I was stunned by the election results, both nationally and statewide. Somehow I had never really believed that Mitt Romney might win; I thought it would be close, but Shannon O'Brien would pull it out in the end. The ballot questions were equally surprising.
We really do live in Never Never Land, I thought. Obviously the world looks different to people who don't live in the Happy Valley.
Saturday night, I was stunned again. A Smith College professor I know, whom I see annually during intermission at the Valley Light Opera, asked "what difference does the governor make in this state?" He did have the good grace to admit he isn't a state employee. I stumbled around, not prepared to answer that question as well as I would have wished.
The fact is, the governor, like the President, appoints all the administrators of department, as well as judges and members of boards and commissions. One of those boards is the University's Board of Trustees, on which there is currently no member from Western Massachusetts. Another is the Board of Managers for the Department of Environmental Management, which attempts to keep the Department focussed on its environmental mission, rather than being converted into a development agency. Governors also have a high-profile speaking platform, from which they can provide leadership and set the public policy agenda. Most importantly, governors propose the budgets for the state, which are particularly important during fiscal crises. And, in this state, they have the power of the line-item veto, which they can exercise not only when the legislature has just passed a budget, but also months later if revenues fail to meet expectations. Romney's first budget will be due at the beginning of 2003. He has said that he will balance the budget without tax increases; he claimed during the campaign that he could save enough money by consolidating departments and "cleaning up the mess" of patronage to avoid both cuts and tax increases. I guess a lot of people believed him, at least enough to run the risk that he might be wrong. I think the primary reason Romney won is he was an outsider and most of the voters were furious at all the insiders.
I can understand why people thought that way. The state government, as a whole, and the legislature, collectively, have not covered themselves with glory. As a group, they appear to be primarily interested in their own power, prestige, and financial well-being. I don't believe that, but there is enough arrogance of office to make it plausible. Apparently Finneran is unpopular enough to have made a good villain throughout the state.
But now what? The election is over and the state has no money, whether we like Finneran or not. After the election, Michael Widmer, President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the most reliable authority on the state's fiscal situation since the last recession, was reported saying that it is not possible to solve our billion and a half dollar fiscal problem without either cuts of "additional revenue." I wish he'd been quoted before the election.
Also, Finneran is still the most powerful person in office. Last month I wrote, "Finneran can make even Romney look like an open-minded liberal on social issues while they hack away at social programs, the environment, and public higher education." I think things are going to be ugly, especially for people who depend on state services, work for the state, or count on state programs to protect the environment or their health. I hope I'm wrong.
Romney was right about a few things. One of them is that a one-party state is a bad idea. The evidence from twelve years of Republican governors doesn't suggest that we get two parties by having a Republican governor and Democratic legislature. We have had two parties in another sense: insiders and everybody else.
Most of the people I know want at least two parties, but not more Republicans. They want a party to the left of the Democrats, probably the Greens. Jill Stein is a very articulate person; if people stick together and work to evolve and present a platform that can attract people from a broader constituency in the next couple of years, this might be a real opportunity.
But it will be hard. The left is in disrepute, in this Commonwealth as well as throughout the country. While it's true that Bush used fear of terrorism and war talk to turn people's attention from the economy and corporate scandals, it's also true that it was easy to do. Those of us to the left of center need to do serious thinking about both core values and strategies. We won't gain the confidence of a majority of voters by dismissing all their beliefs and the candidates they vote for as too stupid to take seriously. We need to define what we are for, and articulate it clearly. Surely this Valley, full of intelligent and involved people, can contribute significantly to that effort.