The Prizblog

Given all the thoughtful feedback I received from readers on my last post regarding Newton’s left-to-right political spectrum, I was somewhat surprised that my theory’s most glaring inconsistency was left untouched.   That inconsistency?  Ruth Balser’s place on the political spectrum.

As the theory goes, Ruth is the mayoral candidate of choice for what I have dubbed the Traditionalists – Newton’s ruling class, which at its core consists of David Cohen’s well-connected former supporters, the Democratic City committee, public employees, the head of the teacher’s union, and is rounded out by the vast swaths of Newton residents who are happy living here, have few complaints, recognize Ruth Balser’s name, and generally think she’s a pretty great lady.

Ruth, however, is not running a Traditionalist campaign.   She is not running on the Cohen administration’s record, and is not touting its accomplishments.  She is not actively trying to convince Newton residents that Newton is a beautiful, well-run city, whose schools high schools have just ranked fifth and sixth, respectively, by Boston Magazine (she’s leaving that to Paul Coletti).  She is not trying to be the public employees’ candidate, either, losing just as many endorsements as she’s gaining.

Rather, with her latest campaign mailer, and her most recent public statements, including her one-on-one interview with Gail Spector, editor at the Newton TAB, Ruth is touting her management experience.  She is doing her best to make sure each and every voter knows that she was a director of mental health services and a manager of a behavioral health clinic prior to being an elected official.  She is emphasizing “performance based” budgeting, and “technology-based performance  monitoring” .   Make no mistake about it, Ruth Balser is not trying to be David Cohen in a skirt.

She’s trying to be Setti Warren.

One of the most fascinating, if infrequently discussed, subplots in the whole race is: Who is Ruth Balser?  And what does she really believe?  Oh, we know she’s a good liberal.  She’s for mental health services for those in need.  She’s for equal marriage.  She’s for progressive social policy generally.  That’s great.  So, by and large, is the rest of Newton.  But what about the things that matter on a municipal level?  Does she really believe in the Traditionalist Reformist cause, despite her backers, who have all never been inclined to give “reform” any such lip service?  Is she really a disciple of the New Public Service?

I’ve been particularly astounded by the lengths to which Ruth’s supporters have gone to distinguish Ruth from Setti all while trying to swipe from him the banner of Traditionalist Reformist (even if they’ve never heard of the term.  And, I know, they haven’t).  This from one Ruth support identified only as “Claudette” on the Newton TAB blog last week:

Setti Warren is a personable, intelligent man. I went to one of his house parties. He would be great at the connecting with voters part of the job, but his ideas are not realistic…

His ideas aren’t realistic?  His ideas are Ruth’s ideas.  I submit to you the following, bearing in mind Setti’s platform was published months before Ruth’s:

Ruth’s platform:  “Our city as at a critical budgetary juncture.”

Setti’s platform: “Today, Newton is facing a financial crisis.”

Ruth’s:   “We need to reevaluate priorities and to reorganize our budget process.”

Setti’s:   “As mayor I will initiate a comprehensive financial and management review of every city department.”

Ruth’s:  “As mayor I will… create a strategic plan.”

Setti’s:  “As mayor I will create a strategic plan based on the principles set forth in the Newton Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Board of Aldermen in 2007.”

Ruth’s: “”As mayor I will adopt performance based budgeting.”

Setti’s:  “as mayor I will adopt zero-based budgeting.”

Ruth’s: “One way I will look to enhance communication with citizens is by creating a 311 citizen call center..”

Setti’s: “Implement both a phone and web-based 311 program to track incoming requests for service and a NewStat program to review responsiveness and customer satisfaction.

I could go on and on, but I won’t because I don’t have all night.  And let’s be perfectly honest here – Ken Parker was all over this stuff too, putting his platform out even before Setti did.

But the question isn’t who was first.  The question is: who can actually implement any of this stuff? Is it the guy who has actually managed public sector employees before?  Or the woman who has run a private mental health clinic?

What I find remarkable about Ruth’s strategy right now is that she’s even begging us to ask that question.  Because when it comes right down to it, you have to answer that question with another question:  Does Ruth really believe in performance management and driving hard bargains with public unions? 

Is she a Traditionalist Reformist, or just a Traditionalist trying to get elected?  Where, after all is said and done, does she fall on the spectrum?