The current Texas election, much the same as recent elections, is expected to be a Republican rout. The brand of the Texas Democrats is so weakened state-wide, their base of support so concentrated, that it will be a major upset should all of the state-wide races and a large majority of the State House and Senate races not tilt the Republicans way.
Amazingly, after 20-plus years of Republican rule, the question "Can the Republicans Govern?" is still being asked by some members of Texas' Lock-Step Political Media.
Political Monsters. The New Mrs. White, Chron.com
Don't want to vote? So don't. It's the Texan way. Lisa Falkenberg, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
Abbott says that, as Governor he would 'be like Greg Abbott'. Peggy Fikac, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
Elkins' conflict. The New Mrs. White, Chron.com
UT/TT Poll: Transportation Amendment on cruise control. Ross Ramsey, Texas Tribune.
UT/TT Poll: Abbott holds a commanding lead over Davis. Ross Ramsey, Texas Tribune
Why Entitlement Reform isn't on the GOP Agenda. Jim Manley, WSJ
Davis ad focused on Abbott's wheelchair raises legitimate questions. Wayne Slater, Dallas Morning News
In the Valley, Van de Putte blasts Patrick, urges students to vote. Christopher Hooks, The Texas Observer
With one exception (the WSJ story) all of the articles that I've chosen carry a common theme: The questions still being raised by the TLSPM as to whether or not Texas Republicans can govern. It was a question first clumsily asked by a then-relevant Paul Burka in 2003 and it's been repeated as accepted dogma by the TLSPM since that time*.
In 2003, that question made some sense. Having taken over the entirety of the Texas political process for the first time there were legitimate questions whether or not this group of fresh-faced, politically inexperienced lawmakers could come together, back away from the scary rhetoric and actually create a budget, address the state's issues, and do something besides cut taxes and then wait for the furor to subside.
The good news, if you're a citizen of Texas and not a hard-core partisan, is that they did. The sky did not fall and things pretty much went on as they had for generations. Yes there were tax cuts, tort-reform and a whole bunch of other things that made Democrats cringe, but the basic functions of government never ground to a halt. (Except for when the Democrats decided to take a vacation in Ardmore, OK)
A much bigger issue is that the Republicans, either through ignorance or indifference, have not done a very good job outlining exactly what they think good government looks like. While "cut taxes" is a mantra that's resonating at the ballot box there's not been an overriding narrative of what cutting taxes looks like in relation to things that citizens expect from their government. When you look at the current iteration of the top of the Republican ballot there's very little to indicate this is going to change.
Abbott, despite his ads speaking about infrastructure and education, has an issues page filled with National red meat for the base Dan Patrick is being Dan Patrick and while he's promoting his vouchers plan for education alongside property tax reductions, he's been off and on that bandwagon for years now and, seemingly, if it does get fixed he's out of campaign material. Glenn Hegar is saying a lot without actually saying anything. And Ken Paxton and George P. Bush are clearly already thinking about a higher office.
Before you shut this down and think that I'm suggesting you should vote against the Republican slate you're mistaken. As a fiscal conservative I think that all of these candidates deserve your vote. The narrative of the TLSPM has been that, especially in the races for Comptroller and Attorney General, the Democrats offer a slate of pragmatic, business friendly candidates who are going to govern against progressive type and not try to bury the state's economy under an avalanche of new business taxes and soak-the-rich policies to make everyone pay their 'fair share'. This is a happy fantasy, but one that I don't share based on the candidates own statements and legislative histories.
Which brings us back to the narrative. If you only read the TLSPM and nothing else then it's amazing that Texas Republicans can fog a mirror electorally speaking. Part of this is because Republicans such as Perry and Patrick have shown that you don't need the media to win in Texas and part of it is because the TLSPM likes and agrees with the Texas Democrats more often then they like and agree with Texas Republicans. In many ways, those narratives are never going to go away no matter what Republicans do, short of turning to Democratic policies.
Even IF Texas Republicans decided to pivot and support the DREAM Act, fund education beyond the dreams of Avarice, move to change the voting laws to allow for same-day registration and do pretty much everything the TLSPM desires, they would still push for Democrats to be elected because they would still think more would be done if only the right people were in charge.
Clearly the Republican way-forward is with principle. But it also lies in defining exactly what those principles are. What ARE the things that Texas Republicans feel to be 'core government services?' In the linked editorial addressing Rep. Elkin's recent troubles it's a given that the state has the obligation to regulate and eliminate pay-day and auto-title loans. Do they? Is it the obligation of the State to clothe, house and properly educate every child regardless of their desire? Does the State have an obligation to provide grants and tax breaks to bring business (and, by extension, jobs) to Texas?
Unlike Lisa Falkenberg, I'm not going to attempt to sit behind my keyboard on a Sunday evening and tell you what you need to think. Nor am I going to belittle you if you think differently than I. There are, I admit, sound arguments behind both the yes and the no's on all of these positions. Choosing to think yes or no where I think differently is not a sign of mental weakness (as Falkenberg (wrongly) suggests) it's a sign of mental strength.
What I do know is that Republicans need to start doing a better job outlining what are core functions of government and what are not. And Republican voters had better start doing a better job rewarding candidates who take the issues seriously. The second problem will be how to get this message out to the voters, because the TLSPM is not going to be very keen on putting it out there for them.
Finally, Texas Republicans need a leader who's not only solid on the issues, but able to communicate them effectively. For all of the noise relating to 'demographics is destiny' and Battleground Texas, the sense of inevitability surrounding the two is overblown. To counter this Texas Republicans are going to have to get better at their ground game, in their communications and in controlling their rhetoric. Because, right now, the left is doing a much better job of this and what's really holding them back is a dearth of quality candidates, a national party that's doing whatever they can to blow it and some curious policy positions that are at odds with the electorate. At some point, this is going to change and Texas Republicans will have a fight on their hands.
Conservative Republicans could take huge steps toward winning this fight by clarifying the conservative position now. To do this it's time for conservatives to stop saying what they're against and start saying what they're FOR. I'm not sure if there's anyone in this crop of state-wide candidates that's able to accomplish this however. I hope I'm wrong.
*2003 was the first year that Republicans held all of the State-wide offices along with majorities in the Texas House and Senate. In reality Republicans had a strangle-hold on state-wide races for much longer.
