Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search


Policy is More Important than Politics


by: Scott Beggs

Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 00:58 PM CDT


(One of our new registered users, Scott Beggs is a recent graduate from Baylor University, where he earned a political science degree and served as Vice-President of the student body. A long-time friend, I asked him to write this after a recent discussion we had at the famous house of ideas, Taco Cabana. - promoted by Phillip Martin)

There won’t be any names in this article. Democracy, after all, has never been about names. It’s always been about ideas.

The upcoming state election on November 7th has refueled the need for these ideas, and, with a uniquely energized electorate, the races are gaining speed. Unfortunately in this time of need, most commentary coming from inside PAC meetings and on internet message boards has focused on what team each candidate is playing for. The usual slanderous statements about Republicans being unfeeling defenders of corporate America and Democrats being unrealistic idealists without a plan have dominated the marketplace of ideas.

The truth that most political institutions don’t want the voters to know is that the importance placed on party lines is mostly fabricated. Not discounting its place in the governmental spectrum, the party system is not the last word on how policies are created, especially in local and state governments. It is people that create momentum, and qualified, tested leaders exist in both parties waiting for your votes to give them the power to speak for you. This isn’t an endorsement for any candidate in particular, and certainly not a cry for any one party to triumph over the others, but a call for voters to seek out individuals who prove that they deserve a seat in whatever chair they seek out.

The officials to vote for are the officials who have proven effective or who show promise that they can communicate the needs of the people to their respective branches. You already know their names. They are the community leaders running for school board and the Texas leaders running for house seats who don’t boast standing in their party, but clear records of servant leadership.

Our generation has been frustrated by the sleekness of campaigns and the well-oiled machines working behind the scenes of each party – Republicans, Democrats and Independent parties alike. Their messages are tailored, their tactics reek of propaganda, their reputations are hidden behind the larger party apparatus. Fortunately, the tide seems to be turning against this sort of politics, and if voters continue looking for results instead of emotionally driven public relations blitzes, the political climate may change altogether.

Texas is a great state, but has its fair share of problems. These problems – education, land taxes, immigration – need pragmatic solutions and the support of effective leaders. These solutions will never emerge if the parties are more concerned with being right than serving the people of the state. This has been an all-too-common theme for the party system with each group rallying behind moral victories, character attacks and scandals which have little to do with Texan prosperity. If the voters are drawn into the discussion over which party is more correct, it could be detrimental to the broader existence of ideas that could improve the lives of millions of citizens.

Bottom line? Working together to create powerful policies toward the betterment of the state far outweighs the sandbox arguments that flash between certain members of each party. The electorate must see past this fire wall of petty fights for bragging rights and look into the personal effectiveness of the individuals running for each position regardless of their affiliations.

It all comes down to what qualities you want out of your governmental leaders: the ability to say, “I told you so” or a true concern for the people of Texas, a dynamic set of ideas and a willingness to work with the other representatives in the room to achieve a better future for every Texan.

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Wait (0.00 / 0)
But I thought it wan't about winning arguements, it's about winning elections. Well, color me suprised.
< /more sarcasm>

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

Good policy isn't about winning arguments OR winning elections (0.00 / 0)
It's about making good policy. Period.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

[ Parent ]
I Agree 100% (0.00 / 0)
Democrats aren't always right, and Republicans aren't always wrong. The reverse isn't true, either -- and the continual perpetuation of those myths is both dishonest and a large reason why the fires of partisanship continue to flame across our political landscape. If you think I'm wrong, just look at the Governor's race and how thousands and thousands of citizens took time to sign petitions against the two-party system.

There needs to be a certain amount of independence in our political leaders. An independence from power, money and special interests, absolutely -- but also independence from strict party ideology. I'll support a candidate even if I disagree with their positions on some of their issues if they're honest with me, and if I have reason to trust that they are acting on behalf of their constituency and on behalf of furthering the democratic discussion of ideas. I think most in the Texas blogsphere would agree -- we need not look farther than last year's "Texan of the Year" for proof.

The same goes for everyone who works in politics. Most of us can run poll numbers, create a winning message, raise money, blockwalk, or do something effective to win elections. But how many of us really know the intricacies of the school finance system -- more than just the talking points? How many of us know anything about Accenture and the HHSC privatization other than the quick-hit we see on the news? I know I don't.

Democrats and Republicans in Texas need to elect (and train) public and political leaders who know how to win elections and who know how to create and craft the best public policy possible. That way -- whatever the political climate -- we can have better hope that everyone is working to improve the lives of Texas citizens.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


Frequently those who know the most lose because (0.00 / 0)
complex issues can't be broken down into sound bites. One candidate who knows the most about the issue of school finance is Fred Head. He learned it through years in the legislature and observation after he left the House.  On the other hand, many say that George Bush won because he was good at "staying on message."  The more often  people hear the same thing, the more people begin to believe it.  That is how bad policy becomes reality.  Reagan's PR preached "Democrats tax tax tax, spend spend spend" and "Democrats are for big government."  Few people realized that the number of people employed by the U.S. Government excalated higher under Reagan than under any president to date and that taxes usually go down during Democratic administrations.  Yet the disconnect between the enactment of policy and the PR of administrations frequently leads the American public in frequently accepting what is said even when it is blantantly untrue.

There is a house race in my district where I suspect the Republican incumbent is closer to the Democratic party on more policy issues than is his Democratic challenger. There are problems, in my estimation, with both candidates positions on some things. I fear replacing a moderate Republican who votes with the Democrats in the House more frequently than any other Republican in the house with a person running as a Democrat who states upfront that she is an Independent and an independent thinker.  Much of the financing of the Democratic challenger is coming from Republicans and I question who she'll be loyal to once elected .... progressive Democrats or Republican campaign financers. Also wonder if the reason Republicans are supporting her is that the Republican incumbent is too liberal for their taste and maybe they are supporting the opposition to teach him a lesson.

It's hard to say. If we support someone of the opposite party who has a "Democrat" opponent, we are in trouble. But if we elect folks who "run as Democrats" who don't support the values of the Democratic Party and who probably won't champion the policies which are near and dear to our hearts, we are in even deeper water.  I choose to question and not endorse. When I vote, I'll try to select the person I believe will take care of ALL THE PEOPLE of this district. I won't work for a candidate in that race unless I'm convinced the candidate will be at least as strong as the Republican incumbent on issues which are progressive, Democratic, and of importance to poor people, working people, and those who do not have money to buy and influence powerful people.  I fear a "Republican-lite" candidate more than I fear an incumbent Republican. The "Republican-lite" candidate, if elected, might foster Republican policies on a district and because they are bearing the Democratic banner, we get painted with the policy. Right now we have too many Democratic incumbents in office who resemble the Republicans too closely. We might be stuck with a Republican in office for another term, but it seems that it might be better to keep the Republican who votes with the Democrats on key issues than to replace him with a Democrat who probably will vote with the Republicans on key issues. The Republican might lose to a true Democrat during the next election cycle. However, if the Republican-lite challenger who is running "as a Democrat" is elected, it might be years before that seat goes to a true Democrat.  We need to evaluate the POLICIES a candidate will champion very seriously.  If their policies are only the same ones that Republicans champion, that is a warning signal.  We need to see WHAT THE DIFFERENCES are and if we can't see any, and if a significant amount of their financing comes from Republicans, that probably means that there aren't many significant differences between that candidate and Republicans.

I don't think the way this party will grow strong again is to mimic Republicans. I think it will be to be TRULY  DEMOCRATIC in policy, value and practice. Some folks have lost sight of what that means. I think we need to examine the voting patterns of incumbent Democrats and hold them accountable.  As Democrats begin winning, and Republican incumbents see Republicans unseated, we're going to have many Republicans switch party's to save their jobs. We're going to have to begin EVALUATING candidates based on POLICY and POSITIONS on ISSUES as closely as we evaluate them based on party affiliation.

Faith Chatham


[ Parent ]
I agree (5.00 / 1)
"We're going to have to begin EVALUATING candidates based on POLICY and POSITIONS on ISSUES as closely as we evaluate them based on party affiliation."

Excellent point.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
Sic'em Scott! :) (0.00 / 0)
Good article, way to boost up BU's stock on this board! 

The point I most agree with (which goes assumed throughout the article) is that within our party we can embrace people from throughout the political spectrum... from the most liberal gay man in Austin to the most conservative Southern Baptist in Waco.

I will critique one big point in your thesis: You assume that both sides are willing to disarm and come together to make policy.  If we (Democrats) unilaterally disarm then we leave ourselves open to being slaughtered by Reps. 

Another point: Not ALL Republicans are "evil," but they DID start a culture of corruption that involves massive money infused into their pockets/campaigns in exchange for their votes.  This was orchestrated by a few individuals, all of whom were leaders of the party.  Some--most actually--of my best friends are Republicans, Scott, being also a Baylor alumnus can sympathize.  These are good people, they want to make the country better and have a different solution than I do.  Thus, we need to attack the source of the problem, the corrupt leaders, and not ALL Republicans.


For the record... (0.00 / 0)
Scott would identify himself as an independent politically, and an atheist religiously. (The extent to which those are true, I leave to Scott to correct).

I've always thought that an atheist that can win VP at Baylor most have some serious political skills...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
LOL!!! (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't referring to Scott with the Southern Baptist from Waco, I was more reffering to myself... :)  (Although I am FROM Oklahoma and just moved to Baylor for college, but during that time it did feel like home and still feels like home more than Austin).... :)

As far as an atheist student body VP, what fraternity was he?  That speaks volumes.


[ Parent ]
Never pledged (0.00 / 0)
He was just really active in student government, and everyone always liked him.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

[ Parent ]
Unilateral disarmament (0.00 / 0)
>>>I will critique one big point in your thesis: You assume that both sides are willing to disarm and come together to make policy.  If we (Democrats) unilaterally disarm then we leave ourselves open to being slaughtered by Reps. <<<

Couldn't agree more.


[ Parent ]
Well... (5.00 / 1)
I agree with yours and David's statement, but I don't see where Scott (or I) call for anyone to unilaterally disarm. Scott's driving point is that voters must choose folks based on the best policy they advocate, and not the sleakest political maneuvrering...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

[ Parent ]
You didn't and neither did he... (0.00 / 0)
...it was an assumption. I thought the post was very good. However, that doesn't mean that it didn't have a bit of utopian flair. While it would be ideal for pragmatic people on both sides to come together and develop plans and policies that will actually work, it's far from being realistic.

Part of what I was saying, in agreeing with David's comment (and no, I didn't write it out) was that at various times in Washington the two parties worked together to find pragmatic solutions, balancing one another and their constituencies for the common good.

We're in a time when that balance has been disrupted and the side which is currently favored does NOT share your desire to work together.


[ Parent ]
It is Utopian... (0.00 / 0)
The post is utopian, I guess, and rather idealistic. But I guess I didn't get into politics b/c of the reality of the situation. I got into politics because I believed in things like those written in this post, and in all those other starry-eyed dreams and ideas. Sometimes, when I've found that reality has kicked my ass one too many times, I need to go back to the ideals, and the faith in it all.

Whether it's in the form of a new Neil Young album, a rerun of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or a conversation from a long ago best friend, I need those utopian things every now and again. They're what gear me up to work w/ all you folks to make it happen in the "real" world.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
Utopian Moments... (0.00 / 0)
I think we ALL go through this!  I know during one campaign (probably the worst campaign I've worked on, for a number of reasons)everyone in the office had to start out the day listening to Whitney Houston's "Greatest Love of All."  Sadly, it was only 50% for humor's sake... the other 50% was because we needed THAT heavy of an injection of idealism in order to get through the nitty gritty...

[ Parent ]
I think you're about half right... (3.00 / 1)
I agree with the sentiment that no political party has a monopoly on wisdom -- three cheers for that.

But you say a few things that don't line up.  How can it be true that "solutions will never emerge if the parties are more concerned with being right than serving the people of the state" and it also be true that "democracy [has] always been about ideas"?  But aren't some ideas good, and some bad?  Aren't these two statements pretty close to being mutually exclusive?

I believe being right matters.  The attitude that the people's business is always best done when elected officials work together to accomplish something, leads people to overlook whether that which has been acommplished is any good.  It's the same attitude that saw the Texas Senate capitulate and allow the Perry Tax Plan, House Bill 2, etc to pass.  Doing something is not always more important than being right. 

I'm involved in politics and campaigns because I believe deeply that government should be a force for good in people's lives.  But there are lots of people out there who hold the opposite view.  We're in a battle of ideas...a battle to shape the political climate which will inform the votes of thousands (millions?) of individuals. 

Most Texans don't have the time to read blogs, contact their elected officials, check out the newspaper, or hell -- even vote.  They're too worried about day to day life.  That's why I think a little grandstanding and a few shrill moral victories never hurt.

...Just another way of looking at things...

 


Good comments, all (0.00 / 0)
I don't think that the ideas that fuel democracy and "being right" are equitable, although I blame myself for the confusion. I view ideas as possible solutions to problems, and there are certainly better ideas than others – ones that work and ones that don’t. However, I think the attitude of “being right” has nothing to do with ideas. It has to do with unmovable party positions. We can all understand the stubbornness on issues like abortion and the death penalty – really difficult moral questions. But it seems like the same attitude or “we’re right and we won’t listen to criticism” pervades even the smallest policy matter these days. Even more so, opinions about issues don’t equal policy proposals.

That’s why actual party plans for state and national problems are eerily missing from the political scene. Does it matter that these plans would be too detailed for a 30-second sound bite? Yes. Image is unavoidable. But that image is not going to help the people of the state. I suppose a better way of phrasing it would be “appealing to the masses while not having any ideas and insisting that his/her party’s positions are unquestionably right”, but I figured “being right” worked in mind. You know those debate kids in high school that wouldn’t give up even the smallest point in the defense of their side for fear that they would lost the match? Well, when our politicians act that way, the people of Texas lose the match. That goes for both parties.

But talk about being dead on…my follow up article would probably be something about keeping policymakers accountable for their policies working. That is, assuming they had policies to implement instead of passing candy-coated bills which do nothing to solve tough issues but look good on paper. In conclusion, that is probably the worst run-on sentence I’ve ever written.

Kudos. Good points on all sides.

http://selfrighteousnation.blogspot.com/


[ Parent ]
Connect With BOR
Your source for Texas politics.

On Facebook: BOR
On Twitter: @BOR
On the Go: Mobile App

Upcoming BOR Events

"Do I Look Illegal?"
Arizona GOP Debate Watch

Wednesday, February 22
6:00-9:00 p.m.
Angie's Restaurant
1307 E. 7th Street
RSVP on Facebook

Save The Date:
Super Tuesday Super Watch Party!
Tuesday, March 6
6:00-10:00 p.m.
Scholz Garten
1607 San Jacinto



Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Shared On Facebook

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- B & B
- Bay Area Houston
- Blue Bloggin
- Bluedaze
- Brains and Eggs
- Capitol Annex
- Collin County Democrats
- Collin County Observer
- Community Forum
- Dog Canyon
- Dos Centavos
- Easter Lemming Liberal
- Eye on Williamson County
- Feet to the Fire
- Grading Texas
- Greg's Opinion
- Grits for Breakfast
- Half Empty
- Houtopia
- In the Pink Texas
- Kiss My Big Blue Butt
- Letters from Texas
- McBlogger
- Mean Rachel
- Musings
- North Texas Liberal
- Off the Kuff
- Panhandle Truth Squad
- Para Justicia y Libertad!
- Pink Dome
- San Antonio Mayor
- South Texas Chisme
- StoudDemBlog
- Texas Clover Leaf
- Texas Kaos
- The Caucus Blog
- There..Already
- Three Wise Men
Best of Texas Right
- Blogs of War
- BlogHouston
- Boots and Sabers
- Lone Star Times
- Publius TX
- Rick Perry vs the World
- Safety for Dummies
- Slightly Rough
- Urban Grounds
Other Texas Reads
- Burka Blog
- D Magazine
- DOT Show
- Statesman Elections
- Strong Political Analysis
- Texas Monthly
- Texas Observer
- The Texas Blue
- Quorum Report Daily Buzz
Around Austin
- Austin Bloggers
- Austin Chronicle
- Austin Contrarian
- Austin Metblogs
- Austin on Two Wheels
- Austin Real Estate Blog
- Austin Statesman
- Austin Texas Bike Shit Stuff
- Austin Towers
- Austinist
- Capital MetroBlog
- Daily Texan
- Do512
- Downtown Austin Blog
- East Austinite
- Elise Hu
-
Flash Mob Austin
- Keep Austin Blue
- M1EK
- Travis County Democrats
- University Democrats
TX Progressive Orgs
- ACLU Legislative Blog
- Atticus Circle
- Criminal Justice Coalition
- Equality Texas
- NOW Texas
- PFAW Texas
- Public Citizen
- SEIU Texas
- Tejano Insider
- Texas AFT
- Texas HDCC
- Texas Watch
- TFN
- TSTA
- TSEU
- Texas Young Democrats
- United Ways of Texas
TX Elections/Returns
- TX Returns 1992-present
- TX Media/Candidate List

- Bexar County
- Collin County
- Dallas county
- Denton County
- El Paso County
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Jefferson County
- Tarrant County
- Travis County

- CNN 1998 Returns
- CNN 2000 Returns
- CNN 2002 Returns
- CNN 2004 Returns
- CNN 2006 Returns
- CNN 2008 Returns
Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Powered by: SoapBlox