Letter: Being 'Progressive' Is Not Good Enough

MEDFORD, MA — The following letter to the editor was submitted by Travis Benson, an organizer with Act on Mass and Medford resident.

Prior to 2016, progressive issues such as single-payer healthcare and 100% renewables were not as popular in the mainstream lexicon as they are now. It took political chutzpah to mention these initiatives, even though they directly addressed the life-or-death needs and necessary rights of the majority of citizens. An election cycle and some later, it is now safe and even politically advantageous to publicly support these values, but is merely supporting them the same as actually fighting for their passage?

Here in the super blue state of Massachusetts, we take for granted our lack of basic policies such as election day voter registration, our inability to tax the rich, and our negligence of protecting undocumented neighbors through an entire Trump presidency. Up until the MA legislature’s last session, we had not passed any significant climate change legislation for 12 years.

Yet there is a myopic narrative coming from the legislature to view this extremely sparse and watered down progress as an example of how the system functions properly and works in our favor. You will hear from elected officials how thankful we should be for the recent climate roadmap bill, or for the recent ROE Act which greatly expands abortion access, but you will not hear them mention how abortion access bills and even more effective 100% renewables bills have been stuck in State House committees for years prior. The IPCC says we need to get to 100% renewables by 2050 to prevent irreversible damage from climate change… are we to wait another 12 years to get that passed?

Here is the crux of the matter. By default, we cannot see how bills are voted on in committees in the MA State House, so there is no way to see if representatives who cosponsor legislation actually vote for it. It is merely a symbolic gesture. Additionally, no vote that has been taken in the House in the past 10 years has gone against the vote of the very conservative Democrat Speaker; a Speaker currently conservative enough to be the only top House leader to vote against the Millionaire’s Tax.

Representatives who care about these progressive issues, then need to address these systemic ailments that prevent them from passing. The House Rules vote on July 7th had a rare recorded vote on amendments that addressed these issues, and my representative Christine Barber, along with other Medford officials Rep Donato and Rep Garballey, voted against them. All of which they had already voted against in other past sessions.

Rep Barber specifically has one of the most progressive voting records in the legislature. The caveat with that, is the State House very rarely has publicly recorded votes, and when it does, it’s usually because the House leadership allows it to happen, knowing very well if the bill will even be able to make it as far as a final floor vote.

What is the point in advocating for progressive reform through a rules system that benefits a conservative and corporately owned power structure? These amendments would’ve made committee votes public (like most other states), allowed more time to read bills before a vote (so a bill as unpopular as pay raises for the representatives can’t be rushed through, again), and reinstated Speaker term limits (like what the MA Senate already does).

Just like in 2016, there is a clear line being drawn between who and who doesn’t have political chutzpah to advocate for popular and needed change. You can tell who is actually fighting for the people by who is calling out what we don’t have and needs to be fixed versus what we already have and we should be thankful for.

Nowhere is this clearer than with the 2019 non-binding ballot question that asked voters if they wanted committee votes publicly available on the legislature’s website. The question was asked in 16 districts, and on average, during overwhelming voter turnout, 90% constituents voted in favor of the initiative. Although it wasn’t in my district, the implied unanimity of the people statewide is obvious. The people want it, but my representative, and most other representatives we elected, do not.

No longer do I want to see anymore back-patting by a Democratic supermajority in a state that still invests police resources into ICE. I want to see more recorded votes, so that challengers actually have material to run on in one of the least electorally competitive states in the country. I want to see more time to review bills before they’re voted on, so legislation as massive and impactful as the Grand Bargain’s minimum wage increase or the recent police reform bill aren’t rushed through in less than a day with watered down provisions. I want to see Speaker term limits, or at least some guardrails, on the solitary white men who control every vote in the legislative branch that manages the entire state’s budget.

Progressive policy is now popular and easy to run on. We need elected officials who aren’t just willing to run on mainstream values, but to challenge the status quo that prevents these mainstream values from coming to fruition. We need more elected officials who prioritize the welfare of human beings over a career in politics, or as elected officials euphemistically describe as being “pragmatic.”

Thank you to representatives Uyterhoeven, Gouveia, and Connolly, for filing these amendments and stepping outside the eerie uniformity of the State House. Last election cycle, the distinguishing characteristic between most progressive incumbents and challengers was that the challengers ran on the issue of transparency and reforming the culture in the State House. Some challengers came pretty close to winning, including within my own district. There is no doubt in my mind that as this issue continues to gain more press, constituent support, recorded votes, and electoral presence, just as it has in the past couple years, we will see more and more of which reps choose to side with the Speaker instead of their own constituents. Likewise, we will see more and more constituents vote for and elect candidates that actually represent their values, which are nothing but commonsense and modest. I know I will.