Looking Left on Texas History
On a recent jaunt to ye olde book store, I stumble across this book as I'm set to leave and found myself reading it in its entirety (well, minus a few boring bits about particular legal cases). David Richards is former Gov Ann Richards' ex-husband. He alsoworked under Jim Mattox during his days as AG in Texas. He also worked as an attorney taking on all number of cases that affect social justice and such. He is, without question, a leftie. He's also had a good view of the political fights that have shaped Texas politics since the late 50s. For that reason, regardless of political leanings, this is a worthwhile read.
One major criticism I'll level of the book at the outset ... Richards does not strive to tell the complete history, just his view of it. For that matter, GOP names are pretty much quickly derided as non-starters and the telling of history is as one-sided as can be expected from a true partisan warrior of any stripe. Various GOP candidates that run against Dem candidates are invariably written off as dimwitted, hapless souls who might not win any election. Yet the book is recent enough to account for the latest GOP sweeps of state politics that Richards, in turn, writes off as just a swing of the pendulum rather than a revolt against the very state of political being that he helped shape.
One of the better accounts here is that from the one-party Dem days to the days of political balance in the state, Richards points out that the advent of single member districts should not be overlooked. Particularly illuminating given the recent redistricting battles (Richards had a hand in the 1980 and 1990 redistricting battles it should be noted), the ability to draw districts that one could foretell the outcome of was not as given in 1970 as it is in 2003. For that reason, Richards points to a handful of cases in which districts that once held conservative Dems in powere were ceded to more liberal Dems (or, as they are called here: Yarborough Democrats). It was such that wife Ann's first elected office was won in a Travis County Commish spot. It was likewise in the case of many Austin city council districts. Given the ability to now draw districts that are all but guaranteed to vote for one party or another, that particular ability is a rather intriguing tale.
Richards starts off early painting the difference between the "real" Democrats and the Shivercrats who vote in the Dem primaries and then vote for GOP candidates even back in the 50s and 60s. The numbers are shown for participation in the primaries and then compared to the outcome on Gov races in the same year to demonstrate this and no doubt underscores that yes, there was a need at the time to rid the Democratic party of GOP voters.
What Richards seems to miss, however, is that the party does need moderates and mainstream voters in order to survive. On this front, I think his recollection of history is at its weakest. The trio of YDems that strolled into office in 1982 for instance is given as the high water mark of the movement. Nevermind that at the top of the ticket was Lloyd Bentsen, who made it his mission to ensure a strong and unified ticket. Memory may yet fail me, but I believe that Ann Richards and Jim Hightower overcame primary campaigns in which they offed rather dim bulbs of the party establishment. Not sure about Gary Mauro. That Lloyd's unified campaign efforts were not given much mention, let alone not enough credit, is telling to the manner in which Richards is willing to see this through a limited scope.
The next best example is with Ann's 1990 win over Clayton Williams. Williams is noted for his idiocy - hard to argue otherwise, really. But this leads Ann to carry what David calls the "nice lady" GOP crowd, noting that Ann did make some inroads into female GOP voters in 1990. But wait a minute ... Ann barely won in 1990. She NEEDED those votes to get over the top. They were as much a part of her coalition as minorities, labor, and liberals. So why the dismissive tone towards ones that are needed to win an election? That Richards never sees this is rather telling, and perhaps telling of why the movement failed to the degree it has today.
Richards has been around long enough to note that he was an oldtimer when the newer liberals tried to make inroads into the Dem party. That the movement failed for the most part (aside from a Yarborough win at Senate) led to a bit of untrustworthiness over the means of the old timers. By the time Richards touches on the current state of the party and movement, his advice falls flat.
Basically, his message is that liberals should enjoy the moment they had. Nevermind if it never comes back around. We created a bunch of institutions that are now worth defending, but there is no message of where to go from here.
I think, in the end, the reason I enjoyed reading the book as much as I did was that it is as clear a demonstration of the weakness that exists within many left-leaning movement causes. It's akin to the dog that desires to chase cars, but once it's caught, there's not enough thought put into what to do with the car.
Jim Mattox's ethical travails are noted, as is the fact that his personality and politics sometimes put liberals at odds over how much to embrace him. Dan Morales is roundly knocked for his efforts to enrich his buddies, but only after noting that his election in 1990 was applauded by those of Richards' ilk. Gary Mauro's problems, to my recollection. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Hobby get by with being tagged centrists (which is not derisively noted in the book). Nevermind that Bentsen is also noted for making Yarborough's vote on the Civil Rights Act an issue in 1970. Bob Bullock is spared a bit, perhaps for being close to Ann Richards early in her career, although the split between the two is noted later.
All in all, the lingering question that sits with me is asking "So what the hell did you actually accomplish?" Voting rights ... ok, great. Workplace rights for women ... ok, great. But what accomplishments were noted that benefitted Texans as a whole? The inability to paint a vision with a broad brushstroke so as to benefit everyone is a fundamental failure that has to be addressed for future movement causes.
So, in the end, the book is not a great history. It's not even an entirely accurate one. But it's worth reading for the frontline view it offers. I believe the book shows many of the warts that need removing for any movement, left or right, to be effective. It's a hard to find book, being from the UT Press. I found it at the B&N on Westheimer & Voss in the Texas section in case anyone else wants to peruse it for their own take.