W hen I was in my first job out of college, I went out drinking one night with my supervisor, a vice president of sales and marketing in the Hartford-based property and casualty insurance company where we worked. As the beer flowed, our conversation turned inevitably to the cast of characters who inhabited the executive suite and at some point I inquired about a senior vice president whose role wasn’t readily apparent to me.
“So, what exactly does Brian do?”
My boss took a long pull on his beer and smiled. Clearly, he’d been asked before about the handsome, personable senior VP, a guy who clearly enjoyed a powerful place at the head table.
“I don’t know what the hell he does,” he barked, shaking his head. “But he sure looks good doing it.”
That’s been the story of Charlie Baker for years. A force in Massachusetts politics for three decades, he’s enjoyed the cover of being an appointed public official or a former official (read: lobbyist), never an elected one. Baker is well-known inside the political game; he’s racked up more time on television and radio news round tables and public interest talk programs than most politicians; but unless you worked in the business or you were some sort of political news junkie, you might never have heard of the man until he first ran for governor against Deval Patrick in 2010. Even then, Baker remained far down the list of most recognizable politicians in Massachusetts.
His margin of victory in this year’s gubernatorial race against a well-known, though not necessarily well-liked, attorney general was razor thin at least in part because voters on election day still weren’t sure who Baker is, what he does, or why he’s qualified to be the governor.
Fortunately for him, Baker looks good doing whatever it is he’s up to at the time, whether it’s running finance and administration for Bill Weld, reviving a near-bankrupt Harvard Pilgrim Health, lobbying for conservative fiscal policy on Beacon Hill or, in recent years, running for governor. Compared to Attorney General Martha Coakley and, more importantly, to the laborwed Democrat who currently occupies the corner office, Baker looked like he enjoys his work, enjoys being in and around government. Surely, Baker’s upbeat countenance and general ease with the confrontational parts of politics helped him against a Democratic party that appeared divided and frequently dyspeptic.
For Coakley supporters who feel frustrated by the closeness of the race and wonder what might have been done in the waning hours to pull out a victory for the Democrat, the truth that their candidate ran a nearly flawless race is cold comfort. Coakley was the underdog in this race from the beginning. Her chances went from bad to worse as soon as Baker stepped out as the Republican nominee and continued even as Deval Patrick, Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton hit the stump to rally the party behind her. When the Boston Globe endorsed Baker on Oct. 26, it was all over. Had Baker not tripped over himself nearing the finish line with his dubious anecdotal tale of a New Bedford fisherman, Coakley wouldn’t have had to wait until the next morning to concede the race.
Of course, Baker didn’t beat Martha Coakley alone. He beat Deval Patrick and the Democrats, not just here in Massachusetts, but nationally. While Baker surely capitalized on inevitable off-year moodiness in the electorate, he also overcame a full-court press from the Democrats. His race was efficient, short on specifics and promises, upbeat, not bombastic. He ran as the likable, New England centrist Republican alternative to one-party rule. As they have done many times before, the swing voters decided it was time to check the Democrats.
In winning, Baker has extended the political legacy of his mentor, Bill Weld. During the campaign, Baker sounded many of the same fiscal themes that animated Weld’s 1990 campaign against John Silber. Just as Weld beat Silber by focusing most of his criticism on former Gov. Mike Dukakis, Baker built his campaign against Coakley around Deval Patrick’s many problems, including the incumbent’s lackluster to disastrous management of state government day to day.
He also exploited many of the splits inside the Democratic party, including the deep and bitter disagreement about casino gambling and the more complicated divisions over energy and environmental policy. Coakley ended up paying for two of Patrick’s most significant choices as governor — his pursuit of casinos and his headlong rush to embrace biomass energy — both of which drove left-leaning voters away from his party. Ironically, Patrick ‘s rousing 2006 campaign promise to redress the effects of Weld-era tax policy will go wholly unfulfilled, but the state will have the casinos that previous Republican governors have all supported.
In Baker’s victory, we see signs of revival in the GOP in Massachusetts and signs of continuing dysfunction and decline in the Democratic Party. It is an historic shift, but one that Charlie Baker has been careful to downplay. Where Deval Patrick came through the 2007 election shining with inspiration, imagination and determination, Baker’s victory celebration has been muted.
Baker is likely to govern in much the same way he ran his campaign, maintaining a good relationship with the news media, staying in touch with the many Democrats who count him as a friend if not an ally, keeping his message simple and his ambitions in check. And he’ll look good doing it.•
