This morning's Globe has a comical link from Joan Vennochi's op-ed, "Fear and Loathing in Gubernatorial Politics," to a message board asking "your view" on the issue: Do you think the Healey campaign is using scare tactics?

Why comical?  I mean, first you had those ads featuring the convicted rapist.  But have you seen Healey's new "cop-killa" ads? They include a dramatization of the crime (Healey's website has not posted the attack ads, only her happy-happy-joy-joy ads, but you can get the gist of them from CBS4's Keller @ Large, here).  I don't think it's even a question that Healey is using scare tactics, is it?  I mean, it's not a real subtle strategy.

Crime is a real issue, however.  And a complex one, at that.  The question (or at least one good question) is: is Healey serious about crime, or merely exploiting fear of crime for political gain? 

I don't live in Beverly, where the Healey estate is located and the most prevalent kind of crime is probably white-collar and seen as a social good, but in Dorchester, where crime is not an abstract concept, but a daily occurance.  What you see in a neighborhood like mine is the complex reality of violent crime. 

When you look at the murder rate in Boston it's scary, all right.  But when you start looking at the victims and the perps you see the majority are juveniles affiliated with gangs.  According to a recent article in the Herald, so far this year "70 percent of [shooting] victims identified by Boston police [were] members or associates of street gangs." 

Do you think Healey is trying to court their votes? Or the votes of people in neighborhoods like mine where gang violence is a reality?  No.  I don't think so, either.  She's out to scare the fancy pants offa folks in places like Beverly—remember, people outside of Boston and its environs vote for governor, too—where crime rates are not only much, much lower than in Boston, but also much lower than the national average.  And there are actually lots of cities and towns in Massachusetts where this is the case, and the more affluent the better.

But it's not the wealthy who need protection from the kind of crime that's on the rise these days in Boston, it's the poor.  Because it's the culture of despair that's producing the culture of crime.  And the crime's fairly localized in low-income ghettos of despair.  If you want to change that culture of violence you have to do more than meet it with force.  A beefed-up police force is a good idea, sure.  But it's not a cure for the culture of crime.  You have to combat despair with hope, ignorance with education, dead-ends with opportunities. 

I sound like a bleeding heart liberal here, don't I?  But, guess what?  A civil and democratic society has a vital interest in actively seeking to develop the best in all of its members, not just those who've been privileged to go to good schools in safe suburban neighborhoods. If we refuse to acknowledge that those of us in society who've enjoyed a good education and the opportunities it provides have a responsibility to those who are not there yet, we're ignoring a fundamental social obligation at our own peril.  That's what we should really be afraid of.

So, yeah, I think Healey's fearmongering.  I mean, obviously.  And I think it bodes ill for Massachusetts, because if this is how she plays campaign politics, as governor she'll be an absolute Healey-Monster. 

But where the Sam Hill is Deval?  Healey's clearly outspending him.  We knew that was gonna happen.  She comes out with a new ad every other day.  But Deval's still running his "Gee whiz, isn't it great to win a primary?" spots.  That was then, Deval, this is now.  Surely you've got something up your sleeve? 



This is starting to remind me of the tortoise and the hare.  Deval charged onto the scene with a big lead, and then decided he'd take a little siesta, get some beauty rest so he'd look pretty for his inaugural. 

Well, somebody better jumpstart the bitch's campaign, and soon. It's not in the bag just yet.