In an election where the most passionate candidate for governor appears to be the United Independent Party candidate Evan Falchuk, it may be worth considering the state of the Bay State’s post-Patrick politics. The conventional wisdom is that people are attracted to political leaders who speak with passion, offer bold choices, and communicate their beliefs with strength, confidence, and clarity. Think “Elizabeth Warren.”

A balanced “I see both sides of the issue” approach to decision making may be good governance, but it is rarely good politics. Nuance is boring. Introspection is a turn-off. In politics, we are drawn not to the contemplative expression of Rodin’s “Thinker,” but rather to the action-based coda embodied by Bernini’s “David.”

Two presidential examples make the compelling case for campaigning – and governing – with passion. FDR famously shook the federal government and the nation out of its depression-fed sense of hopelessness by calling for “bold persistent experimentation.” Boldness matters. Here are his words to a rally at the close of the 1936 election:

“Tonight I call the roll–the roll of honor of those who stood with us in 1932 and still stand with us today. Written on it are the names of millions who never had a chance –men at starvation wages, women in sweatshops, children at looms. . . . Written there in large letters are the names of countless other Americans of all parties and all faiths, Americans who had eyes to see and hearts to understand, whose consciences were burdened because too many of their fellows were burdened, who looked on these things four years ago and said, ‘This can be changed. We will change it.’”

There was nothing nuanced about where FDR stood.

Like Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan had a penchant for describing his positions in clear and unambiguous language. It was important, Reagan said, for the Republican Party under his leadership to raise “a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand.” Reagan knew something about optics, having made a living offering up compelling fantasies on screen through the magic of Hollywood. As a political leader, he took those lessons and transformed them into a winning formula that overwhelmed every opponent from Pat Brown to Walter Mondale. Only the bland Gerald Ford, enforced by the power of the presidency, was able (barely) to resist Reagan’s passionate politics. George H.W. Bush, studying at the master’s knee, brought bold colors to his 1988 campaign to the chagrin of Mike Dukakis whose comfort level was highest when he was mediating a cerebral debate on public television’s The Advocates.

It is no coincidence that the White House famously showcases public rooms branded by their bold colors – the Red Room, the Green Room, and the Blue Room are iconic symbols of the stolidity of the nation’s chief executive. There’s nothing subtle about the expressions of political power. Pale pastels may be charming as a color scheme for your vacation rental, but they are almost certain to fail as a backdrop for a political campaign.

The importance of passion in gubernatorial elections, for bold colors, is a lesson I witnessed for the first time when I watched the one debate between Ed King and Mike Dukakis before the 1978 primary. I thought King lost, because Dukakis was so much more articulate and informed. King seemed to simply repeat over and over again a few issues where he and Dukakis differed – in my recollection these were the usual issues that divide the left from the right on taxation and social policy. King seemed to be saying nothing other than “I am for this” and “Dukakis is against this.” King won the primary and, considering what had taken place, it became clear that King had been effective in communicating clearly to voters where he stood on a short list of hot button issues. It didn’t matter whether he was smooth and articulate; what mattered was the clarity and consistency of his positions. There was nothing vague, gray, or nuanced about Ed King in 1978: his ideology was expressed in simple terms and bold colors.

As we enter the final round of this year’s gubernatorial contest, we face the prospect of pale pastels being the daily fare from the nominees of the two major parties. Both Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker are known for their political level-headedness and sobriety – they are not masters of the powerful rhetorical flourish. Yet I do not think it is a bad thing for the Commonwealth that Coakley and Baker bring a measured approach to their rhetoric, and presumably a thoughtful approach to governance. These are good qualities in a governor, because the trappings of power can often stifle the kind of introspection that makes for dull political theater, but serves us well in the end.

Governors who appreciate nuance and shades of gray and who often lead with open minds are usually the most successful. Frank Sargent became governor upon John Volpe’s ascension to the Nixon cabinet in 1969. Largely unknown to the public, Sargent brought an open mind to the corner office and famously put an end to the badly conceived Inner Belt proposal. Sargent had been the commissioner of public works – basically the highway commissioner, the state’s most auto-centric job – and he went on television to say, famously, that he had changed his mind about transportation priorities:

“Four years ago, I was the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, our road-building agency. Then, nearly everyone was sure that highways were the only answer to transportation problems for years to come. We were wrong. Today, we know more clearly what our real needs are: what our environment means to us, what a community means to us, and what is valuable to us as a people.”

Those are the kind of words only a thoughtful, open-minded person can speak. And in taking that action, Frank Sargent tossed away decades of bad transportation planning and inaugurated what would become a new era of focus on transit and multi-modalism.

Mike Dukakis, who followed Sargent, was a transit-oriented governor to the hilt. Yet he kept an open mind and let his equally transit-oriented transportation secretary, Fred Salvucci, embark upon the largest vehicular expansion project in the region’s history. Dukakis understood the overall benefits of the Big Dig and wisely let his transportation secretary run with the ball. Another example may be found in the administration of Bill Weld, who did not, as many in his party at the time were calling for, disinherit or downsize the Dukakis administration’s commitment to an environmentally sensitive, full-build Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Rather, Weld kept an open mind and embraced it.

Charlie Baker, a disciple of Weld’s, comes to this race as a seasoned veteran of the public sector, a person familiar (if not fully comfortable) with the ways of the State House. He brings a keen intellect and an open mind to many issues – I know this from both experience and observation. His mind is agile, not static. His loss in 2010 made him more introspective, more willing to reach out to other views and opinions, more open-minded – all good qualities in a chief executive.

So, too, Martha Coakley has earned a reputation as an attorney general who has sought out and recruited a talented roster of pubic-spirited attorneys and who has not let politics get in the way of the law. The Attorney General’s position on the legality of the casino repeal ballot question, while criticized by many (including me) on both legal and policy grounds, was based in large part on her respect for the legal opinion of the assistant attorney general who has been leading initiative & referendum issues for decades. As a former assistant attorney general (under Frank Bellotti), who has kept ties to the office for many years, I have a historical sense of how the office has been run – and I have observed that Coakley takes decisions that demonstrate respect for the institution and the law. These decisions are plainly not the most politically popular ones, as they have been the subject of much controversy and antagonism in the press.

Neither Baker nor Coakley will be remembered for their compelling rhetorical skills or their ability to bring unbridled passion to campaigning. They can’t fake it, nor should they. There is a lot to be said for authenticity. I say, let the battle of the blands begin! We should enjoy the debate and be thankful that we are being treated like adults who can make an informed decision about the direction of our state.

James Aloisi is a former state transportation secretary and a principal in the Pemberton Square Group.