In case you haven’t heard, Charlie Baker is popular.

This factoid is trotted out by both conservative and liberal media outlets as if it were the most illustrious thing that an elected official can strive for — not legislative accomplishments, not courage, but simply being liked by as many people as possible.

Baker, who recently announced his re-election bid, certainly fits this profile. As a governor, he has been nothing but cautious about upsetting anyone. For this alone, most Massachusetts residents like him and are ready to vote for him again.

Confused? Me too.

Before the Trump era, Baker’s approval numbers would have made sense. He ran as a moderate Republican who would reduce spending but keep the peace with Massachusetts liberals. That’s pretty much how his first term has played out. We are reminded of Baker’s conservative foundation when he calls for MassHealth cuts and refuses to support the so-called millionaires' tax. But his reluctance to pursue these agenda items full steam is a reminder that Baker knows he’s on thin ice. Maybe that’s why so many liberals like him. Baker is keenly aware that most of Massachusetts swings further left than he does: He knows that we could push him out of office if he veers too far to the right. He listens to us and acts appropriately.

Or so it appears.

Let’s take a closer look at what has actually happened since Massachusetts joined the U.S. Climate Alliance after President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. Many Massachusetts liberals celebrated the move as evidence of Baker’s practicality. But what most still haven’t acknowledged is the inconvenient truth that Baker has barely committed Massachusetts to transitioning to clean energy alternatives, as required of all states that join the U.S. Climate Alliance. (He hasn’t said much about proposed fossil fuel projects in Massachusetts either.) This pattern of placation and inaction also reveals itself when we reconcile Baker’s criticisms of the Trump administration’s draconian language on immigration with the fact that Baker has stood by and done nothing as emboldened ICE agents terrorize the state's communities and rip Massachusetts families apart. Even Baker’s refusal to vote for either of the two presidential candidates in the 2016 election feels like a cheap farce when one considers the weight and consequence of that election.

Massachusetts has the precedent, the potential and the responsibility to be a leading state in the struggle to defend policies around climate, healthcare and more. Our legacy suggests that the commonwealth should be standing with states like California, New York and Washington as they pass their own climate change laws, health care expansions and public college plans. But we’re not. Because we’ve lowered the bar for what the governor must do.