Burnt Orange Report

Where do you draw the line?

By Byron LaMasters

A question worth exploring came up in the comment thread of my post yesterday on a possible primary challenege to State Rep. Vilma Luna. I stated that I would support a primary challenge to Vilma Luna based on her vote for the redistricting bill in the 2003 session. Luna, along with Ron Wilson were the only House Democrats to support the Tom DeLay re-redistricting scheme. Luna is also a member of the Craddick House leadership team. She represents a reliably Democratic district, where a generic Democrat can expect to get at least 55-60% of the vote.

Some commenters argue that she should be given no more of a pass than those Democrats who voted on other Republican bills such as the CHIP-cutting bill, etc. I argued that Luna voted for bills that cut CHIP as well - I disagree with her vote, and that of other Democrats on that issue, but I don't see that as grounds for defeat in a Democratic primary. Her position on the redistricting issue, however, is something that I find unforgivable. That vote not only ended the careers of SEVEN Democratic congressmen, but also chopped up my neighborhood in central Austin into three congressional districts, deprived the state of Texas of decades of seniority in Congress, and most likely will make it impossible for Democrats to regain a majority in Congress until the next redistricting cycle. That led commenter JW to ask this question:

Should an ideological outsider (a) play the game, gain influence and make a real difference, even if it's just at the margins; or (b) play the role of loyal opposition and fight every fight, even if your cause may be harmed in the long run? There are two schools of thought and both have some merit. Let's see what your readers think.

Personally, I'm typically a proponent of the latter approach, because I find that usually - particularly considering the leadership tactics of the modern day Republican Party - those who "play the game" end up doing more to legitimize the opposition (Republicans) than they do in affecting positive legislation. Thus, in my opinion, the negative effects outweigh the positive ones.

I would say that approach (a) offers a short term gain (i.e. crumbs of positive legislation), but a long-term loss (enabling and legitimizing a governing party that is not in our best interets). Whereas I would say approach (b) offers short term loss (less pork for your district or positive legislation), but is a long-term gain - as it allows to opposition to point out the abuses of power and corruption of the governing party in order to win elections - the tool that will ultimately change the equation.

Anyway, I got to run, but let me know what you think...