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


Follow Burnt Orange Report on Twitter (@BOR) and Facebook.

Burka's "Principles, Schminciples": Ten Best or Worst At What?


by: Glenn Smith

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:33 AM CDT


Late in the session, I had an online exchange with Texas Monthly's Paul Burka regarding the fight over voter suppression/voter I.D. In the course of that argument, Burka mocked concerns over fundamental voting rights. "Principles, Schminciples," he said, leading TM's president, Evan Smith, to refer to his lead political writer as "Mr. Schminciple."

I bet Burka would like to take back that comment, betraying as it does the emptiness of a focus on process. Burka loves politics, as do I. But I love it because it's full of people and it's about people, whether they live or die or get an education or an opportunity to succeed. Burka loves the mechanics of politics.  In Burka's world, end results, as measured by the lives of Texans, matter little so long as the proper form is followed.

Burka is not alone in his approach.  Many experienced and inexperienced political journalists believe a focus on process guards against bias in their reporting. Also, Burka writes in good faith. I just disagree, and I think the issue at stake is a critical one.

Post-session, legislators are waiting breathlessly for TM's infamous Ten Best/Ten Worst list of legislators. While they wait, I wonder if they could answer the question, ten best and ten worst at what exactly?

I respect Burka's experience, and the online reporting of Burka and his colleague, Patricia Kilday Hart, was terrific. But over the years Burka has reduced the Ten Best/Ten Worst to a hollow ritual.

If Burka reported on the 10 best or worst surgeons in Texas, he wouldn't give much attention to the patients who lived or died. Instead, he'd hold forth on operating room technique. We'd learn who had scalpel envy, whose surgical team had the most panache.

Now, it's true that Burka will be especially kind to the surgeon with polished scalpels who is lucky enough to save a patient. And Burka's wrath will come down on bumbling fools who can recite the Hippocratic oath backwards but kill patient after patient with rusty saws.

It's in the non-obvious middle ground that Burka fails. The legislator who puts principle over process precisely because he or she is concerned about saving lives - that person scores low on the Burka scale.  There's a particular group who also is uneasy around this kind of person - lobbyists. Lobbyists adore, how shall we put it, "flexibility of conscience."

It's the attachment to the ideals of process that leads to legislative cowardice and failure. It has proven impossible in Texas to fix public education, build roads, make college affordable, and get health care to kids. You know why? Because "process" is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Unsurprisingly, sacrificing principles to process gives an enormous advantage to the unprincipled.

The good news is that voters know all this in their guts, and that's one reason why Burka's Ten Best/Ten Worst makes little difference in campaigns. Sure, people have attacked their opponents unlucky enough to have the scarlet W for Worst sewed to their jacket. And the gold B for Best finds its away into the lucky winners' ads. It's like checking off a box, and voters aren't moved either way.

For voters, what's it really mean? Again, ten best or ten worst at what exactly?

Being best at the process that has led Texas into its current mess can't really be much to brag about.

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
At what would be key (0.00 / 0)
and for that I'd say Dunnam's on the wrong list from Burka.

The Democrats beat Voter ID this session, despite the GOP determination to pass it regardless.

The New Speaker just might be on my Worst List, because it sure looks like he's as dedicated a Republican partisan as the old one -- just not as muleheaded in a public way.


What Principles? (0.00 / 0)
The GOP position on Voter ID was principled:

The Texas GOP favors a property-qualified franchise (1874) and "politics as war" (1994). Their position on Voter ID was both:

It added some highly discriminatory complexity to what is already something like a "credit scored franchise" that serves as a proxy today for the property-qualified franchise the GOP, formerly segregationist Democrats, really desire. "Voter ID" was also test-marketed and popular with likely voters without regard to the tendentious arguments made for or against it.

"Real ID" is still funded by a US Congress under Democratic "control". The Center for American Progress has a systematic study of these matters, but it has had no effect on Democrats anywhere. "Too Technical!"

Finally, the GOP is now on the air constantly blaming Democrats for "chubbing" anything and everything someone might be disappointed at dying sine die, thus, avoiding public responsibility for rules and calendars they dictated.

I do not see what of their own principles they violated.

So, what are ours?

Do we really support Art. VI of our state constitution or the anti-Federalist tradition of universal suffrage that it reflected, albeit for white males only, originally? That is an old and fundamental principle, as big as it gets. Democrats here extended it to women early, on our own, without a federal goad (1916).

Texas Democrats surely supported 1964 civil rights legislation by about 1974 providing for federal intervention on behalf of minority voters in some states.

I am not sure that is a principle. In any case, it has been set-aside and undermined by the DoJ for eight years now and is probably going to be overturned by SCOTUS this term. Still, the remarkably narrow arguments I heard us making in this session over SB 362 resonate with what I would expect to hear in a federal lawsuit.

I do not think our legal-sounding argument had any effect on any GOP lawmaker. It did not convince or scare them.

And, it does not answer my question or that of David Van Os, Sonia Santana, et alia, of when or whether Texas Democrats will apply our own constitution to all of our citizens uniformly and literally without any federal intervention at all? That would be very difficult, yes, but highly principled. So, what keeps us from making principled legal arguments in courts rather than arcane legal arguments in the legislature? Why can't we talk like patriots, instead of just lawyers?

It would not be a distraction bigger than Voter ID was, that's for sure!

Besides being way too comfortable with "punting" suffrage questions to the feds and styling them as statutory civil rights of minorities, rather than as constitutional rights of every citizen, I would point out, again, here that (a) photo ID requirements are already all over state statutes, regulations, and practices, legal or not, so that, in fact, the proposed new requirement (b) would probably not have the wildly exaggerated effect postulated by Toby More and, with all the other similar discrimatory impediments to voting in Texas, (c) can be and was substantially mitigated here in Harris County during the 2008 elections.

It looks to me like the GOP had a principle -- not a surprising one and potentially a very unpopular one, if we ever engage them as patriots and populists rather than as cringing liberals -- and we had an expedient crutch and a self-induced panic which the GOP used against us when, for instance, Dan Patrick decided, in the last days, that Voter ID was not so important as other things on his and other Republicans' wish lists.

As for journalism, BOR did not report (1) More's calculation, (2) photo ID requirements already passed into law by Democrats, or (3) Patrick's strategic shift.

Yes, there are principles, process, expedients, interests, sycophancy, vanity, and evil in that order of moral decay, aka "the slippery slope". There are also three planes of strategy: moral, mental, and physical.

These are useful concepts to keep in mind when practicing or reporting politics.    


I really do want to understand (0.00 / 0)
the best way to read your comment. I'm reading it in the order it is written. Is there a better way? I think I got the part about Dan Patrick having a "strategic shift." But I'm not sure that's a significant event to report on. And why do you think so? Is he really that important in the big political scheme of things?

[ Parent ]
Strategic Shift (0.00 / 0)
Please remember that Republicans tend to think of politics in warlike terms, not like a legal dispute between two parties "represented" by "advocates" in a civil court. Their militarism is as bogus as their legal case for Voter ID. But, their grasp of strategy beats our lack of it.

Their paradigm is combat. Ours is mediation, auction, or, failing all else, prayer.

Using Voter ID to enforce discipline on their side -- a majority in both the House and Senate -- and to transfix Democrats on the other is a tactic.

Patrick -- and others in the GOP -- concluded late in the session strategically that the GOP could "lose" on Voter ID by adjouring quickly in the Senate while while Democrats were "chubbing" in the House.

So, a lot of very important legislation that Democrats wanted and that some Republicans would have supported failed.

To be sure, the GOP controls the Calendar in the House and the Rules in the Senate. So, they are 100% responsible for the failed legislation, if we are assessing blame or damages or something of that legal ilk.

However, Patrick is on the air attributing everything that failed to the conspicuous Democratic "chubbing". We have not heard the last of that. It will be a constant refrain until November of next year.

The GOP lost on Voter ID, ... but did that bill really amount to much in the first place?

Patrick thought no.

Democrats thought it meant ... everything. They were in a panic from the first day of the session.

In fact, (a) the GOP Secretary of State knows exactly how many voters, of which political persuasion and in which districts the Voter ID bill would have any bearing on, while (b) Democrats relied on a crude estimate by one of their Austin-centric consultants who said passage of SB 362 would cost Democrats 7 Texas House seats.

That result in 2010 would invalidate the whole "strategy" -- just another consultant's projection -- of the Lone Star Project since 2004. It would make a fool of Matt Angle, Boyd Richie, and the entire "Star Bar" collection of Austin consultants.

Alas, there are a lot of ways Democrats can lose 7 Texas House seats in 2010. The Austin-GOP theory of such a loss is called "natural limits". The Washington-GOP theory is called "1994".

Lacking, sadly, is Democratic strategy or operational art -- military, not legal terms -- for picking up more seats by (i) capitalizing on the popularity of Barack Obama (pivot) (ii) to raise the political participation rate (Schwerpunkt) (iii) using robust micro-targeting technology (Auftragstaktik).

Those terms are so alien, I could be talking ... German. Oops, I am!



[ Parent ]
Patrick (0.00 / 0)
shouldn't have such a forum for his views since he serves as a state senator. There should be a law. You obviously have an ax to grind. But I'm not really clear about it.

[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
there is some weird FCC rule. i know when he ran in that special that he either had to reimburse or attribute as an in-kind.

i know that if a Dem officeholder had a broadcaster underwriting their propaganda that there would be complaints, resolutions, legislation, etc to shut it down. i think everyone has come to expect talk radio to be crazy right wingnuts that no one listens to.


[ Parent ]
Good (0.00 / 0)
I wondered how that had worked for Patrick.

I don't agree that no one listens to it, colin. :-) I just don't understand how they get away with having so much of the public airwaves. It's a crime.


[ Parent ]
Thank you Mr. Smith... (0.00 / 0)
...what an excellent post.  That list has become sort of silly - good reading but meaningless.

Mobile Blog Reader - powered by Notice Orange

Burnt Orange Reader

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Poll
Who do you support in the 299th District Court Runoff?
Mindy Montford
Karen Sage

Results

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- A Capitol Blog
- As the Island Floats
- 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

Burnt Orange Reporters
Publisher - Karl-Thomas M.
Editor-in-Chief - Matt G.
Staff Writer - David M.
Staff Writer - Katherine H.
Staff Writer - Michael H.
Staff Writer - Todd H.
Man of Mystery - Phillip M.
Founder - Byron L.

Powered by: SoapBlox