Why, Governor Baker?

I've worked for a lot of governors and have known a lot of governors, and I have always appreciated their need to balance what they might want to say about an issue with the political realities of their job.  But the best of our leaders are the ones who rise above the exigencies of local politics and manage to display a sense of commitment to human needs and values during periods of political stress--and in so doing remind us that compassion is often the best antidote for fear and unrest.

So it was with a tremendous sense of loss that I heard of Governor Charlie Baker's comments about Syrian refugees. Loss as in a lost opportunity to bring people together rather than being divisive. And lost admiration on my part as the Governor stooped to a level that I could never have imagined coming from his mouth.

According to the Boston Globe, here's what he said:

In the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has joined a group of nearly two dozen American governors who announced Monday they would not allow any Syrian refugees to move to their states.

“I would say no as of right now,” Baker told reporters at the State House Monday. “No, I’m not interested in accepting refugees from Syria.”

“My view on this is the safety and security of the people of the Commonwealth of Mass. is my highest priority,” he added. “So I would set the bar very high on this.”

“I think at this point in time we’d have to be very cautious about accepting folks without knowing a lot more about what the federal government’s plan looks like and how it’s going to be actually implemented and executed,” he said.

"As a general rule, I don’t like, completely without any knowledge at all, to just say yes or no to anything. I mean, I’m a data guy I always have been and always will be,” he said.

He also said, “I’m always going to be willing to at least hear what the federal government has to say.” But he added, “Hearing what they have to say does not mean saying yes.”

Mr. Baker is smart enough to know that, as Governor, he has no jurisdiction on such matters. Immigration policy is solely in the hands of the US government.

So, is he making his remarks to try to influence federal policy or simply to grandstand on the issue?

But what would it mean to stop the flow of refugees from a country that is literally being destroyed before our eyes?  I recently met one such refugee.  She and her husband and baby boy lived in Damascus.  Their home was taken over by the rebels.  It was then bombed by the Government.  They were homeless and were left with no possessions.  They managed to escape through Lebanon and thence to the US, where she is now enrolled in a graduate program at one of the state's great universities. Their local religious community has welcomed them with open arms and has helped them adjust to their new lives. The family is eternally grateful to the US and people here for giving them a chance to live a normal and productive and peaceful life.

Taking the Governor at his word, this family would have been stopped at the border.

Is he really so insensitive and uncaring about people in distress that he means what he says?  Or, does he not really mean what he says but just feels it expedient to say it? I'm not sure which is worse.

I forget right now, but it was either historian Theodore H. White or Arthur M. Schlesinger who, in summarizing his years of studying American history, said, "Never underestimate the tendency of the US public to become xenophobic." True leaders recognize that danger and work against irrational fear of foreigners: They do not stimulate it by dipping into the mire of anger and fear.