Tom Keane

Warren for Senate? No thanks

DEAR ELIZABETH Warren:

Please don’t.

You’ve gone to Legoland right now, supposedly to contemplate your future after a heady and, of late, bruising time in Washington. You’re the Harvard professor who connected with the little guy, writing a few popular money management books and even appearing on “Dr. Phil.’’ And then in 2008, as the financial world came crashing down, you went to D.C. to help sort out the mess, making to the cover of Time (the “New Sheriffs of Wall Street’’), which also named you - twice - one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. The Globe’s Sunday magazine awarded you Bostonian of the Year for 2009. And this year saw the formation of your brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

But it all soured of late. You should have been the first head of the bureau but, no, you weren’t even nominated. Perhaps that’s just realism; a concession to the fact that in these virulently partisan times you wouldn’t have made it through confirmation. Or maybe, as some have suggested, it’s sexism. I’d like to think we’re past that, but then again we have just been through a week’s worth of stories trashing a leading female presidential candidate because she has migraines (“Sorry, dear, I can’t negotiate weapons reductions tonight. I have a headache’’), so maybe I’m wrong.

But that’s OK, because the Democratic mandarins have a new job for you: candidate for Senate, slayer of Scott Brown.

Right now they’re in full woo mode, whispering sweet nothings about how much they want you and how good you’d be. No doubt you’re flattered and, really, who wouldn’t be? But still, it all sounds eerily familiar, the same kind of siren song Ted Kennedy heard in 1980 when the left pleaded with him to take on Jimmy Carter and he finally did, only to suddenly find himself abandoned by those who had courted him, his legacy that year a good speech and arguably throwing the election to Ronald Reagan.

The crux of the argument for those who urge you to run is that they need a savior: You, and only you, have the stature to beat the political phenomenon that is Scott Brown. Sure, there is already a well-formed field of Democrats eager to take on the task, but they’re Lilliputians, unknown and unready.

The Lilliputians themselves might object to the characterization. Alan Khazei, for instance, co-founded City Year, a do-gooder organization on par, at least locally, with the stuff you’ve been doing nationally. Setti Warren, the mayor of Newton, is a rising star (perhaps rising too quickly, some think, but politics is a game of ambition, not reticence). Neither will give way just because you’re in the race. Granted, they don’t have a lot of name recognition statewide, but then again - and I hate to break the news - neither do you. You’re better connected, perhaps, but not better known.

Moreover, I’m not really sure that stature is the way to win this race. Brown, remember, was also an unknown. But unlike his opponent, he was a better campaigner and connected with folks on the ground. You’ve done some great stuff, but campaigning is an entirely different skill-set: grinding, endless hours of fundraising, shaking hands, and dodging reporters trying to trip you up. You’ll be learning on the job, and that’s a tough thing to do (just ask Charlie Baker).

Then too, there’s a dirty secret about Massachusetts you need to know. We may be predominantly Democratic but that doesn’t make us liberal. Yes, we’re a socially tolerant bunch but, like much of the country, we don’t care for high taxes, free spending, or lots of government regulation. Brown understood that, and in office he has for the most part stuck to those themes, which is why even Democratic polls show him the most popular politician in the state. The lefties pushing you to get into this race don’t want you for your moderation, you know, and the message you’ll be pushing may leave mainstream voters cold.

No doubt, it’s gratifying to be thought a savior. But if you jump into this pool, don’t think you’ll be walking on water. Indeed, you may quickly find yourself drowning.

Originally published in the Boston Globe.

Not your father’s GOP

THESE ARE bad times for the GOP.

There once was a world where Republicans were the party of stability and fiscal rectitude, the responsible stewards of the nation’s economy. They were small-c conservatives, folks who understood how economics worked and knew that, recessions notwithstanding, this country’s free-market economy was the best chance for consistently generating wealth and keeping large numbers employed. They understood that the United States’ stature in the world - its military might, its reputation for cutting-edge innovation, and its leadership of the global economy - rested on keeping that economy humming along. And they understood further that a free market depended on an effective national government, including a strong central bank, evenhanded regulation, and a reliable legal system.

Republicans understood all of this. And that’s why business people, from CEOs of huge corporations down to scrappy entrepreneurs, regularly leaned their way. The GOP was the party they could trust.

In this world, Democrats were untrustworthy. They didn’t appreciate business. They saw it as something to be taxed and exploited, a necessary evil perhaps, but certainly not a friend to the common man and woman. There were a few standout Democrats who argued the contrary - the late Senator Paul Tsongas being an early example - but for the most part the perception from the business community was that Democrats just didn’t get it.

Can one seriously make that argument anymore?

On Aug. 2 - two weeks from now - the United States reaches its debt ceiling. The president, now a model of fiscal responsibility, has been frantically trying to cut a deal to increase that ceiling - so far unsuccessfully. It seems almost unimaginable we could be in this position. Economists of all stripes warn the consequences could be disastrous. The stock market could collapse, billions would be lost, and the United States might well enter a second recession, perhaps even more severe than it experienced in 2008.

The basics of a solution seem obvious: raise the debt ceiling in exchange for some mix of spending cuts and closing of tax loopholes. So why no agreement?

The White House wants a deal, and has made clear it’s willing to take heat from its left-wing to put one together. Republicans, it appears, do not.

Not all Republicans. Many times over the last few weeks, the party’s leadership - Speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell - have sat down for negotiations and thought they had the makings of an agreement. But when they’ve gone back to their members, they’ve been rebuffed. Those members - the pols elected in 2010 that came from the ranks of the newly risen and energized Tea Party - are unwilling to compromise. They’re playing chicken, unafraid to crash.

Tea Party presidential candidate Representative Michele Bachmann, for instance, flatly says she won’t vote to increase the ceiling.

US Representative Allen West, a Florida Tea Partier, dismisses the consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling, “I don’t believe it’s going to be catastrophic.’’

Indeed, a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll from last week found that 75 percent of Tea Party supporters don’t believe there will be much harm from the United States going into default.

There is a surreal, flat-earth quality to these attitudes and they are, quite frankly, scary as hell. After all, this is the faction of the Republican Party that now arguably controls the US House.

The Tea Party rose to power propelled by anger over the seeming collusion by both parties to unchecked, debt-financed expansion of the federal government - one begun by George W. Bush and then pushed even further by Obama. Fair enough. But the Republican Party they have conquered now looks like it is being run by a set of lunatics, incapable of translating its anger into governance. I suspect - hope, really - a debt ceiling agreement will ultimately be reached. But by its actions so far, this new GOP has likely already alienated the business community that was once its biggest booster. Democrats may well benefit. Or perhaps the next election will see Republicans effectively purging the extremists from their ranks. Tea Partiers have made much mockery of the RINOs, Republicans In Name Only. The RINOs may be poised for a comeback.

Originally published in the Boston Globe.

Game over

Gay marriage will eventually be the law of the land

THE FIGHT over same-sex marriage - a topic undiscussed 20 years ago, a shocking proposition a decade ago - will soon be over. It will take some years more, and battles remain, but the outcome of the war is clear.

This may seem a remarkable claim, given the federal Defense Of Marriage Act, the 2008 rejection of same-sex marriage by California voters, and the laws of a majority of states, all of which aim to preserve traditional, heterosexual marriage. And there are still more than a few politicians who indulge in homophobia, most notably Michele Bachmann, who recently became the first presidential candidate to sign an anti-gay-marriage pledge.

Moreover, same-sex marriage is legal in just six states and Washington, D.C., representing a scant 11 percent of the country’s population. So why the optimism?

Gay marriage is no longer working as a wedge issue.

For a long while, conservatives liked to think of gay marriage and abortion as related - if you opposed abortion, then you’d also oppose gay marriage. As with abortion, gay marriage was used effectively as a club against any variety of politicians, often with tremendous electoral success.

But the two issues are quite different. It’s been nearly four decades since Roe v. Wade, but abortion continues to leave people uncomfortable. “Americans are at once pro-life and pro-choice’’ concluded a 2011 analysis of opinion polls by the American Enterprise Institute. That ambivalence was underscored by former President Bill Clinton’s line about making abortion “safe, legal and rare.’’ “Rare,’’ of course, was an acknowledgement that even the pro-choice crowd recognizes abortion has real costs.

Not so with same-sex marriage. While the argued harm of abortion is ending a potential life, it’s hard to see what damage might be caused by gays getting married. If anything, gay marriage - like all marriage - discourages promiscuity in favor of building long-term monogamous relationships. This, of course, is a state of affairs that conservatives should want.

Then too, the one-time fears that homosexual marriages would somehow undermine heterosexual relationships have not been borne out. In Massachusetts, the divorce rate has actually dropped since the introduction of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages themselves are, like all marriages, pretty noncontroversial - you’ll find pickets at abortion clinics but not outside a gay couple’s home. The result has been a dramatic change in attitudes. A Gallup survey from May found a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage. A year ago, the figure was only 44 percent.

One can see this change occurring, almost perversely, in the reaction of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to New York’s recent legalization. Christie denounced the law, saying, “I’m not a fan of gay marriage.’’ On the other hand, New Jersey does have a civil union law which offers up essentially the same collection of rights and obligations of traditional marriage. Christie is OK with that. His objection, when you get down to it, is one of terminology: civil unions aren’t called “marriage.’’ That’s a meaningful difference, a sort of separate but equal status that gays rightly believe implies some inferiority to their relationships. Still, it’s only a word - and if Christie’s only objection is the word itself, one suspects over time that will fade.

Underlying this change has been an explicit strategy by gay activists to encourage gays to be “out.’’ Back in the days when they were closeted, gays were easy targets for fear or mockery. But today, and especially for younger Americans, things are far different. Those now in high school and college have gay classmates, they are exposed to gay role models (from Ellen to Professor Dumbledore) and they see gays in almost all walks of life. It’s no big deal and they find it hard to credit the notion that these people - often their friends - should be treated differently. Thus surveys find that, while older Americans still resist gay marriage, younger Americans easily give it their support.

And as those younger Americans age, they will increasingly represent a majority of the voting population. Laws against gays marrying will seem as wrong to them as anti-miscegenation laws now seem to us. Gay marriage will eventually be the law of the land.

Originally published in the Boston Globe.

Power on

Punish corruption, but don’t weaken the Legislature

SO IT turns out Sal DiMasi was a crook. Now, as he awaits a mid-August sentencing, we’re trying to figure out what to do about it - with proposed solutions that range from the silly to the dangerous.

The silly includes an Onion-like suggestion from state Republicans that lobbyists be required to wear large name tags labeled “Registered Lobbyist.’’ (Nathaniel Hawthorne would be proud.) Another is a “snitching’’ rule requiring pols to out each others’ misdeeds. (What then? Reps wearing “No Snitchin’’’ T-shirts?)

The dangerous would seek to remake the Legislature altogether. For example, a recent Globe editorial argued that the former speaker’s conviction on multiple charges of corruption “should spell the end of the imperial speakership on Beacon Hill.’’ It’s a line reminiscent of that used during the Watergate scandal, when some claimed the real problem was Richard Nixon’s “imperial presidency.’’

The punishment for the corruption of one, apparently, is to take the whole institution down a peg.

All these ideas have a desperate quality to them. It is as if, stunned by DiMasi’s crimes, we’ll try anything, no matter how ill-thought.

A cynic might be prompted to note that successfully undermining the speakership and fragmenting power among many state reps would simply mean there were more people who have to be bribed. Maybe, in fact, the takedown of the imperial speakership is little more than a cleverly disguised scheme to spread the wealth: let’s give backbenchers the same opportunities for corruption as House leadership!

More seriously, weakening the House (or the Senate) is hardly in our long-term interest. As we found out in the wake of Nixon’s resignation - when both Presidents Ford and Carter sought to soften the power of their office - the opposite of imperialism is ineffectiveness. By the time the 1980 election rolled around, Americans were sick of milquetoast presidents and elected one, Ronald Reagan, who promised to reverse course.

The same applies to Massachusetts. The Legislature currently is a strong counterweight to the power of the governor. That’s a good thing. As Deval Patrick has learned on a host of issues, circumstances are rare when he unilaterally can dictate policy outcomes; almost any major initiative requires the Senate and House to agree. But if power were diffused among each body’s many members, it would be a simple matter for the governor to assemble coalitions through everyday horse-trading (a road in some rep’s district for a “yes’’ vote on casinos, for instance). If you want an example of this in action, simply check out the city of Boston, whose strong-mayor, weak-council form of government leaves Tom Menino in near absolute control.

In fact, we may not need some grand solution at all. When ordinary street criminals suffer little in the way of punishment, there is little incentive for them to stop committing crimes. Change the equation - impose consequences - and crime drops. The same is true with politicians. In the past, we have reacted to politicians’ crimes with little more than admonishments and slaps on the wrist. That no longer seems true. State Senator Dianne Wilkerson and City Councilor Chuck Turner are now in prison for crimes that once would have fetched mild reprimands. Almost certainly, that will be the case with DiMasi as well, who is looking at a 10- to 20-year sentence. It’s the kind of punishment that delivers a clear message that even a stunned DiMasi had to acknowledge after he was convicted: The rules are now different.

But I think also that part of the problem lies with us. In her column Love Letters (a guilty pleasure, I must admit), Globe writer Meredith Goldstein recently heard from a writer worried about her boyfriend’s “white lies.’’ The ensuing commentary was illuminating. For some, cheating on a supermarket checkout scanner was perfectly acceptable, almost a matter of personal choice. Others had no problem with lying on taxes. Receive too much change from a shop clerk? It’s your lucky day!

Politicians, in truth, are no different from the rest of us. The step from these small larcenies to something bigger is a difference in degree, not kind. If we really want to change the so-called “culture of corruption’’ on Beacon Hill, we need a blunt conversation about our own.

Originally published in the Boston Globe.