Massachusetts, often labeled as the nation’s bluest state, has led progressive politics for over a century, with a majority of its citizens and elected leaders identifying as liberals. With all of its Congressional representatives and senators being Democrats, it only seems obvious that the people would vote for a Democratic governor too. Yet, in contradiction to its typical down-ballot voting, the state actually has quite an extensive history of electing Republican Governors.
In fact, Massachusetts has only elected one Democratic governor since 1990, often leaving the position to popular Republican names like Mitt Romney, Bill Weld, and most recently, Charlie Baker. These governors largely found success in Massachusetts by sticking to the MassGOP’s tried and true centrist Republican framework. However, in opposition to another tried and true principle — “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” — the MassGOP is noticeably shifting to the right, far from moderate policies and moderate leaders like Charlie Baker. Though Charlie Baker is certainly not the first Republican to win the governorship by maintaining a more progressive platform, his party’s shift toward Trumpian politics may mean he is the last.
First elected as governor in 2015, Baker, a moderate Republican, perfectly fits the American standard of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.” For many, even in blue states, taxes are more salient on the state level; state tax cuts and tax hikes impact voters heavily and more frequently in comparison to national changes. Hence, Baker’s more Republican views — his fiscally conservative side — on taxes, like tax cuts for senior citizens, low-income families, and other underserved populations, appeal to Massachusetts residents.
At the same time, much to the liking of most Bay Staters, Baker supports LGBTQ+ rights and is “totally pro-choice,” as stated in a 2014 campaign video. Shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Baker was quick to show his support for women’s autonomy and reproductive rights by signing a bill that expanded abortion access and protections. Baker has occasionally sparred with Democratic legislators on the issue, however, notably vetoing the ROE Act in 2018 over its lowering of the age of consent for abortions to 16.
While leading a blue state as a red governor does pose its own challenges, Baker has achieved a rather successful balance. He has earned approval ratings as high as 70%, often making him the nation’s most popular governor. He reached peak popularity in early-to-mid 2020, especially among Democrats, thanks to his transparent nature and research-based policies regarding the COVID-19 situation.
With Baker’s tremendous bipartisan support, it would seem only appropriate that a governor with significant ties to both political parties takes a shot at the presidency, especially considering the success former governors have had while trying the same. The past victories of governors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush may have paved the way for White House hopefuls like hard-right Florida governor Ron DeSantis, yet not so much for Charlie Baker. As Baker’s case proves, a high approval rate does not translate into guaranteed political success. Though he possesses the necessary liberal support to take such a step into federal politics, his conservative support from his own party, the MassGOP, and the national Trumpified GOP is lacking.
It appears the primary reason for Baker’s political fix is none other than America’s most notorious former president, Donald Trump. Though Trump is no longer in the White House, he still wields a significant amount of power within the GOP, giving him the ability to ostracize any politician he chooses, and especially those who go against him like Baker. Instead of pledging blind allegiance to former President Donald Trump like the majority of Republicans, Baker instead openly opposes Trump, and has even gone as far as leaving his ballot blank for President when Trump was running for election. Baker has also expressed disapproval of Trump’s immigration policies, Republican healthcare plans, and most notably, his COVID-19 response. This very vocal commentary directed to the face of the GOP, while commendable for its courage, has resulted in Baker’s near political suicide, beginning in his home state.
The MassGOP has undoubtedly turned against Charlie Baker. After nominating him three times in a row, including in 2018 when Trump was in office, the MassGOP has relinquished its support for Charlie Baker, piggybacking on Trump’s “RINO,” or “Republican in Name Only,” name calling. But the question is why? Why would the MassGOP succumb to a Trumpian shift when its popular governor held firm in his centrist beliefs?
The answer revolves around one man: MassGOP Chairman Jim Lyons. After winning the chairmanship in 2019, Lyons’ MAGA beliefs have become dominant, leading to public clashes with Baker and resolute agreements with Trump. Under Lyons’ leadership as chairman, the MassGOP has slowly but surely evolved into a Trump-supporting organization with no space for moderates like Baker, but rather a welcoming playing ground for Trump-endorsed gubernatorial candidates like Geoff Diehl. This party repositioning is the primary reason why Baker has chosen to not seek reelection in this year’s gubernatorial election, and likely in any future election. Baker simply does not fit the Trumpian mold necessary to survive in the modern GOP.
While the state of Baker’s current political career is shocking, it is by no means an anomaly. A new trend is emerging where an increasing number of “RINO” politicians are being ousted from their positions of power for opposing Trump. Following the Jan. 6 insurrection, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., publicly rejected Trump’s claims of winning the 2020 election and voted to impeach him. To Cheney, her actions upheld the Constitution, but they came with the cost of her House Republican leadership position. House Republicans removed her through a voice vote behind closed doors, even after her long-standing commitment to the GOP. Cheney’s expulsion from the party was completed when she lost her August 2022 primary to Trump endorsee Harriet Hageman. Her defeat, much like Baker’s, displays a dangerous reality for American politics.
One man should not control the narrative for half of the United States’ political institutions, yet this is the power that Trump still holds, even while out of the White House. Trump-backed candidates are riding his endorsements to victory across the United States, notably in Arizona, Michigan, and Kansas, propagating the message that only compliant Republicans can find success within the GOP. This thinking dismantles individuality in politicians and political institutions, as evident in the MassGOP establishment’s unwavering support for Geoff Diehl.
To this changed MassGOP, losing the governorship with hard right conservative values outweighs winning with a centrist platform. The party has become so Trumpian that it has blurred all reasoning outside of “Make America Great Again,” when in reality this way of thinking will rarely find success in states as blue as Massachusetts.
In his two terms of serving as governor, Baker determined the balance necessary to thrive as a Republican leader in a blue state. He served in the interest of the people he represented, not blindly for the party he identified with. Until the MassGOP shifts again, there may never be another Republican politician open-minded enough to lead Massachusetts in the same way.
Image by Allaura Osborne created for use by the Harvard Political Review.
