Blue Texas — A State of Ambivalence

By Michael O. Varhola

Sometime in the coming years, for a variety of reasons, die-hard Red state Texas will almost certainly become a Blue state. That is, in fact, something I have been personally working to help achieve. It would be fair to say, however, that I have very mixed feelings about this imminent political sea change.

It bears mentioning that I am not now and never have been a Democrat per se; many years ago, I was actually registered as a Republican, and for much of the past two decades I have strived to be strictly apolitical and non-partisan, which I think behooves someone working as a journalist. I am, however, a liberal — perhaps even a radical liberal — and am also revolted by and strongly opposed to most of what the Republican party stands for these days, which I consider to be regressive and contrary to the interests of the majority of the citizenry. In short, liberalism is based on an informed view of the world and the value and rights of the individual, whereas conservatism essentially represents the inverse of these ideas. Because most "liberals" also happen to be "Democrats," those two terms are often used synonymously. This is problematic in any number of ways, however, as I have recently had brought to my attention.

Some of what I have seen in Texas from the Democratic party during the current election season is commensurate with the liberal ideal and some of it most definitely is not and has, consequently, given me some pause. Following are some of the negative and positive things I have recently experienced in this regard:

(-): In January, I received a many-times-forwarded email message with the subject “Congressional Reform Act of 2011” that appeared to be a typical piece of Tea Party/neocon invective containing a number of blatant lies and which otherwise reflected a rightwing ethos. What stunned me, however, was that this message originated with the chair of the Democratic Party of the county I live in! “While I personally do not fully agree with all of these suggestions, they are a good place to start,” this lady wrote at the beginning of the message. Concerned that Democratic leaders in our area have no idea what their own party stands for, I contacted her to let her know I was planning on posting an article about the message to this blog but was willing to talk to her about it first. She did not, however, respond to any of my attempts to reach her.

(-): After I posted an article about the message, I contacted nearly 40 people affiliated with the Democratic Party of Texas and that of the county I live in, including one who as at that time running for the Senate and is now running for Congress (and who had contacted me via Facebook after I posted the afore-mentioned article, which it turned out was about his wife; he cut off contact with me when I would not take what was apparently meant to be a hint about removing this piece). Even though I identified myself as pro-Democrat journalist who was concerned with the way the party was being presented, none bothered to respond, not a single one saw fit to dispel misconceptions associated with their party, to respond to misconceptions perpetrated by one of their representatives, or to bolster the efforts of a liberal blogger desperate to support their agenda.

(+) A few weeks ago, I attended a pro-Democratic event at the home of some people in my neighborhood and was grateful to them for hosting it and giving me the opportunity to meet other like-minded people. Pro-Republicans in this area are often publicly vocal about their views — something people with any beliefs in my former East Coast home would have considered rude and coarse and avoided doing — and it was nice to see that there are more people with a liberal bent living all around me than I would have imagined.

(+): At that event, I met and spoke with some of the Democratic political candidates in Texas, including John Courage, who is running for Texas State Senate District 25, and Rebecca Bell-Mettereau, who is running for a place on the State Board of Education District 5. Suffice it to say that I was impressed with their demeanor, intelligence, and sincerity and that they strengthened my resolve to support the Democratic cause in Texas and that I voted for both of them when I went to the polls on October 22. If they get elected I believe they will do everything they can to make Texas a better place for its citizens.

(-): Last week, I attended a training session organized by the Democratic Party in my county so that I could learn how to serve as a clerk at a polling station on election day. Without going into details that might seem overly mean-spirited, it would be fair to say that if the level of organization at this meeting was indicative of the party's efforts throughout the state in general then it is abundantly clear why a state that has as many Democrats as it does Republicans is still solidly Red. Nearly two hours after the session began, it ended without the training having been accomplished, with an indication that it would have to be held again at a future date, with promises that materials pertinent to it would be sent out via email (which, as of this writing, has still not happened).

Disorganization, confusion, and indifference in the Democratic Party in Texas notwithstanding, the Lone Star State will nonetheless ultimately shift from Red to Blue as the Hispanic population of Texas inexorably grows and achieves majority status. But one has to question whether it will truly be a victory for the Democratic cause to have the state turn Blue not because its citizens have become more enlightened, educated, or socially conscious, but merely because one ethnic group has become more predominant than another. We will not, in fact, come much closer to the Great Society envisioned by one former president from the state of Texas if all we do is swap out the political party favored by people who mostly look alike in one way for the political party of people who mostly look alike in another way. (Shown here is Rebecca Bell-Mettereau, one of the hopes for the Democratic cause in Texas.)

So, suffice it to say, I am ambivalent about the shift of the Lone Star State from Red to Blue. Overall, I am confident that Texas and America overall will be better off for this change and will continue to work for it — but it is sad to contemplate how much less meaningful that change will be than it could be.

Endorsing a Republican Candidate

In November, millions of Americans will cast their votes for the person they most want to see become the next president of the United States. It is already shaping up to be a heated campaign and will pit one of the most controversial administrations of modern times against whoever ends up being the Republican nominee and any number of third-party candidates.

The rump hopefuls don’t have any hope to speak of, of course, and the contest is ultimately going to come to a toe-to-toe slugfest between incumbent Barrack Obama and the as-yet-unknown Republican candidate. Who that should be — perhaps more so even that who it ultimately will be — is thus a matter of great interest for Americans in general and the editors of this site in particular.

A good first step in getting to who should be the Republican nominee is to figure out who it should not be and to many of us there are some easy answers to that.

It seems obvious that the next chief executive of our country should not be someone who is stupid. Right there that rules out Rick Perry for anyone who values intelligence, and his weird antics, rambling monologues, funny faces and gestures, and memory lapses clearly mark him as someone who is mentally defective. Unfortunately, ever since that most brilliant of Democrat presidents, Jimmy Carter, was unable to resolve the Iran Hostage Crisis in the late 1970s, Republicans have responded by trying to place simpletons in the White House (just try to follow the painful thought process behind that … ). Sarah Palin has confined her involvement in this election to inane commentary and Michelle Bachmann has dropped out, and Perry is tanking in the state caucuses, so we may actually be clearing out the lower end of the intellect pool fairly early on.

To me, it seems like a foregone conclusion that the next president of the United States should not be verifiably corrupt. That pretty much rules out Washington insider Newt Gingrich, who has by all accounts been too cagey about his personal finances and accepted an awful lot of money from Freddie Mac and Fannie May — by his own admission for doing nothing! A willingness to take taxpayer money in exchange for doing admittedly nothing — and in actuality for influence peddling — should make Gingrich completely unacceptable. (Recently, there was a message making its rounds on Facebook in which the author suggested that because Gingrich was more articulate and better able to give a good speech that we should set aside his faults and elect him on that basis alone. Have we really slipped that far? That is reminiscent to me of the students who campaigned for Bill Clinton back in the ‘90s with the line “Character is not an issue!”).

In that most Americans are not wealthy and have felt the impact of the recent recession, the next leader of the American people should definitely not be party to making them the vassals of one-percenter business interests. That, by all accounts, rules out Mitt Romney, who would have business interests directly peddle their goods and services to children via commercial advertising on Sesame Street and would prevent workers from forming labor unions. It never ceases to amaze me that people of relatively modest means would get behind people without their economic interests at heart, and yet it seems to happen increasingly.

Finally, our next president should not be a bigot. Whether anyone likes it or not, America is a nation of many peoples, and intolerance for the ones that are not like oneself divides and weakens us as a country. So, even though the “young people” are rallying behind unapologetic demonstrated racist Ron Paul, that pretty much rules him out (and most of those young people are those smug little creeps who have not yet had the chance to experience much adversity in their lives and their numbers will wane as they come to the grim realization that most of us do).

Those exclusions don’t leave too many candidates on the Republican slate! There is one that remains, however, someone who cannot just be excluded by the above criteria and who beyond that is in palatable in his own right, and that is John Huntsman. He is educated and articulate. As the former U.S. ambassador to China he is experienced in foreign affairs — something that xenophobic amongst us, as well as those that think wars are a substitute for diplomacy, don’t get at all, but which is absolutely critical in the globalized real world. And, as a Republican who has served in a Democrat administration, he has demonstrated that he can work with leaders on both sides of the aisle and is not inclined to be a polarizing influence.

In light of the above, the editors of Religion, Politics, and Sex, have decided to endorse Huntsman as the Republican candidate for president. His attitudes, frankly, are so undeniably more progressive and intelligent than those of any of his other GOP colleagues — and his portfolio and experience so clearly superior — that it is somewhat inexplicable and dispiriting that, far from being a frontrunner, he is trailing behind all of the other surviving candidates mentioned above. If there is one characteristic many of this election’s extreme and weird slate of Republican candidates have shown, however, it is a tendency to self-destruct. As there is nothing to suggest that Huntsman has this particular trait, we can hope that he might be the last man standing while his opponents implode and drop out amidst shame and scandal. And, if that happens, Americans who feel the need to vote a GOP party line or want an alternative to the current administration may actually be able to make a viable choice.