Mindless political blathering

Don’t worry, this post doesn’t mean I’m turning this into a political blog of any kind. I feel that if you’re looking for political debate, squabbling and name-callin’, there’s plenty of places for you to find it on the Internet. I don’t really have any interest in forcing my views on you. If you want to be a Republican, a Democrat or an Alaskan Separatist, that’s really your own business.

But as someone who really finds politics and government fascinating, I think there’s a couple of thoughts I’d like to share given tonight’s debate in Austin and the prospect of a meaningful presidential primary in Texas.

We’re entering some uncharted waters around these parts. Waters that haven’t been navigated in quite some time.

A lil’ history (for residents of the lesser 49 states)

Ever since it entered the United States, Texas has been a one-party state. We just flipped which party was the One Party.

For the vast majority of time since 1845, the One Party was the Democratic Party. Sure, we had a fling with a Republican governor in the 1980s, but darn it, Bill Clements had those dreamy eyes… Anyway, at the end of the day, everyone running for office was a Democrat. And if they weren’t, it meant they were communists, anarchists or some other form of social derelict.

Then in 1994, Texas was swept up in the Republican Revolution and everyone with a little “D” next to their name on the ballot became outcasts. Congressmen, county judges, sheriffs, city councilmen and dogcatchers nearly killed each other scrambling to file the paperwork to officially switch sides. The butcher, baker and candlestick maker now all run as GOP candidates and quite frankly can’t ever remember belonging to any other party.

Don’t believe me? Just ask one of our former U.S. Senators or the current governor. They both started their political careers on the other side of the street.

I’m not saying that either side is right or wrong. I’m just trying to point out that, historically speaking, Texan politicians have been mindless bandwagon-hopping sheep. Politicians in Texas aren’t Republicans or Democrats – they’re members of the One Party. At least the successful ones are.

(It’s worth pointing out that Texas voters, of course, haven’t been nearly as simple-minded. Since World War II, we’ve occasionally jumped ship in presidential elections when the One Party has run out a really weak candidate. Also, there are a number of historically strong pockets of both conservative and liberal voters around the state.)

Wait, they’re actually going to be counting votes this year?

I’m not pretending that the general election is up for grabs this fall, but for the first time in my voting life, one of the state’s primaries is actually going to mean something. We’re going to have a real, contested Democratic presidential primary in Texas.

When half of the nation moved their primaries to February and Texas stood pat on March 4th, the general consensus was that our state’s primaries would be mere post-Super Tuesday formalities. You know, keeping up the charade of democracy and all that. But in this year when candidates are fighting for every delegate, Texas (along with Ohio and Pennsylvania) finds itself in a very enviable position – a state with a huge number of delegates up for grabs very late in a tightly contested race.

Consequently, I’ve seen something I thought I would never see in my lifetime – presidential candidates campaigning in Texas! After years of not seeing even the smallest drop of political advertising, Clinton and Obama are now hammering the airwaves with commercials and making speeches around the state. And despite the fact that John McCain has the Republican nomination all but officially wrapped up, even he took time to make a quick Lone Star pit stop and grab an endorsement from Daddy Bush.

In the end, Texas’ delegates may not end up making much of a difference either way. Lou Dobbs keeps telling me angrily that evil superdelegates are going to decide the Democratic nomination themselves by sacrificing a live chicken and doing a little dance around a bubbling cauldron or something. But for now at least, it seems like an election in Texas may actually have national implications.

It’s all very odd for those of us around these parts. We’re used to being ignored. It’s kind of nice to be the belle of the ball for at least a week or two.

A missed opportunity

I wish the Democrats could’ve thought outside the box a little and opted to hold tonight’s debate somewhere other than Austin.

Don’t get me wrong – my distaste for the state’s junior university notwithstanding, I actually like Austin. It’s a fun place with plenty to do and see. It’s got a great mix of culture, nightlife, history and all that junk. Austin is a happening town, but unfortunately it’s also the only place that matters in Texas politics.

Much like a Tammany Hall in the Hill Country, Austin is the end-all and be-all of politics in Texas. If you matter, you’re there. An “outsider” in Texas politics is anyone who’s not in Austin.

Other than fund-raising dinners, there’s no real significant political activity in the big three cities of Texas – Houston, Dallas and San Antonio – on a regular basis. In a state that’s ridiculously large, there aren’t any regional factions fighting for control either – no “Gulf Coast Bloc”, no “Valley Coalition”, no “League of Panhandle Gentlemen”. Local party organizations try put up a good show but are ultimately vestigial. Their sole function is identify the most Austin-like of their own kind and ship them off to the capital for processing.

The cult of Austin and One Party system mean that most candidates for statewide races don’t even bother to make more than a few cursory campaign stops outside Travis County. It’s shocking to see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama barnstorm across the state – our own gubernatorial candidates don’t even bother to do that.

(On a side note, the word “gubernatorial” is the most ridiculous word ever. I don’t care about what ever twisted etymology might be involved, it’s just plain stupid. Can’t we come up with something better?)

Why not send the message that people in other parts of the state matter too? With growing and increasingly diverse voter bases, it seems like Houston and San Antonio would be places where Democrats would like to encourage participation. Given the large amount of attention that immigration issues have generated, why not host a debate in Laredo, El Paso or Brownsville? Don’t you think the folks in Killeen would like a chance to be at a debate that touched on military matters? Don’t you think Lubbock would like to host an event that didn’t end with a drunken mob lighting couches on fire?

Of course, television means that cable subscribers across the state (and the nation) will be able to watch the debate live. But that would be equally true if the debate was being held in Corpus Christi or Amarillo. The whole Baby Jessica thing proved that we have the technology to beam a satellite signal out of Midland. If you don’t have to sacrifice your national television audience, why would you give up the opportunity to take the show on the road and spread the message a little?

Having candidates stumping around the state is a great first step towards including everyone in the political process, but holding Texas’ one and only debate in Austin sends the message that party bigwigs are still ones calling the shots, not voters. I just wish that both Democrats and Republicans in the state could try to spread it around a little more to Texas’ 20 million other citizens in the future.