The contrast between American national government and politics and Massachusetts government and politics has long been dramatic. Washington has become a hotbed of partisan, ideological, and institutional warfare while political and policy negotiations between the Bay State’s “Big Three” at the Massachusetts State House almost always suffice. Presently, the issues of police reform and abortion access provide a clear and simple road map to politics and policymaking in Massachusetts.
On abortion, the Governor did what he had to do to maintain his electoral coalition and the Speaker and Senate President did what they had to do to maintain theirs. Politics produced policy progress because the players willingly played the hands they were dealt and will happily anti up for the next hand. Was the result ever in serious doubt? Was the Governor’s veto a real threat to the legislation? Of course not. What about police reform? Has the Governor taken a stand that reflects discord among the “Big Three?” Nope. For the Senate President, Speaker, and Governor, it’s a simple math problem the answer to which will serve all three well enough when it’s said and done.
When you are committed to moving the policy ball as far as the political math will allow and no farther, there is really no such thing as a political “showdown.” The media reports veto politics in terms of wins and losses for the Governor or the Legislature, but none of the Big Three play it that way. The override of Baker’s abortion veto is just business-as-usual. It won’t hurt Baker politically any more than having to accept the Governor’s minor changes to the police reform bill if enough override votes aren’t there would hurt Democratic legislative leaders.
Beacon Hill Democrats have no incentive to care about whether Charlie Baker wins re-election. The party label of governors means almost nothing to them. Frankly, GOP governors have been at least as accommodating to the electoral needs of Democratic legislators as Democratic governors have been in recent decades, and Baker is no exception. In 2020, plenty of Democrats found themselves on the receiving end of donations from the Massachusetts Majority PAC, which is known to be a Charlie Baker outfit.
Robert DeLeo’s tenure was a success because he played by the rules, protected his members, and moved his policy priorities as far as the political math would allow and no farther. Critics will always try to spin this as an indictment of his leadership, in part by willfully misunderstanding what the actual rules are, but in 2020, with American politics off the rails, DeLeo’s stewardship stands out and deserves the high praise it’s getting from the state’s political elites. Cooperation with his successor’s ascendance too is business as usual signaling the connection between continuity, stability, incremental progress, and legislative supremacy. Praise of “old school” politics is not an endorsement of its shortcomings. It’s an acknowledgement of the inescapable limits of American-style democratic governance. Having been cultivated and maintained since the 1630s, Massachusetts politics isn’t just “old school,” it’s the oldest school. Balancing meaningful representation and effective governance is painstakingly hard work requiring a kind of professionalism far too many have strong incentives to condemn. America’s Framers understood that political professionalism and carefully maintained legislative supremacy were crucial to this delicate balancing act and while these truths have been rejected nationally, they remain very much in tact in Massachusetts government and politics.
Congratulations Mr. Speaker. Welcome to the cheap seats.
One question that intrigues me is whether the Massachusetts “model” leads to less progressive outcomes, more, or the same as other states. On the surface many progressives would say less but if you look closely can really say someone like Andrew Cuomo is more catering to the needs of Democratic legislators nevermind capital P progressive Democratic legislators than Charlie Baker is. Cuomo in fact seems to have been in a constant state of warfare with the NY State Legislature Dem. Caucuses for his entire time in office. Obviously comparing NY to Massachusetts has a bit of an Apples to Oranges’s quality given the different media environments, the fact that NY State has some “real” Ruby Red rural GOP areas to it but still it is an interesting thought experiment.
I just made some comments on Twitter about whether in fact the current MA political climate is leading is more “regressive” political outcomes in the rest of the country. For example progressives in NY State lead by State Senator Ron Kim are pushing for a big increase in the top marginal tax rate while more moderate Democrats like Andrew Cuomo are resisting in part claiming that Millionaires and Billionaires along with Wall Street Bankers will move to other states. Commonly this is assumed to be Florida and Texas but if you look closely under Kim’s proposal Massachusetts(and Illinois for that matter) would also have significantly lower tax rates than NY State and City. So I think there is a question to be asked is Massachusetts “oldest” school politics actually hurting progressives in other parts of the country in a race to the bottom(Connecticut progressive politicians are a group I would also consider to be really really put in a bind by Massachusetts).
Now I am not sure anyone on Beacon Hill cares what Ron Kim(who is also a close ally of Alexandria Ocassio Cortez) thinks but I think politics on Beacon Hill would be more lively if you saw out of state progressive politicians mixing it up and throwing tomatoes over the state line in the direction of the State House on Beacon Hill. I also seem to notice that Ayanna Pressley despite being a charter member of the Squad seems to be no where to be found when these kinds of debates start up.