Democracy rounded down

Unfortunately, politics is money, and money is power. This is a natural truth, but as I understand, every man woman and child living in a “natural” state, able to sustain themselves on their own land, was only feasible to about the 1890’s. This is why we have government, economic policy, and the social contract, so we can more effectively (and less deviously) redistribute wealth and power where needed without resorting to paralegal gangs and cartels.

In Texas, we live in a Republic (twin Republics, actually) and this means that we, the people, hand over a portion of our personal power (rights and money) to that Republic, and in return, it provides more than we could have secured with what we had foregone. We are entrusting our representatives with ensuring that our taxes are worthwhile to us individually. Unfortunately, American party politics has a natural tendency toward the bicameral, and not just at the federal level. Politics, by its nature, is like a giant game of Red Rover, players on opposite ends of the same team having nothing in common; often the only relation of two opposites is for the common purpose of survival. People cannot vote their conscious, they are instead forced to vote for a handful of issues, or possibly even simply a party name and platform. How does someone whose two biggest personal issues cross platforms vote? They must eschew some of their political voice, and that silence is a terrible thing.

The scramble for political limelight does not serve the people of Texas, it serves the policymakers and those who pay for their agenda. Trickle down to the constituents and effective policy is a collateral concern in shortsighted party politics, and this shortsightedness comes from the limited terms that candidates endure. People are shortsighted - it’s part of their nature, that thing government is designed to overcome.

The incumbent in any local election has a huge advantage, usually for little more reason than name recognition at the polls and a favorable party name. This name recognition, more often than not, is due to extra-district campaign contribution. In the 2006 state election, a full third of the $158 million raised by all districts was from a list of 141 donors, and 40% of total contributions coming from organizations, not individuals. I simply don’t understand why we are allowed to vote twice, once with our wallet, and once at the polls, and why organizations, committees, and lobbies have such a huge say in our democracy.

Lobbying is often joked to be “legal bribery,” and it’s certainly not the fault of the lobbyists that what they are doing is essential graft - they’re behaving rationally and making a career of political maneuver just like anyone would. Unfortunately, we don’t live in Machiavellian Italy, and money and soft power should simply not be mixed with policy. In the endgame, a state income tax voluntary “political contribution pool,” as has been started with the Presidential elections, would be ideal.

Campaign finance reform has been a hot issue after recent national elections, but I hope we’ve just hit the tip of the iceberg. I hope that, with a progressive attitude (perhaps rebrand it as “down home know-how“ or something?), we can discover that laissez-faire fundraising hurts political competition more than it helps - I know Libertarians would hate to cross themselves in agreeing with that sentiment, but they won’t be able to find a toehold in Texas policy any other way.

Cracks at the Seam

Could the Republican dominance in Texas be slowly coming to an end? At this point it’s too early to tell but with State Representative Kirk England and Dallas County Judge John Creuzot jumping ship and fleeing to the Democratic Party, their are definite cracks at the seam. A recent article in the East Texas Review by William Murchison asks the question of rather the Dallas GOP should be scared and then offers his opinion of the good and bad of the situation from the GOP’s perspective.

The good he says is the abandonment of the party by “rats and RINOs” or Republicans in Name Only. The result will be a more unified and common shared conservative message. Lately this hasn’t been the case with many Legislators wearing the Republican nametag knowing it will give them a better chance at winning office. The bad being the ever shrinking Republican voter base in Texas as the Hispanic population continues to approach becoming the Texas majority. With the Republican Party championing a tough on immigration policy, their likeness does not fare well with the soon to be dominate, Hispanic voter base.

Mr. Murchison is absolutely right in his assumption that Republicans should be nervous of the ever growing Hispanic voter base, but the good he sees in the situation has me a little stumped. I get the feeling of a sort of cleansing of the more moderate Republicans to a more pure form of conservatism. This can not be good for the Republican Party in regards to how highly diverse Texas has become. They can’t rely solely on suburban white Christians to get them elected any longer. The conservative Christian voter base is shrinking as Democrats are finding ways to integrate faith into their message and values. A more pure form of conservatism is bound to almost exclude issues such as increased health care access, welfare, and funding for inner city schools which are issues held highly by minority populations.

So what can the Republicans do? Well its obvious that they have to find a way to win Hispanic votes or else their reign in Texas will quickly end. They are going to have to adopt immigration reform that offers more opportunities to immigrants or find other issues to attract voters. As for the Democratic Party, if they could find ways to get out the minority vote, the State is theirs for the taking while they sit back and watch the Republicans make their own costly mistakes. - Garrett

http://www.easttexasreview.com/story.htm?StoryID=4871

"Grandma" Strayhorn to return in 2010?

By Noah

"One Tough Grandma" Austin's Carole Keeton Strayhorn, former Texas state comptroller of public accounts should run again. Besides being a very interesting person and holding several official public titles, Strayhorn has switched parties not once but twice. Her change from democrat to republican in 1986 came when she was selected nominee for the U.S. House seat.

Strayhorn took great strides as the first woman mayor of Austin, elected 3 consecutive terms, first woman elected to the Texas Railroad Commission and the first woman elected as comptroller, also being the first female president of the Austin school board and president of our incredible Austin Community College board. Even though Strayhorn will always consider herself to be a republican she ran against GOP incumbent Rick Perry in 2006 as an independent. She lost the election and placed third in a five-way race.

With the current trend of independents in our nation to side with the democratic party, what will Strayhorn do next? Independents are shifting their loyalties and so many of them do not even vote. Opposition to the Iraq war and Bush's current strategies have started a real flux of voters crossing over into democratic territory.

Strayhorn's outgoing and charismatic personality, witty remarks, and charm have served her well so far. Her hardline attacks on Perry's republican party; Texas "hardball" style politics. She isn't afraid to stand up for herself and apparently feels there should be a strong separation of religion and state. How will the voters turn out for her in 2010? Perry's lavish government life will obviously anger voters enough to make a difference or a change in our next election. Independent or not can she conceivably make a marked difference to Texas voters that have voted republican for the last several years. Watch out for Carole Keeton Strayhorn in gubernatorial election 2010. Will she return as a republican?

More reading:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stories/490395.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stories/444083.html

POSTED BY NOAH AT 11:14 PM 0 COMMENTS

State Rep. England maybe just tired of Red?

By Solman

Everybody’s talking about State Rep. Kirk England’s switch from the Republican to Democratic parties. In legislature circles, it’s this weeks Paris Hilton scandal. But what most people are gossiping seems to be focusing on votes, redistricting, demographics, and regional party support. Certainly, the numbers in all the articles and columns do suggest that this party trading will have an as-yet uncertain affect at the polls, and England’s Grand Prairie district is seemingly in flux demographically, but I wonder if amid all this hemming and hawing if there could actually be a shred or two of conviction in this political theatre. Could England actually be fed up with the Republican Party and hoping for better achievements in the ranks of the Democratic minority?

Look at the whole Craddick escapade, among other dramas this past session. It was messy, it was political, and it drove deep wedges into already prominent rifts within the republicans in the house. Rick Perry champions his office as if he makes no note of his narrow victory among the four candidates last election. The appeal of the George Bush “cowboy politics” model is fading, even here in Texas. All over the country, singular politicians are starting to react to the high stakes, hard-line, red state vs. blue state politics that seems to have the national debate over every issue gripped in turmoil.

So why cant Kirk England be following his conviction and leaving a party he no longer feels at home with? I’m not going to ignore the polls, and if England is worth his salt he didn’t either. His district is sandwiched between two opposing forces; Ft. Worth suburbs whose voting record include some of the most conservative representatives in the legislature and Arlington, a district with a democratic woman as state rep. I’m sure these external forces are playing a part, and his district is growing in population and can no longer be relied on for suburban republican support. So of course voter turnout at the polls is a consideration, but its much safer to take a path such as aiming more for moderate republican image rather than leaving the party altogether if you are simply trying to preserve votes.

There are a few voices making the same assessment as myself, but overwhelmingly the talk is about districts and votes and party lines. I don’t wish to place England on a pedestal, but I don’t think something as simple as voter turnout is enough to get you to leave the majority in the lege for the minority.

More reading:
http://www.star-telegram.com/arlington_news/story/242464.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/246309.html

Libertarians say, "if you dont like the free speech change the channel"

The Travis County Libertarian party or the TCLP as it likes to be called, endorses a live cablecast show on Austin cable access channel 10 called, “ live and let live”. Most Austinites just flipping through the channels may have run across it a time or two, I know I have. I remember watching it once and got very curious about what exactly the Libertarian party stood for. The show mentioned that there was a weekly libertarian lunch downtown on congress avenue open to anyone curious about the party. I wanted to know more, so one Sunday I headed on down to the restaurant to meet with the locals and take it all in. This must have been over a year ago when I did this; I know it must have been before the last local election, because as a result of my curiosity I voted strait Libertarian.

People may think that things as small as a local public access show or even a local radio show do nothing to get a party moving in the big picture of a campaign, but I disagree. Grassroots efforts send a ripple in the collective unconscious of the people who make up a community. It gets people discussing the topics and the platforms of a campaign.

Personally, Neal Boortz on KLBJ is my favorite local Libertarian. I agree with him on just about everything, like today with his comments on whether Ahmadinejad should speak at Columbia University. I agreed, I also thought Ahmadinejad should be able to give his speech and answer questions. It reminded me of something that happened a while back at the University of Texas. Henry Kissinger was supposed to give a speech, but UT caved to protesters and cancelled it. I remember being really upset not because I just love Henry Kissinger, but because we still have free speech in this country. He should have been allowed to speak. I’m not stupid, I know about the whole war crimes issue with him so protests and information should be brought into the light, but cancelled speeches at our nation’s universities irk me. That is where the exchange of ideas should happen. If the minute men wanted to speak at UT I wouldn’t go hear them, but I wouldn’t hinder them from giving their opinion on immigration control.

Free speech is a right that is constantly being challenged. Right now in Paris Texas a blogger’s rights for anonymity are being challenged. On Friday, September 21, 2007 R.G. Ratcliffe, from the Houston Chronicle stated, “There is little case law in Texas or nationally to give judges a standard for when to expose anonymous postings on the Internet”. (http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/09/21/0921blogsuit.html) So I feel pretty safe giving my anonymous opinions about things at the present moment.