Some years from now, political science majors will look back on Charlie Baker’s gubernatorial career as a literal textbook example of calculated ambivalence. Wednesday night, at a gubernatorial debate between Baker — a Republican — and Jay Gonzalez, the Democratic Party's challenger, the debate moderator, Jim Braude, pressed Baker on his recent endorsement of the Republican Party's Massachusetts ticket. Braude asked Baker about his endorsement because that ticket includes the far-right conservative challenger to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, state Rep. Geoff Diehl, who has pledged loyalty to Donald Trump and used racist dog whistles to call for nativist immigration policies. As Baker began to answer, Gonzalez asked, more bluntly, if Baker would vote for Diehl on Nov. 6. In the moment, Baker demurred. All he could say was that he would vote for himself, for his running mate, Karyn Polito, and maybe for Diehl. But after the debate was over and the cameras stopped rolling, a gaggle of reporters confronted Baker, repeating Gonzalez's question. That time, Baker gave a very different answer. He confirmed that he would indeed vote for Diehl on Election Day. Seriously, Charlie? This is a brazen about-face, which Baker made before even leaving the debate venue. The incredible thing is, that it probably won't hurt his electoral odds here in Massachusetts.

The trouble with the idea that Charlie Baker is some sort of endangered old school Republican, is that it’s simply not true.

Baker routinely polls as one of the most well-liked governors in America. He's often esteemed and occasionally criticized for seldom taking a strong position on anything that voters might feel strongly about. Whether it’s schools, health care, immigration or taxation, Baker has proven an expert at toeing the line between GOP orthodoxy and what Massachusetts liberals seem to care about. In a state like our commonwealth, this modus operandi affords Baker political currency because it reminds voters of the long-lost era when Eisenhower Republicans worked with Democrats to get things done together. But it’s a sugary tonic, considering that today’s GOP leadership is embracing authoritarianism and stacking the courts with activist judges. The trouble with the idea that Charlie Baker is some sort of endangered old school Republican, is that it’s simply not true. Baker's hostility to health care expansion, immigration reform, green energy and progressive taxation have offered us hints of where his loyalties really lie, but his endorsement of Diehl puts those loyalties under a glaring spotlight. It's confirmation that Baker is a party guy who will fight for what the GOP leadership wants — even if that means voting for Trump acolytes like Diehl. Today, the extreme stakes of the Trump era are catching up to Baker, whose quiet fealty to the Republican Party agenda has finally placed him in an awkward position where he must choose between appeasing Massachusetts Democrats (who actually give Baker higher approval ratings than Republicans do) and GOP bigwigs. The governor's opaque answer to whether or not he’s planning to vote for Diehl suggests that Baker understands that even his most ardent moderate and liberal supporters might take issue with his voting for a hard-right conservative over Warren. (Remember: Massachusetts Democrats disapprove of the job Trump is doing by a 27-point margin and growing — the widest gap in the nation.)

I don’t understand how those of us who see Baker as a reasonable bipartisan leader can put up with being disrespected.