The Election of Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey: Identity Politics On Steroids

Printed from:

What does one look for in a political leader? What are the key characteristics of a candidate for high political office – of a potential governor or member of Congress?

A mature and judicious electorate would probably answer:  strong character, good judgment, policy proposals likely to make things better and not worse, and a vision for the common good.

That is not what happened in November in the Commonwealth. It seems likely that many of those who voted for Maura Healey to become the governor of Massachusetts did so because she is a victim – a member of two “oppressed” groups. She is a woman, and she is a lesbian.

In America, our heroes are now victims. Many Americans judge people not by their character or by what they have achieved, but by whether they belong to a protected class.

That helps explain the rise of Maura Healey.

Let’s review Healey’s qualifications for high office.


Good Judgment?

—  On April 26, 2016, during a panel discussion at the Massachusetts State House, Healey delivered a message to people who objected to the so-called Bathroom Bill that sought to make women and girls share public bathrooms with biological males identifying as women:  “And to them I say:  If you’ve got that much of a problem, hold it.”

She was the state attorney general at the time. Imagine a little girl hearing from this champion of women that if she doesn’t want to be in a public bathroom with a biological male she should wait until she gets home to use a bathroom.

—  On October 6, 2017, the purported law school graduate claimed that the federal government would somehow be violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the federal constitution if it allowed a business owner not to pay for contraception for an employee because his conscience or religion forbids it. (The Establishment Clause is about the government establishing a religion, not a private citizen trying to live according to religion.)

Again, she was state attorney general at the time.

—  On June 2, 2020, eight days after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis at the hands of a white police officer, leading to nearly 150 fires in that city, and two days after riots in the city of Boston damaged 125 businesses, some with fire.

Here’s how Healey ended a prepared speech to a local organization:  “Every one of us has a chance to change society. And working together, we can. Yes, America is burning. But that’s how forests grow.”

The chief statewide law enforcement officer of Massachusetts … apparently soft on arson if it’s in the right cause.

(She later – much later, as in two years, two months, two days later – called it “a poor word choice, a poor phrase choice.” But what legitimate sentiment possibly explains this statement?)


Good Policies?

Also as attorney general of Massachusetts, Healey supported Question 1 and Question 4 in the recent election.

Question 1 — the Millionaire’s Tax — is nothing more than weaponized envy and covetousness against a particular class of people, which will end up hurting all of us as Massachusetts residents leave for lower-tax states. Business owners and entrepreneurs, who create jobs, will find other places to create them.

Question 4 gives driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Why would a sitting attorney general want to reward people who are breaking the laws of our country by remaining here illegally and therefore implicitly invite more illegal immigrants into the state to do the same?

On February 15, 2017, Healey told an interviewer she wouldn’t oppose local officials declaring their community a so-called “sanctuary city,” suggesting such policies are “working well.” She also refused to express opposition to making Massachusetts a sanctuary state.

Sanctuary cities are communities where local governments have decided to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These cities have chosen to instruct their authorities, in effect, not to obey the rule of law. The concept of sanctuary cities amounts to nullification — and in this case, of one of the laws that helps define our sovereignty as a people.

In other words:  The state attorney general endorsed the concept of local governments thumbing their nose at federal law.

Such a policy just happens to benefit her political party, which can count on the votes of most immigrants, either soon or in the future.


Good Character?

In an article last week in The Boston Globe, noted for its fawning and obsequious treatment of Maura Healey, it emerged – after the election, not before – that Healey has a new romantic partner, a woman named Joanna Lydgate. The article says that Healey and Lydgate say that they first met in 2010 while working for the state attorney general’s office, and that Lydgate worked for about five and a half years as an aide to Healey while Healey served as attorney general.

Healey and Lydgate are paraphrased as saying that their romantic relationship began “a few months after Lydgate left the AG’s office” in the summer of 2020. That’s to answer the implied me-too questions that announcing such a relationship would draw.

You know – the kind of questions that in the corporate world so often lead to firings and lawsuits.

The article also carefully states that Healey’s previous long-term relationship had already ended, and that Lydgate and her husband “had ‘lovingly and mutually’ parted, too.”

No dates are given for these previous-relationship endings, though one relationship continues, at least on paper – Lydgate and her unnamed husband are still legally married. The article says they are close to finalizing a divorce, with each one “living part time in the home outside Boston where the kids are growing up.” (Those would be their children, “ages 9 and 11.”)

Try to imagine a right-of-center or centrist male politician announcing his romantic relationship with a woman who is legally married to someone else and has two young children with her husband.

What words might the mainstream media be using to describe this situation?


Good Vision?

And what exactly is Maura Healey’s vision for Massachusetts? Is it to grow the economy? Create more jobs? Better the failing public school system through more charter schools and school choice?

No, her vision appears to involve fighting climate change with windmill subsidies and issuing regulations against oil and natural gas that will boost the cost of fuel and heat here; attacking crisis pregnancy centers that try to help mothers in a tough situation; ensuring that the lives of unborn babies may be terminated through all nine months of pregnancy; and combating “systematic racism” – which apparently plagues a “system” that resulted in the election of a black president in a majority-white country (twice) and the election of a vice president whose parents came from India and Jamaica.

There are warning signs in Massachusetts. Data during the past three years from the U.S. Census Bureau, Moodys Analytics, and United Van Lines say that Massachusetts has among the highest out-migration figures in the country. Analysts blame the high cost of living here – a cost that Maura Healey seems determined to drive up.

Healeyism amounts to Divide and Impoverish. Is the recent trend likely to get better?

And if it doesn’t …

Who is going to pay for the burdens Maura Healey wants to give us?


New to NewBostonPost?  Conservative media is hard to find in Massachusetts.  But you’ve found it.  Now dip your toe in the water for two bucks — $2 for two months.  And join the real revolution.