It is almost impossible to be familiar with every institution on the UMass Boston campus. One such group, located on the tenth floor of the Healey Library, is the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs. This institute focuses specifically on public service through political education, scholarly research and publication, and constructive consultation.
The Director of the Institute, Dr. Edmund Beard, is an authority among authorities. He not only directs the entire institute, but personally heads its international arm, the Center for Democracy and Development. Dr. Beard has a Political Science Ph.D. from Colombia University, and he also received UMass Boston’s prestigious Distinguished Professional Public Service Award. Though Beard had only recently returned from Kenya, where he had worked for three weeks, he made time to discuss the results of this week’s referendum questions.
The results of question one, which dealt with the repeal of the state income tax, might seem puzzling to some. The extremely close nature of the vote was counterintuitive. Why would so many people (45% according to the latest releases by the AP) vote to completely demolish the state’s budgetary structure? Dr. Beard believes that people’s natural attitude about taxes was a significant factor in the vote. He noted that people will approve taxes that help themselves, and are less inclined to devote their money to improve the lives of others. Dr. Beard also thought that the vote might be a message to the legislature concerning the recent financial upheaval. Perhaps, Beard speculated, the citizens of Massachusetts were so exhausted by the current activities of those on Beacon Hill, that they would approve “such a Draconian step” and would rather “throw the current budget process into chaos” than go along with the current state of affairs. Those factors, combined with basic greed, might have motivated the voters to release the strain on themselves.
Question Two, that of English Immersion, passed by a two-to-one margin (68% to 32% -AP), which seemed incongruous due to the amount of vocal opposition it generated on our campus. However, Dr. Beard noted that while it is currently en vogue to approach issues with cultural sensitivity, the country as a whole is currently embracing conservative values. He pointed out that the people elected a Republican President, despite the fact a Democratic Vice President ran during a period of relative prosperity. There is a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate (13 seat majority in the House and a three seat majority in the Senate- Boston Metro, 11/07/02).
Dr. Beard also raised the issue of post-September eleventh patriotism. Perhaps some people were loathe to allow a perceived “other” culture into the educational system due to the recent attack on American soil. The activity seen on campus regarding this question might have been a localized bucking of the national trend.
The results of the third question, taxpayer funding for political campaigns, seemed the easiest to understand. Why would anyone vote to give their money to politicians in the first place if the intended result was purely the promotion of politicians? The results agreed with what common sense dictated (74% against and 26% for- AP), but Dr. Beard supplied new insight to this question. He noted that the language, the actual wording of this question, gave it more significance than one might think. The question, “Do you support taxpayer money being used to fund political campaigns for public office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?” doesn’t just prohibit the flow of future hard -earned Massachusetts taxpayer money into the coffers of politicians. It also strengthens the current status quo in Massachusetts. “Incumbent politicians, by definition,” said Dr. Beard, “profit from the current political fundraising system. They know how it works, and how to raise money in it. Any change in that system does them potential harm.” He hinted that this non-binding referendum could be used by the politicians in power to reduce the risk of the emergence of new faces on the political scene. Those politicians could argue that a message like this means the people don’t want possible political alternatives, if they have to pay for them.