Why the Bay State is too moderate for socialism
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Natalie Peeples/Axios
Deehan here, back with Spill of the Hill, my column unraveling Massachusetts politics.
There's a genuine socialist running New York City who is touting his commitment to expansive government and anti-capitalism as the key to his political success.
- But while New York has Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Boston and the rest of Massachusetts have no major socialist leaders in office.
Why it matters: Conservative critics often label Massachusetts as "socialist" — less because of support for Marxist governance than because of the Democratic majority's support for progressive tax policy, spending and government regulation.
- The "Taxachusetts" nickname has stuck around even when the state ranks in the upper middle of the pack when it comes to residents' tax burden.
Yes, but: When you compare the rhetoric in Mamdani's inaugural speech to the second-term address Boston Mayor Michele Wu delivered this week, there's a world of difference.
- In a boldly progressive speech, Mamdani said he wouldn't abandon his "principles for fear of being deemed radical" and that "City Hall will not hesitate to use its power" for New Yorkers in an era of big government.
The New Yorker's rhetoric makes Wu's more mainstream Democratic positions sound like talking points that Bill Weld and Charlie Baker could nod along with.
- Wu vowed to streamline city permitting and, though her speech didn't get into details, later said her housing plan would revitalize the downtown business sector and reduce vacancies.
Between the lines: Expect the Republicans running for governor this year to trot out the "s-word" against Gov. Maura Healey as she runs for reelection.
But even the arch-conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board is on Healey's side when it comes to rejecting a ballot question to mandate rent control across the state.
- "Maybe Ms. Healey can give New York's new mayor a tutorial in housing economics," the WSJ editorial page wrote in a piece titled "Democratic Sanity on Rent Control."
The big picture: The far left just can't manage to get elected here.
- Overwhelming support for mainline capitalist politicians means socialists get trounced in Democratic primaries when they try to participate in the two-party system.
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Mamdani supporter, is probably the closest thing to a radical leftist among Massachusetts' top political brass, but even she doesn't consider herself a socialist.
The numbers tell the real story: While Democrats are dominant, they make up only about 26% of registered voters. The party relies on support from the 65% unenrolled voters to win elections.
- That means Democrats need independent voters to get anything done, so a moderate ethos carries the day while hard-left socialists flame out.
The bottom line: Massachusetts has a history of liberal policy outcomes through mainstream, often incremental, Democratic governance rather than explicit socialist politics.