Left In Lowell

Another state progressive blogger, Charlie Gallo of The Progressive Blog (and I’d like to just say hi! and sorry I didn’t know about you before!) interviewed Deval Patrick very recently. It’s a good interview, and gets into some issues I hadn’t yet seen. The interview is here. I’ll highlight some bits I particularly found interesting. First, on the Iraq war:

CG: The Massachusetts Chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America passed “A Resolution to End the US Occupation of Iraq” [here] by consensus at this year’s Massachusetts Democratic Party Convention. The resolution called for a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and acknowledged the illegality and unconstitutionality of the war. Do you agree with PDA and the Mass Dems on the War’s illegality and unconstitutionality, and what might the governor do about this national issue on a state level, particularly insofar as the deployment of the Massachusetts National Guard?

DP: The war is a terrible, terrible mistake. We were mislead into it. I support a dignified and appropriate withdrawal as quickly as possible. The governor can use his office as a pulpit to talk about it and call attention to it and raise the issue as often as possible before federal authorities.

That’s definitely a good start. One I think most of the peace movement can support (though we all call for immediate withdrawal, I think most of us know that we can’t just simply “bring the troops home now!” without consequences for both us and the Iraqis - it must drill down over at least several months). Goodness knows we’re getting nothing better out of any politician elsewhere.

On tax increases and decreases, Patrick reiterates what he’s said before - what do you want government to do?

CG: Recently the Massachusetts Senate paved the way for a decrease in state income tax. Many Progressives want an increase. Do you support an increase, decrease, or leaving it alone, and why?

DP: Too soon to say. I support decrease when we can afford it, but we can’t afford it now. When people ask for a decrease, the first question I ask is ‘what do you want our government to do about healthcare, education, roads, bridges, housing?’ They want affordable housing, so they’ve got to get over the idea of something for nothing.

It would be political suicide to say he was for a tax increase before making it to the corner office, obviously. But by leaving it open ended and sending the question back to the voter, he’s creating a dialog. I find this approach fascinating, and way overdue.

Next, on clean election laws:

CG: What is your position on public financing of elections? For example, did you support the Massachusetts Clean Elections Law which Tom Reilly (along with Tom Finneran) opposed against an order by the SJC?

DP: As a candidate and as a citizen, I find that money has too much emphasis in a statewide election. I spent too much time trying to raise it, and it just costs too much to run statewide. This is what keeps good people from running for office.

Again, nothing concrete, but at least an acknowledgment of the problem. Whether that translates to active support for the clean elections funding, I can’t tell. And he’s right - good people, the ones who might not have the cronyist connections but none-the-less would make great leaders in government - just don’t bother to try. Obviously Patrick would like to be considered one who has tried - and to the extent of the information I have, he is one of the genuine types, maybe with less political machine capital but willing to build his campaign the painful, hard way (as opposed to being coronated by the party insiders).

Next, NAFTA is mentioned:

CG: Given the impact of NAFTA on workers in the Commonwealth, what would you do to offset any negative effects of CAFTA?

DP: This relates to what I’ve thought of Gillette, the acquisition of Reebok, etc. I feel like we would be less concerned about mergers if we paid attention to building new companies. As governor, I want to be involved with creating a government where entrepreneurs with both big and small ideas can succeed.

It’s an interesting take. You need new companies as more fodder for mergers - er, I mean, to create new jobs and industry when the mergers come in to dismantle or destroy (as most of them are wont to do to varying extent). Again, a fuzzy answer, but given Patrick’s recent release of his basic economic plan, it fits what he sees for Massachusetts’ future.

Lastly, a “softball” question as Charlie put it:

CG: How about some politicians and public figures, past or present, whom you admire?

DP: Winston Churchill, Abe Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Can I explain why?

CG: Sure. Why?

DP: Because they had political courage.

If elected, Patrick seems to want to tell us, I will have political courage. I for one believe we have far too little of that lately. A courageous politician would be a breath of fresh air.

(By the way, thanks to sco for catching this one!)