Here’s a chilling thought: Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick being re-elected to a second term in November 2010.
It’s a rather vicious vision, one that Republicans, independents and centrist Democrats in Massachusetts should strive to prevent from becoming reality. Patrick has not improved the state’s standing since he assumed office in January 2007: it strains the mind to think of any tangible improvement he has brought to the Commonwealth.
Yes, Patrick effectively ended the legal controversy over same-sex marriage in this state. And yes, he worked tirelessly to help Barack Obama become President. However, if you take away those two achievements, what’s left on his record?
The true measure of any public-sector executive’s success is whether his or her constituents are more financially and psychologically satisfied than they were at the beginning of that leader’s tenure. Certainly, the anti-Bush sentiment of recent years was triggered by the general sense that the country’s overall status had deteriorated since 2001. Can it not be argued that the same faults so many Americans saw in Bush can also be seen in Patrick? The governor is obviously a better speaker than the former President, but that may be the only edge he has on Bush in terms of leadership. (That, and the fact that Patrick didn’t start a war.)
Patrick’s record is, sadly, one of shattered promises. He cannot be blamed for everything that has gone wrong in this state, but he can be blamed for a fundamental lack of leadership. We were promised a governor who would be no ordinary leader. We were promised a governor who would encourage businesses to come here in noticeable numbers. We were promised a governor who would work to ease our property tax burdens. If we were to remind Patrick of these promises, he would only tell us, “Sorry.”
“Sorry” is not good enough. Massachusetts literally cannot afford another four years of non-leadership in the State House. Under better circumstances, perhaps it would be possible to give Patrick a second chance. However, the current circumstances are bitter, not better—and another four years of the same non-leadership would only lead to even rougher waters for Massachusetts.
We are told that Patrick now plans to pretend that he is in the Massachusetts Democratic machine, but not of it. We are supposed to believe that an incumbent can bring reform. We are to accept the notion that Patrick will suddenly improve the next time around. We are, in short, being asked to believe in lies.
This state needs real leadership—the sort of leadership that Patrick simply cannot provide. This state needs someone stronger, someone who will legitimately challenge Beacon Hill’s entrenched interests, not someone who will pretend to punch his own party.
The future of Massachusetts cannot include Deval Patrick as governor. He has been tried and found wanting. He has been feeble when we needed him to be firm, behind schedule when he needed him to be several steps ahead. All we asked for was excellence. He has delivered mediocrity.
Mediocrity ought not to be rewarded. We’re a state that has always stood for excellence: excellent schools, excellent hospitals, excellent private industries, excellent public servants. Patrick made an implicit promise that he would uphold that tradition of excellence as governor. It has proven to be another broken promise.
Obviously, we didn’t support Patrick in 2006. We remembered him as the hardcore ideologue of the Clinton Justice Department, the one who adhered to what can charitably be called an innovative interpretation of American civil rights laws. We remembered when he tried to blame conservative-leaning radio programs for atrocities in the South. We remembered the scorn he seemed to hold for those of us who still shared John F. Kennedy’s belief that “Race has no place in American life or law”—and we feared that the ideological extremism he exhibited in the 1990s would manifest itself again in the 2000s.
Certainly, we understand that not everyone shares the view of Patrick-as-hard-lefty. However, there’s nothing subjective about the description of Patrick as an inefficient, ineffective leader. Patrick was supposed to lift this state up to a higher level; today, we realize that he didn’t have the muscle mass to do so.
It won’t be too long before Election Day 2010 arrives. On that November morning, we hope that Bay Staters take a look at the past four years, consider the next four, and decide upon a new and better path.
UPDATE: More from WBUR and the Globe.
SECOND UPDATE: From Holly Robichaud, WBUR, the Globe, the AP, the Metrowest Daily News, the Herald and the Metro.
THIRD UPDATE: More from Holly Robichaud, WBUR, the Metro, Boston Globe and Boston Herald.