Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Political Parties in Texas
GOVT 2305
In the previous sections we discussed elections and the rules
that govern how people get elected to office.
This creates incentives for organizations to develop to effectively compete in those
elections.
That’s what political parties do.
Parties are not mentioned in the Texas Constitution, but have grown into seemingly permanent parts of
the Texas political environment.
This is true for the nation as well.
What is a political party?
Here’s a reasonable definition: “A political party is defined as an organized group of
people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to
influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office.”
Here’s a huge point:
The simplest goal of a political party is to win elections.
And they are very, very good at this.
Parties dominate the political system in the US
Example: no independents serve in the Texas Legislature. They are all either Democrats or Republicans.
That should explain everything you need to know about what
motivates parties and why they do what they do.
If they don’t win office, they cannot control governing organizations, meaning that they
cannot dominate the public policy process. They will not be able to determine who the winners
and loser are.
Throughout American history, elections have been fought over by two major political parties – the precise parties
changed until the election of 1856. In that election, and in every elections since (with
the exception of the election of 1912) Democrats and Republicans have been the
dominant two parties.
The reason there are only two major parties is a subject we cover more fully in GOVT 2305, but it is
held that it comes down to the winner-take-all system.
Whenever candidates have to compete in winner take all races leads inevitably to the
creation of two large political parties.
The fact that there are two large parties means that neither major
party (the Democrats or Republicans) are cohesive – they are composed of various factions that fight for influence within the
party.
Its worth noting that parties exist on all levels of government.
Democrats and Republicans have a presence on the national, state
and county levels.
What’s more, there can be conflict between the organizations on each of
these levels about what the parties actually stand for.
Why the Democrats and Republicans?
Click on these for historical detail from the TSHA about the Texas
Democratic and Republican Parties.
Those are the two parties that dominate elections on the national level, so they dominate elections in
Texas as well.
Further, they also dominate elections at the state and local
levels as well.
As we will see below, political parties exist in a very
decentralized, somewhat hierarchical, environment.
Party organizations exist at the national, state, county, state senate, and precinct levels.
Here’s a little history:
Prior to the 1828 US election, politics in the US was restricted to
elites. Property rights requirements made mass
participation difficult.
Remember that this was one of the factors leading to the
establishment of Texas.
The Democratic Party was first competitive in the election of 1828. It splinted off from the Democrat-Republican Party and was developed to support the candidacy of
Andrew Jackson.
It represented the interests of the agrarian states of the South and in many ways
picked up the positions supported by the Anti-Federalists years before that.
The chief opponent of the Democratic Party was the Whig Party until the Republican Party
developed in the 1850s. It represented the interests of the
emerging abolition movement, as well as those of the commercial
sector.
As you might know from history classes, the Democratic Party
quickly became the party of the South and the Republican Party became the party of the North.
And a little fight broke out between them.
How does this affect Texas?
(A little history)
Prior to becoming a state, parties – unofficially – developed in the Republic of Texas. To a lesser
extent, this also occurred when Texas was a Mexican state, but the
legality of these groups was questionable.
During the Texas Republic, groups tended to cluster around support for Sam Houston and his desire to
join the union, and Mirabeau Lamar and his goal of maintaining
Texas independence, and expanding the republic westward
to California.
As discussed previously, the annexation of Texas was
controversial and was a subject in the 1844 US election.
The Democrats favored the annexation while the Whigs opposed it. The dispute
hinged largely on slavery and what Texas’ annexation would mean for the balance of power between the slave and free states.
Since Democrats supported Texas’ annexation, there’s little wonder the Democratic Party dominated
the state from the start.
It also helped that most of the emigrants to Texas were from southern US states
that already identified with the Democratic Party.
A majority within the state developed a hostility to the Republican Party that
would lock the state up for Democrats until 1964. The two key events driving this were the Civil War (fought by a Republican
Commander in Chief) and the Great Depression (initially presided over by a
Republican president who saw no need to provide assistance to Southern States.
Identification with the Democratic Party became so strong that the
term Yellow Dog Democrat became popular.
This referred to a Democrat who would "vote for a yellow dog before they would
vote for any Republican". There were many in Texas.
This was well before ideology became a major dividing line
between the parties.
Prior the 1960s, there were liberals and conservatives in each party, issues cut across ideological lines so moderates held power.
Whichever side the moderates voted with, won. There was an incentive for ideologues to be
moderate – that incentive no longer exists since the parties have become polarized.
Southern Conservative Democrats – Texans especially – became a
vital part of the New Deal Coalition (along with progressives, union
members and workers in general). This granted them a lot of power.
Here are some names of prominent Texans in Congress:
Sam RayburnJohn Nance Garner
Lyndon Johnson
Texas was beginning to have a troublesome relationship with the Democratic Party around this
time. In the early years of the 20th Century, in order to increase its voting strength, the national Democratic
Party reached out to the Progressive movement and to labor unions.
But the increasingly wealthy members of the oil sector did not like unions – but they liked the government
contracts. This is how a lot of the petro-chemical industry was developed around here. They made
compromises with the national party because the saw a material interest in doing so.
The principle reason the New Deal Coalition was kept together was that
Franklin Roosevelt, who was responsible for it, ignored the one issue that he knew
would drive the coalition apart: civil rights. In all major pieces of legislation concessions were made to the
segregationist South.
Harry Truman did not continue to do so and the Democratic Parties in southern states began to
slowly pull away from the national party.
Truman desegregated the armed forces and promoted the development
of a civil rights agenda.
This led to the development of the States’ Rights Party (the Dixiecrats) with Strom Thurmond as its candidate in 1948. It was an early indication
that southern state Democratic Parties were dissatisfied with the national party.
Thurmond received a fair amount of votes in that election:
Election, 1948
*Harry S Truman (Democrat)..........................750,700Thomas E. Dewey (Republican).....................282,240J. Strom Thurmond (States Rights)................106,909Henry A. Wallace (Progressive)..........................3,764Claude A. Watson (Prohibitionist).......................2,758Norman M. Thomas (Socialist)..............................874 Total Vote............................1,147,245**
The Texas Democratic Party was still segregated at this time.
Until the Supreme Court case Smith v Allwright, only whites could vote in the Democratic Party
Primary. The party argued unsuccessfully before the court that they were a private organization and the federal government had no authority
over it. The court argues that since they provided a public function, they could be.
Tension in creased between the between the national and Texas
Democratic Parties.
All during this time the only party that mattered in Texas was the
Democratic Party.
Republicans not only had little presence in the state, but still carried
with them a bad reputation dating back to the battle over annexation.
The only period of strength the Republican party had (until recently)
was during Reconstruction when union interests, immigrants from
other states and African-Americans formed its core.
Ex-Confederates had yet to be allowed to become politically active again.
The fact that the state was controlled by one party was
beneficial to the power of the state on the national level.
The state and county parties could dominate the primary process and ensure the incumbents were not
challenged. Since the Democratic nominee was guaranteed a general election victory, incumbents
could serve for long periods of time.
Sam Rayburn served in Congress from 1913 – 1961.
This allowed them to amass a great deal of power in the US Congress due to strict
seniority rules. The committee members who was also a member of the majority party and had the longest service on the
committee automatically became the committee chair.
Many Texans became committee chairs as a result could direct federal dollars to the
state and their local districts.
Texas – businesses especially – benefited heavily from the
situation.
It helps explain the reluctance of the Texans to leave the Democratic Party as long as it continued to be
the majority party in Congress.
It took decades for the Republican Party to grow in strength.
The only period of strength the Republican Party had (until recently)
was during Reconstruction when union interests, immigrants from
other states and African-Americans formed its core.
Ex-Confederates had yet to be allowed to become politically involved again.
Previously we discussed how the 1869 Constitution was written by
these groups and that the document reflected a desire to
make Texas comply with national directives and to give the state
power over local areas.
The backlash against this made the Republican a minor party in Texas
until the national Democratic Party started shifting its positions on civil
rights and other issues as mentioned above.
The Republican Party was beginning to make inroads in the
state.
The first Republican elected to high office was John Tower in 1960 who replaced Lyndon Johnson in the Senate after he
became elected Vice-President. He was the first Republican Senator from the South
since reconstruction.
FYI: There were rumors Johnson supported Nixon over Humphrey in the 1968 election.
The major shift occurred with Civil Rights Act of 1964. When LBJ signed the bill it repositioned the
national Democratic Party.
Predictions were made that this would lead to a realignment of the South from the Democratic to Republican Parties. While it took time, it did come true.
For detail on the change read: Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment
Question: Did the conservatives leave the Democratic Party
voluntarily or where they driven out?
For detail read: Death of the ‘Yellow Dog’ Democrat
.
Nationally, the Republican Party developed the Southern Strategy
to lure conservatives over from the Democratic Party. It worked well in
Texas.
The Texas Legislature was still dominated by Democrats, and
would be for sometime.
In some years there were no Republicans in the Texas
Legislature. This meant that party membership was irrelevant to
politics in the state.
But there were divisions in the party between a liberal and
conservative wing.
Nevertheless, the strength of the party made the general election relatively inconsequential. What
mattered was who won the Democratic Primary.
The growth of the Republican Party happened slowly, and the shift that happened in the state went hand in hand with what
happened nationally.
Texas – and the Houston area – were where many of these national shifts were driven.
Some of the leaders of the emerging Republican majority
nationally were from Texas and the local area.
George HW BushTom DelayDick Armey
One of Karl Rove’s early successes in flipping seats from Democrats to Republicans happened in the local
area when he recruited Buster Brown to run (successfully) against long time Democratic State
Senator Babe Schwartz in 1980.
Conservatives started to shift to the Republican Party, but only
when it seems opportunistic to do so.
As long as the Democratic Party is dominant, it makes little sense to
join the minority.
Important dates:
1968: Republican Richard Nixon becomes president and a period of
Republican dominance in the presidency begins (1968 – 1988).
1978: Bill Clemens is elected as the first Republican Texas governor
since Reconstruction. He hires Karl Rove as an advisor.
1994: Republicans win control of the US House of Representatives
for the first time in 40 years. Many Conservative Texas Democrats take the opportunity to switch
parties.
1997: The Republican Party becomes the majority party in the
Texas Senate for the first time since Reconstruction.
2003: The Republican Party becomes the majority party in the
Texas House for the first time since Reconstruction.
While the current Republican Party is not as dominant in the state as
the Democratic Party was decades past, it has evolved into a steady,
consistent majority party.
As did the Democrats earlier, it contains a moderate wing and a
more ideologically extreme wing.
Forces are attempting to pull the Texas Republican Party further to
the right.
Moderates are being purged from the party.
That’s enough history.
What does this matter?
Here’s a question: While there has been a shift in party identification
in the state, has this change meant for the state of Texas?
Is the political culture of Texas such that it does not matter which
party is in charge?
Remember that Texas is generally more culturally conservative in
areas such as education, religion, and civil rights than the rest of the
nation.
As we covered in a previous section, Texas’ political culture
supports classical liberalism (limited government), populism,
and social conservatism.
It does not support egalitarian policies.
Parties will take positions on issues that are more likely to win
elections
They promote policies that are in-keeping with Texas’ political
culture.
Even when Democrats were in charge, policies passed in the state
of Texas were not exceptionally “liberal” when compared to those
of other states.
But cohesive groups of liberals did exist in the legislature, even
though they were largely small and powerless. Babe Schwartz was
one, as were:
Bob EckhardtJohn Henry Faulk
Maury Maverick, Jr.
Next Topic:
What do parties do?
Here are three things:
1 - provide means for people to participate in the political system.
2 - structure and present the issues of the day to citizens.
3 - provide the glue that connects government vertically (federalism) and horizontally
(separated powers).
Let’s look at the first:
1 - Parties provide means for people to participate in the
political system.
Here are four basic things they do:
They help people get registered to vote.
They allow people opportunities to run for party office.
They provide opportunities to organize precincts.
They help people run for public office.
Altogether these factors support the claim that political parties are
central to democracy. It is the party that fosters political
participation because it makes them more competitive.
One of the beneficial aspects of parties is they help people become
involved in the political system
Parties organize voter registration drives especially among
populations that will likely vote for them. But on the contrary, political parties might attempt to suppress
registration among populations that are not likely to support them.
So this cuts both ways.
Political parties allow candidates the opportunity to run with a label that grants them a degree of legitimacy
and indicates to voters a minimal level of information about them.
They also provide a network and organization that can assist with their
campaigns.
The major parties, over the many decades they have existed, have organized down to the precinct
level.
This is one of the many factors that grants the two major parties considerable
advantage over minor parties in the state – of which there’s not much history.
2 – Parties structure and present the issues of the day to citizens.
Many people identify strongly with one or the other political parties. This can make it easier for people to make a decision about what’s going on politically because each party attempts to frame this for
their supporters.
It is simpler to figure out what news is important and what
opinion to have about them if one identifies with a party.
Independents have to figure this out on their own. Of course, that
might be a good thing.
3 – Parties provide the glue that connects government vertically
(federalism) and horizontally (separated powers).
Parties are argued to make governing easier.
They overcome two of the biggest (deliberately placed) obstacles to
efficient governing: federalism and separated power.
Remember the federalism makes vertical integration of government
difficult because it places the states and national government at odds with
each other.
The separated powers does the same horizontally. It places each of the
branches at odds with each other – they can negate what the other does.
Each creates the possibility that gridlock can occur and nothing gets done in any governing institution,
but this less likely to happen if these institutions are controlled by
members of the same political party.
Two concepts are important here:
Divided Government Unified Government
Divided government refers to periods of time when the parties only control one of the elected
branches – or at least the legislative and executive branches.
Unified government occurs when one party controls both the
legislative and executive branches.
Governing is argued to be easier in unified rather than divided government. Policies are easier to pass, and the agenda of one
party is easier to implement.
This is even easier to do if the same party that dominates the national government also dominates the state governments as
well.
It’s also argued that unified government enhances democracy
because it allows for a clearer choice for the voters. It is easier
for voters to pin responsibility for what happens in government
when one party is in charge than if each is in control of one branch of
government.
How strong are political parties?
Even though it is essential for candidates to be members of
political parties in order to win elections, it isn’t true that parties
are necessarily that strong as organizations.
Texas does not require that voters register as members of a political
party before they can actually cast a ballot.
So there’s no control over who can vote in party primaries.
Parties have limited control over candidates
Campaign costs are largely handled by the candidate and affiliated
groups.
Here is no mechanism in place to legally bind people to the party
platform.
