FAQ v1.0

1. How does a strong party differ from those we have seen here in Texas recently?

A strong party is self-governing and self-sustaining. A weak party, even if a ruling party, is not both or, in our case now, either.

The Democratic Party of Texas was self-governing during a few, brief “populist” intervals. It was an all-male, white-only party then, but it had to compete with a national Republican Party that was also, for a few, brief intervals, “progressive.

The results of such competition included abolition of the practice of renting out convict labor in Texas, early adoption of women’s suffrage, and implementation of common carriage regulation. These measures were beneficial without regard to race, but the party did not finally free itself of white-only law and custom until the 1954-74 era of bi-partisan civil rights reform. In those matters, a coalition of liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans demonstrated their capacity for the sort of bi-partisan innovation that characterized previous intervals of competition and collaboration that had popular and progressive results.

Sadly, liberal Democrats took power in the Democratic Party only to demolish its limited means of self-governance with arcane procedural reforms. The liberal Democrats had come to rely on moderate Republicans. And, they were left in total control of a dysfunctional party when the GOP ended bi-partisan concession-tending arrangements that had sustained both of the parties in Texas from 1874 to 1994.

The Republican Party of Texas is self-governing and self-sustaining, as well, in the sense that it functions as a unified Whig party today, (a) by representing a propertied, albeit heavily indebted class of, mostly, what the Second Klan called “white home-owners” and (b) by cultivating financial means that are wholly consistent with the neo-Federalist doctrines of voluntary taxation, civil religion, and a centralized government controlled now by a “Republican Majority” that it engineered nationwide.

The Democratic Party of Texas has never been self-sustaining. It seemed to prosper before 1974 by functioning as a patronage-chain and by exploiting its one-party control of all but a few federal government concessions in Texas. It, also, scrupulously adhered to certain reciprocal arrangements the two national parties had made after 1876. That all declined after 1974 and ended, spectacularly, in 1994, following the end of a century of Great, World, and Cold Wars. The GOP figured they won all those wars and claimed all the spoils after 1994. Previously, Democrats in Austin had tolerated a Federal Judgeship or Marshal post for a “Beaumont Republican”, whenever the GOP controlled the White House. But, after 1994, “Beaumont Democrats” were targeted for extinction.

So, the Democratic Party of Texas has to start from scratch, really, in order to overcome its chronic bankruptcy. Its patronage chain has run dry and produces only foul-smelling internal battles over tiny scraps of prestige or truly small change eked out of concession-tending activities which are now exclusively controlled by the other party. The party is not self-governing or self-sustaining, and the two distinct problems viciously reinforce each other.

::JRB