I have known Mayor Sarno for more than 30 years. I voted for him when he ran for City Council and were I a Springfield resident at the time I would have voted for him for Mayor. I don’t always agree with him, but I do think he is a good politician and a good mayor, whose endorsement of Governor Baker was a reasonable move as Mayor of Springfield.
The Democratic State Committee, of which I am a former elected member, did not do anything wrong or inappropriate when it voted against inviting Mayor Sarno to speak at its annual convention being held in Springfield. The idea that Mayor Sarno was intentionally snubbed or felt snubbed by the committee decision is an artifact of widespread political ignorance and cynicism in America and the commercial pressure on news media outlets to churn out “info-tainment” that often amounts to “misinfo-tainment.” The reality is that this story isn’t news. There is no there there. State Party rules prohibit Democratic elected officials from publicly endorsing non-Democrats, something I learned about by endorsing an independent candidate for District Attorney a few years back. Inviting Mayor Sarno to speak at the convention would be inconsistent with the party’s rules and primary purpose, which is to elect Democrats, not Republicans.
Should political parties not be discouraging their members from publicly endorsing the other party’s nominees? Obviously, it is perfectly reasonable for political parties to take tangible steps to discourage such endorsements. Not inviting the Mayor to speak at the convention can hardly be called a severe rebuke, but it does provide a mild and reasonable reminder that his endorsement of Baker was not in the best interests of the Commonwealth, according to the Democratic State Committee, or consistent with his membership in the state party. Complaints about the DSC’s decision are manufactured outrage bolstered by ignorant, out of context, assumptions about political parties and partisanship.
The decision not to allow Mayor Dominic Sarno to speak at the convention was a simple, easy, and perfectly reasonable one that didn’t offend Mayor Sarno in the least. The purpose of the Democratic State Committee is to elect Democrats. The party members who attend the annual party conventions are the most active and committed party members. They are the folks who devote blood, sweat, and tears to elect Democrats in the state. That is their primary function and focus as Democratic Party activists, DSC members, and convention delegates. These are the very folks who worked their asses off to elect Democrat Jay Gonzalez and defeat the incumbent Republican Governor, Charlie Baker. They did this, not as a personal snub of Baker, but because they were (and are) convinced that a Democratic governor committed to the principles and policies outlined in the Democratic Party platform would be better for the Commonwealth.
Like all party activists, Democratic and Republican, the attendees of the 2019 Democratic State Convention are committed to the idea that political parties are important intermediary institutions that function to connect voters to their governments and governors in a useful and rational way and to hold elected officials accountable for a substantive and philosophically consistent policy agenda. They understand parties as important sources of information and orientation for voters. They see parties as useful vehicles for otherwise occupied voters to understand which candidates share their broad political principles and policy interests. In these beliefs, party activists are much more right than wrong. If average voters had the same understanding of political parties, we would be MUCH better off and our Democratic experiment wouldn’t be teetering on disaster.
The folks making noise about the DSC “snubbing” of Mayor Sarno and the shameful and petty partisanship to which they attribute the gesture do not see political parties in this constructive light. (For examples go here and here) They assume parties are merely power hungry rent seeking outfits and partisanship is a synonym for narrow or special interest advocacy. In fact, the average voter, despite voting reliably for one of the two major parties in partisan elections, basically shares this cynical assessment of political parties. Dumping on political parties, partisans, and partisanship is a staple of media punditry, even among political commentators and talk show hosts who use decidedly partisan or ideologically driven programming to attract and maintain audiences. As E.J. Dionne explained decades ago, “American hate politics” and love dumping on people who don’t hate it. This is why the idea that the DSC decision was an ugly act of petty partisanship has gone virtually unchallenged in the news media coverage of this non-event.
If this decision by the DSC was understood in a rational and reasonable context, rather than a cynical one, it would be quite clear and completely non-controversial for folks who spent last year desperately trying to elect a long-shot Democratic gubernatorial candidate to NOT want to hear a speech from a prominent public official who, despite being a registered Democrat, very publicly endorsed the Republican governor that EVERYONE at the convention worked day and night to unseat. In this indisputably accurate and reasonable context, is it really petty and unreasonable for such people, gathered to establish the party’s platform on which future candidates will base their campaigns, to not want to hear from one of their own who not only didn’t help them in the biggest election contest of 2018, but who actively opposed their efforts?
Does this mean that Mayor Sarno did something wrong by endorsing Baker? Absolutely not! America’s political system is designed to create cross-cutting commitments. It’s part of the separation of powers, checks and balances logic of the Framers’ handiwork. As the Mayor of Springfield, it would have been malpractice for Sarno to alienate Governor Baker, who like EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR IN MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY, was never in any danger of losing his re-election bid. As the Mayor of the state’s third largest city, Sarno needs the trust and cooperation of the governor, regardless of political party, something he made quite clear in his statement on this matter. Endorsing Baker was a perfectly reasonable thing for Mayor Sarno to do. He was elected in a non-partisan election (as are all Springfield elected officials) to serve the interests of the citizens of Springfield. A positive working relationship with the governor and the state’s legislative leaders is essential and Mayor Sarno is perfectly willing to live with the reasonable consequences, personal and professional, of his endorsement decision.
So, if neither the DSC nor the Mayor have done anything unfair or unreasonable, why has this story been a news story at all? Why are local columnists and radio talkers falling all over themselves to register their disgust with the Democratic State Committee’s decision? Because the peddlers of this story need to write and/or talk about something to make a living and the political ignorance and cynicism of average readers and/or listeners makes this story irresistibly low hanging fruit. Average citizens/ consumers of commercial news media products are frighteningly ignorant of the roles and functions of political parties, making them perfect suckers for cynical, anti-political party media commentary.
Political parties are no better or worse than any other mass-based organization run by human beings, but they are a whole lot better and more constructive of deliberative democracy than most Americans realize or would admit. Using this perfectly reasonable action on the part of the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee to fan the flames of popular political ignorance and cynicism is irresponsible at best. The commercial pressures that exacerbate news media “misinfo-tainment” are far more destructive and worthy of our disgust than are the political pressures on political party organizations to reward political loyalty and punish political disloyalty.