The Race to the Top

Deval Patrick has attracted enough buzz that, should he win nine days from now, he will instantly become a national figure, a possible vice presidential nominee in 2008, and a probable candidate for president in 2012.

Ho-hum. So what else is new?

Presidential candidates may well be Massachusetts's most popular export. Mitt Romney is a top candidate for the 2008 GOP nomination. John Kerry was the nominee in 2004 (and, who knows, could be in 2008 as well, setting up the political equivalent of a subway series). The two of them followed on the heels of national contenders Paul Tsongas (1992), Mike Dukakis (1988), Ted Kennedy (1980), Bobby Kennedy (1968 - yes, technically a senator from New York at the time, but we all knew that was a ruse), John Volpe (1968), Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (1964 and, in 1960, a veep candidate), and Jack Kennedy (1960).

Remarkable as it may seem, since 1960 only California has fielded more Democratic and Republican presidential candidates than Massachusetts (nine versus our eight). How is it that we - with only 2 percent of the country's population - are such an outsized player in national politics?

History is one reason. Our role in fomenting the Revolution and the fact that four of 43 presidents have hailed from here has placed us firmly in the national consciousness (and perhaps also given us a sense that we are entitled to be there). One can also credit our love of politicking and our bare-knuckle approach to winning. That passion translates into better political operatives and better campaigns. And, remember, we're right next door to New Hampshire, giving our politicians a leg up when it comes to the primaries.

Most important, perhaps, is that we think about this stuff . To be sure, our intellectually geared culture is known for hatching innovations in health care and high tech, but it also does so in politics and public policy, making us a breeding ground for smart ideas and new leadership. The result: Massachusetts matters.

With one big exception: Despite our preeminent status in national politics, Jack Kennedy was the last Bay Stater to win the presidency. (Calvin Coolidge, John Quincy Adams, and John Adams came before him.) Since JFK, it's been a sorry tale of aspiration and defeat. It's the Massachusetts curse - in fact, it is conventional wisdom that a politician from Massachusetts cannot win. The cutting-edge politics for which we are known end up marginalizing us, some say, putting us outside of the mainstream of American life. And perhaps no issue symbolizes that better than does same-marriage, an idea that sticks in the craw of the rest of the country, making ludicrous the notion of a Massachusetts politician as president.

That's the theory. I don't believe it. Sure, gay marriage is controversial - just as controversial, in truth, as another decision by the Supreme Judicial Court: the 1781 and 1783 Quock Walker cases, which resulted in slavery being declared unconstitutional and led to Massachusetts's becoming the first state to abolish it altogether. As preposterous as gay marriage may seem to some, polls make it clear that attitudes toward homosexuals are generationally split. Younger people are far more accepting of gays than are older folks, and as time goes on, Massachusetts will be seen as less a pariah than a pioneer. Meanwhile, another Massachusetts idea - the state's universal health care law - is being hailed nationwide as a reasonable solution to a seemingly intractable problem. We're not as out of step as some might believe. Indeed, much of our public policy - rainy day funds, MCAS, crime control - is stuff upon which a conservative, such as Romney, could base a campaign.

Finally, it's a mistake to conclude that our past defeats are proof some sort of nationwide Massachusetts animus. Kerry fell short by only 2.5 percent (actually, a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have made him president). Tsongas was low on funds, not popularity. And even Dukakis, poster boy for the Massachusetts-can-never-win proposition, was doomed mostly by failures of positioning and tactics. None of their losses, in other words, was inevitable.

So does that mean there someday will be a President Romney or a President Patrick? Perhaps. And if not them, then in all likelihood, someone. Mock Massachusetts if you will. But don't count it out.