Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Apparently, the belief that Deval Patrick’s race will somehow impact his chances in the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election is even more widespread than I thought.

This is truly a curious phenomenon, as it appears that left-wing racial pessimism is apparently causing a number of Bay Staters to dismiss the most left-wing Democratic candidate’s chances for victory. From a political standpoint, this might not be troubling, especially for those of us who support Kerry Healey. However, from a cultural standpoint, this is fairly perverse.

It seems that the vision of American race relations that has dominated the progressive movement since the late-1960s–i.e., that everyone is color-conscious, that almost everyone is a surreptitious bigot, that almost every aspect of American society is influenced by "institutionalized racism"–is now negatively affecting Bay State liberals’ assessment of Patrick’s chances for success. As recently as last week, I thought that this sort of thinking was almost exclusively the province of the black left in Massachusetts. Now, it seems that some segments of the Commonwealth’s white left are embracing this pessimistic vision as well.

Quite frankly, it is ludicrous to think that Patrick has little chance of success in the Democratic primary, Tom Reilly’s current lead in the polls notwithstanding. Not only has Patrick gained on Reilly in recent polls, but there’s a case to be made that Reilly’s "machine" support is a mile wide and an inch deep (i.e., the post-Marie St. Fleur Reilly is only one or two more high-profile mistakes away from having even the "machine" reconsider its support of the man). Since the likelihood of potential rival Chris Gabrieli garnering significant support appears slim at this point, it is very likely that Patrick will get the primary nod.

So why are the folks who should be Patrick’s most fervent backers beginning to have doubts about him? More importantly, why do they believe that bigotry will hamper his chances? If he does lose to Healey in November, could it not simply be the result of most voters making the same assessment that the author of this blog made long ago–that Patrick, his personal accomplishments notwithstanding, has a political vision that will push the state further and further to the left, and thus push critically needed businesses further and further away?

Of course, some liberals will point to high-profile past incidents of bias in the Bay State (the 1970s busing riots, former Celtic Bill Russell being subjected to racial harassment in the 1960s, former Celtic Dee Brown being mistaken for a bank robber by police in suburban Wellesley, Massachusetts in September 1990, the 1989 Charles Stuart controversy, the ignoble racial history of the Boston Red Sox, etc.) to justify their conclusion that Patrick doesn’t have a chance in hell. However, just because Massachusetts has had racial problems in the past does not necessarily mean that people today will refuse to vote for Patrick because he’s black. (Liberals don’t consider Virginia a racial Shangri-La either, but L. Douglas Wilder was still elected governor nearly two decades ago.) In fact, to the extent that race does influence this race, it could be in a positive direction for Patrick, as a number of white voters may support the man out of a (strange) belief that a Patrick victory will "atone" for the various injustices of the Bay State’s past.

The modern liberal vision of race is that of a populace held hostage by history; this vision provides psychological justification for such measures as racial quotas, hate-crimes legislation, college speech codes, and the like. However, the modern liberal vision of race is inherently self-destructive, threatening to consume itself with its own cynicism. If Bay State liberals are indeed losing faith in Patrick’s ability to win, then it is already apparent that the progressive support that has nourished Patrick may well end up destroying him.

UPDATE: More on Gabrieli’s candidacy.