Republican governor, because of the legislature.
Lurch says: “Over time, a small change in trajectory will have a huge impact on the final destination. THAT, my friends, is the benefit of a Republican Governor in a so-called blue state. I live in Jersey. I know.”
I live in the blue state of Wisconsin, and our Governor is Scott Walker. I know, too.
DirtyJobsGuy
I tell people that the best way to think about Massachusetts politics is that it is Louisiana with Harvard. The pervasive graft and corruption thrives through a quiet deal with the Cambridge/Suburban axis.
Excellent comparison. I am reminded of my yellow dog progressive Democrat sister in law, a Mass native who has MSNBC on longer than is permissible for maintaining mental health. Her brother has a small construction firm that got caught in some graft dealings on the Big Dig.
In the same family you have the progressive/graft nexus you have sketched out.
DirtyJobsGuy
When your state [Mass/MA]is really run by the crooked brother of a psychotic mob hitman it begins to show.
Don’t know if I should laugh or cry.
93% of DC voted for Hussein O. The super majority of the federal bureaucracy are Democrats or Leftist ally members. A Republican administration has even more limitations than a governor.
The Left is limited by only a few things, while others are limited by the US Constitution or law. The Left are not limited very much by such, if only because they don’t even have their conscience limiting them. One guess why that would be.
wealth is not the same as evil. The criminal and the psychopath are not so much motivated by greed as they are motivated by the hatred of normal society. “A man is not a socialist,” wrote Gustave le Bon, “without hating some person or thing….” The background of the great socialist leaders, from Mao and Castro, to Stalin and Lenin, was a background of psychopathology. Totalitarian socialism, in fact, has always been government by psychopaths. The final giveaway is the presence of ordinary criminal types within the leadership of the Communist Party and its revolutionary cadre. Here we find the sadists, the robbers, the killers, and the misfits. Revolution is alluring to them, because it gives them permission to do their thing under cover of an ideal. As Sam Vaknin has pointed out, “The suppression of envy is at the core of the narcissist’s being. If he fails to convince his self that he is the only good object in the universe, he is bound to be exposed to his own murderous envy. If there are others out there who are better than him, he envies them, he lashes out at them ferociously, uncontrollably, madly, hatefully, he tries to eliminate them.”
Is it wise to believe that communism died because the psychopaths behind it were cured? Or would it be wiser, overall, to assume that the psychopaths who composed the core of a criminal system remain as they were? Why would it be any different now? Today they fool us with the pretense that they have turned over a new leaf. But there is no leaf, and there is nothing to turn over. Psychopaths are not cured by becoming capitalists
Gringo, dirty jobs guy !
Don t forget Whitey won a MILLION jack pot in the
Mass Lottery !
I have a copy of the original Heritage presentation. The whole idea behind the individual mandate was for catastrophic care because the hospitals were getting stuck with huge bills for what turned out to be free care.
There was no intention of the soup to nuts program the Democrats created both in Massachusetts and in ObamaCare. Massachusetts welcomed ObamaCare because the program they put in place was eating up the state budget. It was a disaster.
The difference between a Romney and a Baker administration will be that Baker will have to deal with a more dynamic and ideological Republican party than Mitt did–the product of the ’10 cycle and a fairly active Tea Party. I’m afraid he may be faced with the choice of tilting at windmills with the support of the passionate conservative faction that was elected then or stabbing them in the back in order to get things done by cutting a deal with the Dems. I don’t think anybody in this state doubts which course he would take. I mean, he may be adroit enough to avoid this Hobson’s choice but there are plenty of GOP insiders who would love for him to drive out the Tea Party.
The quoted text that supposedly excuses Romney, actually condemns him even more. He signed a bill thinking it contained something that it didn’t. So on top of having no actually principles from which he governs and therefore from which we can reasonably project how he would govern, he is actually incompetent while governing technocratically.