I wrote the following post right after Governor Baker and Lt Governor Polito announced that neither would seek re-election in 2022. I am re-posting it because in the wake of the 2022 election that saw Democratic women take over the Bay State’s executive branch, too many analysts and commentators are pinning Baker’s decision entirely on pressure from the pro-Trump Republicans who dominate the MassGOP at present. Though clearly relevant, strong opposition from within the MassGOP ranks was not the only hazard of another campaign for the corner office. The potential damage to “standard operating procedures” on Beacon Hill and the resulting damage to the Baker/Polito legacy were also key factors in the decision not to run for an unprecedented third term. Glossing over these reasons perpetuates the notion that Bay State politics is largely no different than any other blue state in the starkly polarized partisan national politics of 2022. Of course, that notion is very wrong. In fact, as the election returns strongly suggest, the Trumpified MassGOP is far too incompetent to have been Baker’s biggest roadblock to a bid for a third term.
Baker’s Decision will Help Protect His Legacy & the Statehouse Status Quo
Charlie Baker’s decision not to make an unprecedented run for a third consecutive four-year term in the Corner Office was a wise one for many reasons, most of which have been well and thoroughly discussed by thoughtful observers. The complications of his party having been thoroughly trumpified and the various land mines Democrats could detonate in a 2022 campaign that could tarnish Baker’s legacy are real and reasonable considerations. The Guv’s stated desire to attend in his final year in office to leading the state through complicated times without the distraction of an active campaign, however, is a much more significant factor than most observers acknowledge. It’s not just a noble sounding dodge. In fact, a 2022 re-election fight would not only make his last year in office less productive, it would likely make the four years following a potential win downright counter-productive to both his governing prospects and to his gubernatorial legacy.
The most impactful fact about contemporary Massachusetts statehouse politics has been a constant reality for three decades. It is the political and policy supremacy of the veto-proof Democratic state legislature. Key to this stability and supremacy is the almost complete lack of competitive state legislative elections in the Commonwealth. It is no mere coincidence that during the same three decades Bay State voters have developed a habit of electing Republican governors.
Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill maintain firm control over their legislative chambers by avoiding political and policy extremes, and by nurturing a political environment that exploits and even helps maintain the general satisfaction of the state’s most powerful interests as well as the moderation of average Massachusetts voters when it comes to legislative elections. The biggest challenge to the leadership’s preferred status quo has long come from the state’s progressive activists, who of late have been aggressively attacking Beacon Hill’s lack of transparency and accountability in order to mobilize public support behind their perennial efforts to advance progressive policy by weakening the iron grip of legislative leaders over rank-in-file legislators and over the legislative agenda.
Beacon Hill Democratic leaders have been using Republican governors to run interference between themselves and progressive activists for decades. During that time, no GOP governor has sought to hang around more than two terms because to do so would violate a sort of informal arrangement in which Democratic legislative leaders sit on their hands during Republican governors’ re-election bids in the interest of preserving a productive working relationship between and among the statehouse’s “Big Three.” If Baker ran for a third term, it would be more difficult for Beacon Hill Democrats to resist progressive pressure to attack Baker on personal and policy grounds, and to support the Democratic nominee more aggressively in 2022.
So, when Baker said that he wanted to focus on doing his job over the next year, he meant doing his job with the complete cooperation of the legislature, which is of course the ONLY way any governor can do his job in Massachusetts.
An experienced hand having worked for Governor Weld, Baker’s appreciation for the need to cultivate legislative cooperation became clear to me during his losing 2010 run. Throughout that campaign Baker scrupulously avoided attacking the Democratic legislature too aggressively, despite the giant target on their backs that was the then unfolding Probation Department scandal.
The Governor’s publicly stated consideration of a third bite at the apple over the past two years, combined with the high-profile urgency of COVID-19 era politics nationwide contributed IMHO to the uncharacteristic pushback against Baker by legislative leaders, including the very public criticism of the governor’s vaccine rollout and the formation of legislative oversight committees to scrutinize Baker’s efforts on multiple policy fronts earlier this year.
The Lt Governor’s decision not to mount her own campaign for the Corner Office was also a very savvy move that will help the Baker-Politio Administration finish their term with a more cooperative legislature. The decision seems to reflect Polito’s own appreciation of legislative relations. Her almost certain defeat in a 2022 bid, it should be noted, wouldn’t be about any personal or professional deficiency on her part. To the contrary, Polito has been a good Lt. Governor and has played her own political cards very well, as far as I can see from the cheap seats. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Polito followed Baker’s route to the top job by running well and losing in 2026 to the Democratic incumbent and then mounting a winning campaign for the open seat in 2030.
The bottom line is that Beacon Hill Democratic leaders work very hard to avoid becoming too involved in gubernatorial elections involving GOP incumbents because doing so might bring a kind of attention to their efforts that makes their preferred brand of governing more difficult to maintain. Avoidance of high-profile controversy, of either the political or policy variety, is a strategic imperative for Beacon Hill leaders during and between elections.