The REAL Truth about the Mass GOP and the Fraud Republican Governors
by Dennis Galvin, Republican State Committeeman
There is a saying in politics that bad news is better than no news. If that
is the case, then the
Mass GOP should be reaping the benefits of a significant increase in publicity
due to the internal
struggles embroiling its State Committee. Chairman Lyons has weathered attack
after attack. Most recently, several donors attempted to bribe the Committee,
offering one million dollars to the party
if they would remove him. So what is going on?
There is a very intense battle for
power within the Mass GOP. Ironically, it has little to
do with issues but everything to do with
authenticity. The conflict has pitted Governor
Charlie Baker and his faction within the State Commit-
tee against Chairman Lyons and his
supporters, who see themselves as reformers, attempting to craft a genuine
Republican Party for
this commonwealth, one that seeks to take the political
battle into the Legislature.
So what are the reasons and origins behind this cleavage? History may
provide some insight.
The Massachusetts Republican Party was formed in 1854, a
combination of two political interests, the abolitionists and the nativists.
The former were led by Charles Sumner, formerly of the “free soil” party. The
latter were the remnants of the so-called “American Party,”
led by Nathan Prentice Banks. While the Sumner faction
passionately advanced the cause of abolition, the latter
group hung back focusing on anti-immigration. Their efforts were harshly
anti-Catholic.
The union victory in 1865 catapulted the Republican
Party into political supremacy within the
Bay State, so much so that from 1856 to 1876 Republicans held virtually every
constitutional and
statutory office in the commonwealth. This period also
ushered in unprecedented levels of
immigration to support the nation’s burgeoning
industrialization, much of which centered in
Massachusetts. The demographic, technical and economic
transformations associated with these changes inevitably exacerbated existing
political tensions between immigrant Catholics and
nativist Protestants.
The white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant male population of the state exercised almost total hegemony in Mass. through the Republican Party until the 1920s. However, the numbers were on the side of the immigrants; in 1928 when Irish Catholic Democrat Al Smith won Massachusetts in his bid for the presidency – ultimately losing to Herbert Hoover – the handwriting was clearly on the wall. In 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a strong appeal to the immigrants in Massachusetts, vanquishing Yankee austerity by ousting Hoover from the presidency. The era of largesse that is now associated with the Democratic Party began.
The old Massachusetts Republican Party was also destined to succumb, as did
Hoover. An
onslaught of ethnic, largely Catholic voters flocked to the Democratic banner.
The old Yankee
establishment desperately tried to maintain some portion of its once pervasive
influence, but
the power balance had shifted. Ironically, it was the issue of birth control
that led to the
Republican Party’s demise. In its attempt to stay
relevant, Mass. Republicans became
increasingly progressive. In 1948 they championed legislation that would make
birth control
available to all adult women. The Democratic opposition, led
by none-other than Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, partnered with
Cardinal Cushing, the head of the Boston Roman
Catholic
Archdiocese, who helped drive out the Catholic vote in opposition. The 1948
effort to legalize
birth control was crushed and the state Democratic Party took over control of
the state Legislature and has yet to relinquish it.
In the years since their initial ascendancy,
Mass. Democrats have found themselves under
significant cultural and economic pressure, pushing them
toward a more progressive stance.
The evaporation of manufacturing jobs in the post World War II period
eroded their working-class base. The Vietnam War and the
1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago gave them a new
lease on life. The party became increasingly
progressive. The fall of Republican President Richard Nixon due
to Watergate played to their direct advantage; their
numbers swelled in the 1972 state elections.
Many conservative-minded Democrats
found themselves without a political home.
Some began to shift their affiliation to the
Republican Party. This movement was given a strong impetus by the election of
Ronald Reagan in 1980, who presented a new and more
all-encompassing vision of conservatism than was
offered by Republicans in the past. The
first major confrontation of new Republicans with the
old in Mass. came in 1982 when Ray Shamie of
conservative, ethnic, immigrant background defeated establishment
candidate Elliot Richardson
to win the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. Shamie ultimately lost
his Senate bid to
Democrat John Forbes Kerry, but his political venture signified a cosmic shift
in the dynamics of the Mass GOP.
Shamie ultimately became the chair of the party and made a herculean effort
to push it into a
conservative direction. This effort was blocked in 1992. A former
Republican legislative
leader, Steven Pierce, made a bid for governor, running on a pro-life,
pro-business platform with
the full backing of the party. The Democratic
progressive wing, utilizing the open primary
process in Massachusetts, moved to block Pierce’s
bid by supporting his Republican opponent,
William Weld. Weld failedto win the
party’s nomination at its convention, but because of the low
Republican numbers in the state and the open primary system,
Democrat progressives were able to flood the Republican
primary and block Pierce’s conservative insurgency.
Nevertheless, Republican gains in the House and Senate were substantial.
Weld went on to defeat Democrat John Silber, who was the last conservative Democrat to run for a major office in the state. Rather than using his new political clout to shape change, Weld entered into a symbiotic political relationship with the Democratic leadership in the state Legislature, which has extended to our current time. The relationship was allegedly based on a quid pro quo agreement between Weld and then Senate President William Bulger. Its contours were: If the Republican governor gave the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate the patronage appointments they wanted, then the Democrats would be kind to developers, bankers and corporations. The Republican governor in essence became the chief lobbyist for big business interests in Massachusetts, rather than an opposition party builder.
Additionally, the Republicans had to pledge to disrupt any attempts to challenge the Democratic dominance on Beacon Hill. This arrangement has held firm through Governors Cellucci, Swift, Romney and now Baker. They’ve kept their part of the bargain, resulting in the near extinction of Republican legislators.
The fuss and bother that we are witnessing in the Republican Party today
comes from the fact that the current chairman, Jim Lyons, has disrupted
this quid pro quo. He won’t go along with it. Through
the years that it was binding, the
Democratic Party became more corrupt and more
progressive every session. The state’s viability is now
at risk. Lyons wants to reverse this and take back the Legislature. This threatens
to end what was once a beautiful
partnership for some people.
It is no surprise that a recent letter sent by sixteen developers, financiers
and corporate heads
offered a one-million dollar bribe for Lyons’ head.
The party, as constituted under its Republican governors
since Weld, has been nothing more than a puppet show, a fake organization that
ran through the motions of being the
political opposition so that special interests could benefit. Lyons
wants to change that and as far I am concerned, his continued leadership is
worth more than one million dollars. ♦
