Tom Keane

A McGovern moment?

A general election disaster could give the GOP reason to rethink its message

THE BATTLE for the soul of the Republican Party comes to a head in Michigan and Arizona this Tuesday and on Super Tuesday just a week later. The moderate home of John McCain, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and even Ronald Reagan is under a withering assault from Tea Partiers and Bible Belters. The conservative marauders are not only at the gates, but it looks like they may take over.

Maybe it would be best if they did.

“Conservative’’ in this case does not mean “fiscal conservative.’’ It means someone who is socially conservative - anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, deeply Christian - and believes that government has the responsibility to push those values in the public sphere. It also means someone who largely rejects the ability of government to accomplish much good at all in other areas, be they economic, regulatory, environmental, or matters of social justice. That’s why, measured by today’s GOP politics, Reagan now looks the moderate.

And his protests about his “severely conservative’’ style of governing notwithstanding, so too is Mitt Romney. The rap on the former Massachusetts governor is that he is not an authentic conservative. That rap, as any Bay State resident who lived through the first years of his administration knows, is completely true.

And we all know what will happen if Romney wins the nomination. He’ll pivot quickly to appeal to independents, positioning himself as a moderate Republican in the tradition of those who have gone before him. Should he then lose - a prospect that seems ever more likely given the economy’s turnaround and the GOP’s own ugly infighting - the party’s right wing will seize on that loss as further proof that it shouldn’t try to be centrist. Indeed, a Democratic victory in 2012 against Romney would be almost pyrrhic, as it would likely cause the GOP to shift further rightward, making it even more obstreperous and unwilling to cooperate with Democrats.

So let the GOP nominate a Santorum or a Gingrich and get it out of its system. Let the GOP have, if you will, its George McGovern moment.

McGovern’s defeat in 1972 ultimately led to a long rethinking about the Democrats’ message. Some positions, especially those that seemed overtly anti-capitalist or urged American timidity in world events, were abandoned. So too the GOP needs to find out whether its newly ascendant conservative dogma appeals to mainstream America. My guess is that a contest featuring Santorum versus Obama would be a lot like McGovern versus Nixon: Santorum would get trounced. Political movements may be about ideology, but political parties are about winning, and should a conservative Republican get thumped in November - and in the process, drag down a lot of GOP senators and House members with him - the Republican Party will have to reassess.

It may not have to wait until then, however. Over the last several months, Romney has been desperately trying to appeal to conservatives, veering ever rightward as one conservative challenger after another has risen in the polls. It’s been a pathetic thing to watch and has justifiably fed into talk about his lack of sincerity.

But there’s no way Romney can run to the right of Santorum. The former Pennsylvania senator’s positions on contraception (opposes it), gays (reinstate “don’t ask, don’t tell’’), and women in the workplace (better they should be at home) are so extreme that even the protean Romney can’t go there. Nor it seems, can voters. Two weeks ago, Michigan seemed out of reach to Romney, with Santorum ahead by 15 points in one poll. Now, as Santorum’s positions become better known, it’s close to a dead heat. There’s a real-world lesson for Romney here. His fiscal message may be a potential winner, something he seems to have forgotten in his pandering to his party’s conservatives.

Democrats have been enjoying the fracturing of the GOP during this primary season. But even they would admit that in the long run, it’s better to have two parties working toward common ends than a circumstance where one party is uncompromising and unbending. The GOP will eventually come to that realization as well - either soon (which would still give it a chance) or in November (when it would have none).

Originally published in the Boston Globe on February 25, 2012.

Make that Congressman Kennedy

WHEN NEOPHYTE Ted Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1962, he squared up against Massachusetts Attorney General Edward J. McCormack who warned that “the office of United States senator should be merited, and not inherited.“ Ted’s candidacy should be a “joke,’’ McCormack argued, “but nobody’s laughing because his name is not Edward Moore. It’s Edward Moore Kennedy.’’

Kennedy beat the McCormack by a margin of 2 to 1.

Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil. Joe Kennedy III has just jumped into the race to succeed Barney Frank and, let’s face it, the contest is over. Indeed, it never began. Fifty years later - a half century! - and the Bay State’s extraordinary, axiomatic, and unquestioning loyalty to the Kennedy name seems not to have wavered a bit.

Kennedy seems, by all accounts, a nice enough 31-year-old. Despite being raised in a famous family, he’s lived a largely anonymous life, working for the past several years as an assistant district attorney. Kennedy’s career to date is not an unusual profile for someone who might want to try his hands at politics. But it’s not the profile of a prohibitive favorite.

Yet - absent the extraordinary - he’ll win, just like his great uncle, by a margin of 2 to 1.

Really. A UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll conducted last week - before Kennedy’s formal announcement - put the tenderfoot ahead of Republican Sean Bielat by that margin. Boston city councilor Mike Ross, who toyed with the idea of moving back to his hometown of Newton to enter the Democratic primary, figured out the turf very quickly. Once Kennedy started nosing about, Ross smartly exited - churlishly claiming his reason was Congress was “dysfunctional and broken’’ (Really? Worse than the City Council?). Everyone else thinking about the race should consider following his lead.

And never mind the blather from Joe Kennedy that the race goes to the one “who goes out and earns it.’’ The guy is already ahead before anyone knows about his issues, priorities or other critical topics such as (and I’ll never forgive Bill Clinton for answering this one) boxers or briefs. He may work hard, but that won’t be why he’ll win.

He’ll win, as we all know, because of his last name.

By some lights, one can understand the pragmatic calculus of voters 50 years ago who gave Ted the nod. His brother was, after all, the president. Hence, Ted’s campaign slogan, “He Can Do More for Massachusetts.’’

But that Kennedy pull doesn’t do much in Washington anymore. Indeed, purely pragmatic politics would argue for Massachusetts electing Republicans, where they can have far more influence in a House of Representatives that almost certainly will be controlled by the GOP.

So why does that Kennedy name still matter? Perhaps it’s nostalgia for the days of Camelot and a yearning for its recreation. Perhaps too we’ve never unequivocally embraced our 1776 rejection of royalty. We still swoon when British royalty wed or visit our shores, and the Kennedys are a reasonable simulacrum.

But coupled with that, there is this: Kennedys are a known commodity. When Joe likely gets elected next November, while his last name may be paramount, his first name will be irrelevant. He could be any of the numerous members of the family, all of whom would get the same immediate attention from the electorate. That’s because, even though we supposedly know nothing about Joe Kennedy III, in truth, we know everything we need to know. We know how the family thinks and how the family thinks is how Joe will think.

The Kennedys not only inherit wealth and good hair, they also inherit a sense of public service and shared values. There’s no worry that Joe will turn out to be a conservative. No one believes that he’ll oppose abortion rights or somehow considers the poor best off left fending for themselves. Doubtless he’ll support national health care, just as he’ll advocate for taxing the wealthy.

When we elect the man, we’ll get the clan.

It’s been 14 months since a Kennedy last held national public office. It’ll be good to see one back again, perhaps the first of many. Who knows? Maybe the third generation can match the first.

Originally published in the Boston Globe on February 17, 2012.

Mass. moderate?

Exceptional is more like it: The Bay State compares well in just about everything

THE POLITICAL expletive in this season’s Republican presidential race is “Massachusetts moderate.’’ The power of the accusation, presumably, is that the Bay State’s brand of politics has left it so much worse off than true-red states that hew the conservative line. Or put conversely, conservative politics yield better outcomes.

Except that they don’t. By almost every important factual measure — economic, educational, and socioeconomic — Massachusetts is vastly better off than the nation’s most right-wing states.

The five most conservative states in the country are Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah, Alabama, and South Dakota, according to a 2010 Gallup Survey. These are the exemplars that candidates such as Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum would have the nation emulate. One has to wonder why.

For one, they’re a lot poorer. The median family income in Massachusetts is just over $61,300 - fourth highest in the nation. The average for the conservative states is $46,400. (Even adjusted for our higher cost of living, the Bay State is still better off than any conservative state.)

Of course, money isn’t everything. Our kids are smarter, too. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, sometimes called the “Nation’s Report Card,’’ compares fourth- and eighth-graders’ performance in math and reading across the country. The difference between Massachusetts and the conservative states is staggering. In 2011, 50 percent of our fourth graders were proficient in reading; the number was just 30 percent for the red states. Indeed, in every single category, Massachusetts ranked first in the nation, with roughly half or more of our kids proficient. In the conservative states, the comparable figures usually average less than one-third. That’s why 38 percent of Massachusetts children complete college - also the best of any state. The average for the conservative states is just 24 percent.

We’re healthier as well. At 80.1 years, Massachusetts ranks sixth in the United States for life expectancy. The red states average 77.5 (Utah - due to its preponderance of clean-living Mormons - is the only conservative state to equal us). Why? Fewer of us are fat (22 percent versus the red states’ 29 percent), we exercise regularly (37 percent versus 27 percent), and, with the exception of Utah (again, the Mormon thing), we smoke less.

And despite our higher level of urbanization, we’re safer. Massachusetts residents suffer 2.7 murders for every 100,000 residents; the average for residents in conservative states is 4.2. Our property crime rate is 2,329 per 100,000; the conservative states average 2,992.

Moreover, it’s not as if conservative values somehow breed better family values. Far from it. Massachusetts’ divorce rate is only 2.2 per 1,000, the lowest in the nation. The conservative states average 4.1. Our teen pregnancy rate is just 49 for every 1,000 versus red states’ 64. Massachusetts families seem to care more for their kids - 68 percent of Bay State parents read to their children every day; in the conservative states it’s 46 percent.

And more disturbingly: The child death rate in Massachusetts is 12 for every 100,000. It’s double that in the conservative states. The teen death rate here is 44; it averages 84 in red states. The suicide rate in Massachusetts is 7.6 per 100,000, less than any other conservative state and essentially half their average of 15.1.

Massachusetts doesn’t necessarily beat the conservative states in every measure, but we’re always in the mix. Despite the taunt of “Taxachusetts,’’ we rank 37th in the nation in tax burden relative to incomes. Some conservative states are better, but others - such as Utah, at 19th - are much worse. On certain measures, one or two conservative states might beat the Bay State - South Dakota’s December unemployment rate of 3.3 percent was half our 6.8 percent. Even so, the conservative state average for that month was 6.7 percent, not meaningfully different from ours.

Taking all of the above together is the reason why a number of “meta-indexes’’ - efforts to rank states on a wide variety of criteria - consistently favor Massachusetts. For instance, the Human Development Index ranks Massachusetts second. The conservative states average 36.

Ideology notwithstanding, at some point results matter. The Bay State’s families are stronger, healthier, safer, richer, and smarter than those of conservative states. Given that, why would anyone want to be other than moderate Massachusetts?

Originally published in the Boston Globe on February 11, 2012.