Difficult times take measure of leaders

14 September 2001

In their heated battles to succeed the late U.S. Rep. Joe Moakley, none of the candidates talked about how he or she would respond in the event of a terrorist attack.

Funny, isn't it, how the most important things are those we never discuss?

In the closing days of the race, phone calls, mailings, and television and radio ads inundated residents of the 9th Congressional District. Not surprisingly, abortion took center stage in the Democratic primary, with state Sen. Stephen Lynch resolutely adhering to a pro-life line while Sen. Cheryl Jacques and Sen. Brian Joyce tried to out-choice each other.

Gun control was probably the second most talked about issue. On top of that were the endless accusations about personal foibles: Lynch's unpaid student loans, Jacques' brother's subsidized housing and Joyce's flip-flops. (Interestingly enough, campaign finance reform, every reformer's dream, was a non-issue, proving correct the cynic's views that voters don't really care about it - a point House Speaker Thomas Finneran apparently understands well.)

A big issue in the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy race for president was the fate of the islands of Quemoy and Matsu. "Huh?" you may ask. Exactly. If you made your choice for president back then on the fate of those two islands, you probably made a mistake, because neither figured in President Kennedy's future policy decisions.

And here's betting that once Lynch - or JoAnn Sprague, should she upset him in the final election Oct. 16 - is in office, the issues of this campaign will matter little as well. It will be new issues or different issues, perhaps problems we don't even contemplate today, that engage the attention of the new member of Congress.

But if positions on issues don't matter, what does? Things that are ineffable: principles, intelligence, maturity and wisdom. They're hard to measure, but they are what count when it comes to leadership.

And how did the leaders of Massachusetts do when faced with Tuesday's crisis? In general, it seems, remarkably well. Particularly admirable was the performance of acting Gov. Jane Swift and Attorney General Thomas Reilly.

Swift, cursed by her youth and a notable lack of experience, has not been held in high regard in the state. Yet, she evidenced uncommon qualities of leadership at a time that called for clear- headed and sober thinking. So too did Reilly, who was by her side as she directed state operations that day. The two of them standing together, one a Republican, the other Democrat, made clear - just as the U.S. Congress has done with its backing of President Bush - that there are some matters that demand unity, not partisan bickering.

One wishes one could say the same about Secretary of State William Galvin.

Galvin tried to shut down the election for the 9th District seat on Tuesday, saying that he feared for the safety of those going to vote in government buildings. But many suspect his motivation to be far more base: a mix of partisanship (he is contemplating running against Swift) and grandstanding. That certainly won't be a first for Galvin, who earlier in the year went after Swift for daring to have government-related meetings by conference call while she was in the hospital awaiting the arrival of her twins.

Swift and Reilly mightily resisted Galvin's ploy. This is what they want, Reilly said, referring to terrorists. They want to terrorize people. Galvin was planning to ask the state's Supreme Judicial Court to stop the election and only backed down after Reilly made clear that he would send his assistant attorney general to court to oppose him.

And surely, Swift and Reilly were right. They understood the need for courage, not cowardice, and they understood how important it was, on that most terrible of all days, to be firm and calm, to act as leaders.

And, whatever Galvin's motivation, he was wrong. Responding to terrorism by stopping an election, an event that is the heart of a democracy, would have sent an unmistakable message of defeat. If Galvin had had his way, the terrorists really would have won.

And Lynch, the winner of the election that Swift and Reilly refused to stop?

It's impossible at this point to say what kind of leader he will be: His job Tuesday was simply to be a candidate. Yet Lynch's behavior that day was exemplary. Rather than spending the evening crowing about his win, he shut down the victory party. He told the band to stay home, refused to serve alcohol, and made a brief and somber speech that did not glory in the day's results but instead reached out to all touched by the hijackings.

One hopes that occasions such as Tuesday's attacks are never to be repeated. Still, it's important to note that on a vastly lesser level, politicians face issues such as these - tests of character, really - on a regular basis. Some pass those tests. Others, as Tuesday made clear, don't measure up.