This commentary is by Miles Anton, 17, a high school student and writer from Dover, Vt. His commentaries have been carried by VTDigger, the Brattleboro Reformer and VPR.
The 2022 midterms will answer important questions about the future of our political balance. Will Republican voting restrictions bludgeon Democratic turnout? Will anti-Trump Republicans be primaried into oblivion? Is the incumbent president’s party always doomed?
While the Senate and House elections may be the most consequential, in any given cycle, I find that governor races are consistently overlooked. The importance of governorships holds especially true for blue Northeast states, like Vermont and Massachusetts, both of which have incumbent GOP governors. The 2018 midterms set a record for campaign spending, but a misallocation of this money contributed to GOP wins in these states.
An all-but-guaranteed victory for Bernie Sanders, who led all U.S. senators in home state popularity, was supported by nearly $12 million in campaign cash. In the concurrent Vermont gubernatorial election, Democratic nominee Christine Hallquist had raised only $440,000 as late as mid-October. Sanders won by 40 points, while Hallquist suffered a 15-point defeat, keeping the Vermont governor seat in GOP hands.
In the 2018 Massachusetts Senate Race, Elizabeth Warren raised nearly $35 million en route to her 24-point victory, while Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jay Gonzalez raised only $1.7 million in a 35-point defeat to incumbent Republican governor Charlie Baker.
The “blue state/red governor” archetype has long since been analyzed. Baker and Scott have among the highest approval ratings of governors in the nation, along with Maryland’s GOP Gov. Hogan and New Hampshire’s GOP Gov. Sununu. Perhaps the moderate leanings of these governors, many being pro-choice, contributes to their electoral success. Their wins could be an exposition of the moderate leanings of Democratic voters, something akin to the “Reagan Democrats” of the 1980s.
However, I disagree with this analysis. Vermont and Massachusetts, in particular, are two of the furthest left states in the country. Vermont legalized abortion in 1972, before it was a national precedent. Both states legalized same-sex marriage before the federal government; Massachusetts in 2003, becoming the first state to do so, and Vermont in 2009. Furthermore, both states have legalized marijuana.
Many Democrats will argue that Baker and Scott agree with them on social issues, and this is true to some extent. Baker and Scott, ostensibly, hold pro-choice and pro-marriage-equality stances, but these stances are, to varying extents, grayed. Also, both Scott and Baker have very shaky records on recreational marijuana.
Nevertheless, many will claim that most Massachusetts and Vermont Democrats are somewhat centrist, and liberal social views from an otherwise conservative Republican governor will be enough to earn their favor. But according to 2020 Democratic presidential primary exit polling, a majority of both Massachusetts and Vermont voters a) identified as liberal over moderate, and b) supported implementation of a national single-payer health care plan. And the fact that voters picked Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, widely considered to be on the more left-wing end of the Democratic Senate Caucus, further proves their leanings.
A more likely explanation for this counterintuitive voting trend is that the true effects of having a GOP governor were not the primary focus of the last several years. The focus was, instead, on Donald Trump, and as Phil Scott and Charlie Baker are both adamantly “anti-Trump,” neither voting for him during his reelection bid, this was good enough for Massachusetts and Vermont Democrats.
Voters have overlooked the actual policy of Charlie Baker and Phil Scott, some of which is disastrous.
Since the start of Charlie Baker’s governorship, he has vetoed a raise for Massachusetts preschool teachers, forced a compromised minimum wage bill that removed time-and-a-half pay for retail workers on Sundays and holidays, and, most recently, vetoed a climate change bill aimed at reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
Phil Scott has vetoed a minimum wage increase, vetoed the state Legislature’s 2017 marijuana legalization bill, and vetoed the Global Warming Solutions Act, aimed at reducing state carbon emissions. Furthermore, both governors have consistently impeded progress by a staunch avoidance of raising taxes.
I have two primary indictments of the policy from these two governors. First, and most importantly, moderate Republican policy hurts people. It keeps wages low, is unaggressive on climate change, and shies away from bold solutions. Massachusetts and Vermont would fare better under the more progressive policy on issues of labor, health care, race and energy.
Secondly, states are, in part, meant to be trial runs for bigger programs. State policy will be more progressive or more conservative than federal policy. The policies that work will trickle up to the national level, perhaps most famously with the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform that served as a de facto for the Affordable Care Act’’s individual mandate system.
With Republican governors, the policies that liberal states should be trying cannot ever be implemented. Vermont and Massachusetts could explore new ways of policing, progressive criminal justice, and revolutionary environmental solutions, but none of these things are possible with Phil Scott and Charlie Baker in office.
In 2022, the Northeast will get a chance to clean out its governorships. New Yorkers will have to reckon with the sexual harassment allegations against Andrew Cuomo in his re-election bid. New Hampshirites will need to determine whether Chris Sununu has earned another term in public office, as he sets his sights for the national stage. Voters in Massachusetts will need to take a hard look at Charlie Baker, as we will, here in Vermont, with Phil Scott.
I implore all progressives in the Northeast to truly examine the policy of their governor, and decide whether they should lead your state into this decade. In my opinion, we all deserve more.
