If Massachusetts Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

Charles D. Baker ’79 is a strong, principled centrist at best, with an ever so slight tilt to the right. If he wins in Massachusetts, a state with roughly 11 percent registered Republicans, it will not be because the people of the state had a change in heart and were ready to be led by a Republican—three years of living here have thoroughly convinced me of that. He will be elected because the people of Massachusetts understand that it is far better to have their liberal government work efficiently than to have it haphazardly managed with no clear direction. Charlie Baker is the only candidate running who has the experience and vision to make that happen.

In most other states around the country, voters will largely treat the midterm election as a referendum opposing the ideologies of the President and Congress. But Massachusettsans are faced with a different choice: one between two gubernatorial candidates—Baker and Martha Coakley—who have engaged in a battle to prove their competence. Voters are simply deciding who can run the existing Massachusetts government better. From this angle, the case for Baker is actually quite simple: He has both private and public sector experience, and his leadership and customer-focused initiatives are what saved Harvard Pilgrim Health Care when it was on the brink of closure.

In regards to his platform, Baker emphasizes the need to pull away from partisan ideologies. He has crafted proposals that balance a need to create an environment conducive to growth and prosperity with a strong commitment to equal opportunities for all. For example, Baker’s economic polices focus on incentivizing work and job creation, while also ensuring a continued support for welfare and other financial aid programs. He vows not to raise taxes—that’s the “hardcore” Republican flavor in his policies—but he plans to raise the minimum wage to $10.50 (which is $0.40 above the proposed federal minimum wage), while also giving tax credits to small employers so they can feasibly accommodate the increase in minimum wage. Furthermore, Baker plans to implement tax breaks for employers who hire individuals on welfare.

But let’s suppose that you still do not buy that pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage, pro-tighter-gun-control-laws Charlie Baker is ideologically different from other Republican candidates. Let’s even put aside the fact that many prominent liberals across Massachusetts—like Mayor Tom Koch of Quincy—and most all of the major news publications in the state—including the left-leaning Boston Globe—have endorsed Charlie Baker.

Even then, a vote for Charlie Baker is a vote for guaranteed accountability.

As many sources have rightly observed, if Baker were elected, he would face a veto-proof majority in both the state House and Senate. He would have to work with the other side of the aisle to get things done. And more importantly, he would provide a much-needed dissenting voice to check and counter the actions of the Massachusetts government.

There are two major takeaways from this election. First, the people of Massachusetts have fashioned their lives around an extremely progressive democracy. What Baker might lack in textbook Republican ideology, he makes up for with a strong understanding of Republican governance, governance that at its core is about devolution of power and letting states be run the way the people of that state deem fit. This means that Baker will govern in a way that allows Massachusetts to be Massachusetts—by materializing and better managing initiatives brought forth by well-intentioned but overly idealistic Democrats.

Which leads to the second takeaway: Martha Coakley is by no means a bad candidate, especially if you give her the benefit of the doubt that she does not stand by the recent comments made by a certain well-known endorser who claimed, “Corporations do not create jobs.” But to alter slightly a quote made by another famous Clinton, there is nothing wrong with Massachusetts that cannot be fixed with what is right in Massachusetts. And what is right with Massachusetts is that the people from this great state are tough, hard working and innovative. They have proven their resilience by recovering from recessions and other state tragedies time and time again. They do not need an ideologue—from either party—to come in and impose an overly partisan agenda upon them. They do not need major changes that can drastically alter lifestyles. At this time, what Massachusettsans need is someone who understands the strength of the people and the wherewithal to build upon that power a functional and reliable state government.

Massachusetts deserves the best, and that is why it deserves Charlie Baker.

Devi R. Nair ’16 is a government concentrator in Quincy House. She is president of the Harvard Republican Club.