In an article
in the Houston Chronicle on February
1, Professor Mark Jones asks voters to pay more attention to candidates in the
Republican primary this March because “The direction and scope of public policy
in Texas for the remainder of this decade will be profoundly affected by the
outcome of this spring's Republican primaries. In all 15 statewide contests and
in three-fifths of the state legislative races, the November general election
will, barring an egregious misstep by a Republican candidate, merely ratify the
decision made by GOP primary voters in March and May.” My interest is in two paragraphs
in which Professor Jones identifies the two major factions in the contemporary
Republican Party of Texas. Jones states:
These pragmatic center-right conservatives
view their “movement” conservative brethren, commonly called the tea party, as
excessively ideological and obstructionist. They fear the latter’s rhetoric and
actions jeopardize the state’s continued economic success as well as the
Republican Party’s long-term dominance in the Lone Star State.
Movement conservatives, however,
think their intraparty rivals are too quick to compromise conservative
principles in the name of political expediency and are overly beholden to the
Austin Lobby. Furthermore, they do not think their efforts to restrain spending
are jeopardizing the state’s economic future. To the contrary, they believe
increased state expenditures for education, health care and roads that are
financed by more debt or tax increases will put the “Texas Miracle” at risk.
By identifying the “movement” conservatives as Tea Party
types, Jones masks the fact that these two factions—what Gary Keith, Rex
Peebles, and I referred to as “pragmatists” and “purists” in the second edition
of our textbook on Texas politics and government in 2000—have been evident for
some time in Texas. Although I would agree with the characteristics that Jones
attributes to the “movement” conservatives, the essential difference between
the two factions is that the pragmatists want to control government so that
they can effect public policy that reflects the policy choices of their party’s
members, and the purists want to keep the party pure, adhering to a position,
regardless of its effect on their electoral chances or control of government. Purists
are much more ideologically committed than their pragmatic brethren. In fact, they
view compromise as making a pact with the devil. The opposition is evil, and
how can one remain pure if one compromises even a little bit. The ability to
see every issue in black and white helps enormously. After all, the opposition
has no moral authority or political legitimacy. So, whether the issue is
abortion, gay marriage, immigration, or any other issue, there is the moral,
conservative position and the immoral, liberal position. You can’t get into bed
with the devil; so no compromise is possible. In our system of governance, no
compromise usually means no action. But that’s okay, because the goal is purity
and not action anyway.
Historically, the pragmatic conservatives controlled the
Republican Party of Texas. But that control is challenged by the purists in a
number of Republican Party primary elections this March. Some of the
challengers may be faking their allegiance to the purist wing of the Republican
Party in hopes of gaining political office. Unfortunately, if they do win, they
will be held accountable by the purists who financed their campaigns and
ensured their election or re-election.
No comments:
Post a Comment