Q: What attracted you to public life?
A: It had to be by osmosis; I was not drawn to it. I thought, back when I was teenager, that it was a waste of time. My father and mother were well-read and well-informed but not particularly politically active. There were conversations around the dinner table, about Adlai Stevenson or John Kennedy or this person or that person. I probably drank some of it in, but obviously never thought I would act on it. I didn't get intellectually engaged until Brian Donnelly first ran for state representative. We were friends. I helped out and he won. When Brian moved on to Congress, people approached me about taking his place on Beacon Hill. At first I dismissed the idea with all the contempt and profanity I could muster. And then, the old ego took over.

Q: When you first got to the legislature, what lessons did you learn during your first couple of terms, before you amassed any power as a committee chair or speaker?
A: The most important lesson that I learned was actually a relearning of something that is profoundly true through all of our lives: those who do their homework will succeed. If you prepare in committee by reading bills, summaries of bills, and think through the consequences of them, generally, even as a freshman, you can have some impact. My inclination in my first two to three terms was to be seen but not heard. I did not participate very actively, if at all, on the floor; I just watched. I wanted to observe and listen closely and try to learn some lessons. I also felt, quite frankly, a bit overwhelmed. I was probably in my third year before I gave my maiden speech on the floor.

Q: You don't seem so reticent these days.
A: Over my years in the House, it dawned on me that it was important for a legislature leader to articulate an agenda. I always thought the agenda should be drawn from the membership, because it is very dangerous to do these things on your own.

You are not an executive, you are a member of a larger, collective body. I could not for the life of me understand why Speaker McGee, Speaker Kevarian, and then Speaker Flaherty did not move more aggressively in that direction. The articulation of an agenda or plan at the beginning of every session not only puts the House on record with a battle plan, but it tends to put a protective shield around the process. So that as external events erupt you are not always forced to react, because you've already established your focus. Some events are so large and crucial that inevitably you do have to react. So your focus will broaden a little bit. Still, you really should have your own plan; otherwise you're subject to the political and philosophical forces of others-the governor, say, or the senate president.

Q: To what extent are some of the tough positions you take-whether they play well with the public or not-designed to shield rank-and-file members from public ire or the influence of special interest groups?
A: Some of what I do is to act as a blocking back for the members and draw the heat of public anger my way. You sometimes have to be prepared to act as a shield for the bullets that are out there, and there are a lot of bullets in public affairs, particularly these days. There are a lot of emotional issues...so it helps if somebody will absorb the hit.
     I probably compound that by being blunt. I say what's in my head and my heart and my soul, and not couch it in political terms or vague generalizations. If somebody asks me what do you think of "X", I'll generally say, "Gee, I think that's the dumbest goddamn thing I ever heard and here's why." I'll usually feel an obligation to not just dismiss it as silly or embrace it as a wonderful idea, but to try to explain the standards for my thinking, the analysis that has gone into it. So I'm probably a little more vocal than other speakers have been. I don't go looking for a bully pulpit. I don't think that's my function. Maybe as I temper myself to the requirements and scope of this job, I might tend to become more guarded.

Q: What did you learn on the Ways and Means Committee?
A: [Laughs.] That there's an awful lot of nonsense afoot in public life, and very few people are willing to stand up and say no to the nonsense.

Q: Define nonsense.
A: Generally, economically irrational and unsustainable policies that have smooth-sounding labels and are encompassed within platitudes. We can't afford them. They're irresponsible on a fiscal basis, first and foremost, and yet they carry a political surge with them that is difficult to resist. Often, I suppose, I come to the conclusion that most people in public life confuse popularity with leadership. If most people are saying, "That was wonderful. Gee, you're doing a great job," you are probably fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of leadership. While I, as much as anybody else, would like to be wildly popular and everybody's favorite person, I know that if I am going to discharge the duties of office appropriately, I have to be prepared to make tough decisions. Somebody has to.

Q: You represent a district in Dorchester where if you put Franklin Roosevelt's name on the ballot, even though he's been dead for almost half a century, he'd be re-elected.
A: Yes, he would.

Q: In such a traditional, New Deal sort of district, you may not be the antithesis of those politics, but there's more than a whiff of fiscal prudence and social conservatism about you. Why is that, and how is that compatible with the district you represent?
A: I think you're right, that I am seen as more fiscally, and probably socially., conservative than the New Deal, or the progressive Democrats that Roosevelt represented so skillfully. I guess I'd say a couple of things.

      If Roosevelt represented the edge of the party when he was in power, that edge has moved dramatically to the left, in a hopelessly irresponsible and destructive way. I hate to quote Ronald Reagan in response to an FDR question, but Reagan used to say that "I did not leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me." They went chasing some of the most absurd ideas, and so the movement to the left of the Democratic party, both at the state and the national level, has not been followed by every Democrat who espouses an FDR or a Harry Truman view of the world. Harry Truman was more progressive than FDR on civil rights and a whole host of other issues, and I like to think of myself as a Truman Democrat. Nonetheless, I don't really follow anyone's model. The party has lurched to the left, and I'm much more comfortable-personally and philosophically-in the middle.
     The traditional Democratic districts have, by and large, matured over the years. They are less dependent on the patronage and benevolence of ward bosses or City Hall. More people and their children have gone to college or graduate school. People have had more opportunity. That is, of course, a result of the New Deal. But that experience has made us all a little more inquisitive and a little more skeptical. I think that's appropriate.

Q: What's more important in local politics, race or economics?
A: You find somebody who's put down their hard-earned money for a piece of real estate and a roof over their head, and you've found, almost automatically, a conservative. They are worried about the quality of schools, they are worried about the safety of the streets and the subways for their sisters and mothers and brothers and children. They want to make sure the playground down the street is properly maintained. That the streets are clean, the rubbish is picked up. That there is a decent library and a decent school system to send their sons and daughters to. Ray Flynn spoke about this, and I think learned the lessons himself. There's a guy who knew either intuitively or from the lessons of life that the things that draw people together are far stronger, far more important, and far greater in number than those things that divide us. I think he was able to get over many of Boston's racial chasms because of that.

Q: Do you ever contemplate higher office?
A: Yes, I do. That has begun to happen more frequently in recent months. It might have something to do with the coincidence of the gubernatorial campaign. I don't think that I was ever driven by ambition. And sometimes I'm plagued by ambivalence. Mark Roosevelt would be stunned to hear this, but I have a sense of hesitancy, an absence of confidence, maybe even an inferiority complex. Approaching a particular new challenge or a new responsibility, I always seem to think that I am going to be out of my league. Oh, so-and-so went to Harvard, so-and-so went to Harvard Law, so-and-so is a graduate of Harvard Business or Dartmouth or this or that, and I'm Northeastern and I was lucky enough to graduate from BC Law School. It's not an insignificant education, but on paper, it's not top tier, and I was not a top-tier student at Boston Latin School. I was somewhere right in the middle of the pack and quite frankly, lucky to get through.

Q: You seem plenty confident today.
A:I am-guardedly so-and the more I'm around here the more I take the measure of people and events. I find that [while] I may have been pinching myself for the first six months of a new experience, saying, "What am I doing here?" after six months of observation I'm saying, "What the hell are they doing here?" You almost come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the pedigree or the resume or something else, they're in over their heads or they just have no idea, many times, what they're talking about.

     It's not as if I'm unimpressed by the quality of other officeholders, but you would not be overwhelmed by any of them and I might initially be deferential to what appears to be an impressive package. I'm struck on a regular basis as I move around the Commonwealth doing different things at people who say, "Jeez, I hope you'll consider running for governor at some point. I would love to work for you, I'd vote for you, or do anything."
     Again, it's ego-in the back of your mind you're on-stage and somebody says, you don't just belong on-stage, kid, you should be the center player. I don't have those thoughts myself until somebody puts them there, but then I reflect on them and think, I never thought I could do Ways and Means and I did Ways and Means well. I was worried as to whether I could fulfill the role here and I'm still struggling with that, but I think I'm getting better at it all the time. I look at the different governors that I've known-Mike Dukakis, Ed King, Bill Weld, and Paul Cellucci. I'd be as good or better than any of them. I don't want to say I'm overconfident, [but] I'm taking their measure.

Q: It sounds as though if you were to entertain a run for higher office, you'd be interested in the governorship?
A: I think so.

Q: Would you rule out Washington?
A: My guess is definitely that you can rule out Congress. Absolutely no interest. Attorney General? It's not an intriguing idea. Now governor and U.S. senator are positions of extraordinary significance. But I doubt very much that you'll ever see me as a candidate for either. I'll probably finish up here as speaker and go off and try to make a little bit of money for Donna and myself as we approach what will be-she laughs when I say this-our retirement years. She knows I'll never stop. Not that I'll never stop at politics (although I'm more prepared to leave than my foes may realize), but I've got a high energy level.

Go back to Bulletin Page