Political Parties in Texas

GOVT 2305

In the previous sections we discussed elections and the rules

that govern how people get elected to office.

This creates incentives for organizations to develop to effectively compete in those

elections.

That’s what political parties do.

Parties are not mentioned in the Texas Constitution, but have grown into seemingly permanent parts of

the Texas political environment.

This is true for the nation as well.

What is a political party?

Here’s a reasonable definition: “A political party is defined as an organized group of

people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to

influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office.”

Here’s a huge point:

The simplest goal of a political party is to win elections.

And they are very, very good at this.

Parties dominate the political system in the US

Example: no independents serve in the Texas Legislature. They are all either Democrats or Republicans.

That should explain everything you need to know about what

motivates parties and why they do what they do.

If they don’t win office, they cannot control governing organizations, meaning that they

cannot dominate the public policy process. They will not be able to determine who the winners

and loser are.

Throughout American history, elections have been fought over by two major political parties – the precise parties

changed until the election of 1856. In that election, and in every elections since (with

the exception of the election of 1912) Democrats and Republicans have been the

dominant two parties.

The reason there are only two major parties is a subject we cover more fully in GOVT 2305, but it is

held that it comes down to the winner-take-all system.

Whenever candidates have to compete in winner take all races leads inevitably to the

creation of two large political parties.

The fact that there are two large parties means that neither major

party (the Democrats or Republicans) are cohesive – they are composed of various factions that fight for influence within the

party.

Its worth noting that parties exist on all levels of government.

Democrats and Republicans have a presence on the national, state

and county levels.

What’s more, there can be conflict between the organizations on each of

these levels about what the parties actually stand for.

Why the Democrats and Republicans?

Click on these for historical detail from the TSHA about the Texas

Democratic and Republican Parties.

Those are the two parties that dominate elections on the national level, so they dominate elections in

Texas as well.

Further, they also dominate elections at the state and local

levels as well.

As we will see below, political parties exist in a very

decentralized, somewhat hierarchical, environment.

Party organizations exist at the national, state, county, state senate, and precinct levels.

Here’s a little history:

Prior to the 1828 US election, politics in the US was restricted to

elites. Property rights requirements made mass

participation difficult.

Remember that this was one of the factors leading to the

establishment of Texas.

The Democratic Party was first competitive in the election of 1828. It splinted off from the Democrat-Republican Party and was developed to support the candidacy of

Andrew Jackson.

It represented the interests of the agrarian states of the South and in many ways

picked up the positions supported by the Anti-Federalists years before that.

The chief opponent of the Democratic Party was the Whig Party until the Republican Party

developed in the 1850s. It represented the interests of the

emerging abolition movement, as well as those of the commercial

sector.

As you might know from history classes, the Democratic Party

quickly became the party of the South and the Republican Party became the party of the North.

And a little fight broke out between them.

How does this affect Texas?

(A little history)

Prior to becoming a state, parties – unofficially – developed in the Republic of Texas. To a lesser

extent, this also occurred when Texas was a Mexican state, but the

legality of these groups was questionable.

During the Texas Republic, groups tended to cluster around support for Sam Houston and his desire to

join the union, and Mirabeau Lamar and his goal of maintaining

Texas independence, and expanding the republic westward

to California.

As discussed previously, the annexation of Texas was

controversial and was a subject in the 1844 US election.

The Democrats favored the annexation while the Whigs opposed it. The dispute

hinged largely on slavery and what Texas’ annexation would mean for the balance of power between the slave and free states.

Since Democrats supported Texas’ annexation, there’s little wonder the Democratic Party dominated

the state from the start.

It also helped that most of the emigrants to Texas were from southern US states

that already identified with the Democratic Party.

A majority within the state developed a hostility to the Republican Party that

would lock the state up for Democrats until 1964. The two key events driving this were the Civil War (fought by a Republican

Commander in Chief) and the Great Depression (initially presided over by a

Republican president who saw no need to provide assistance to Southern States.

Identification with the Democratic Party became so strong that the

term Yellow Dog Democrat became popular.

This referred to a Democrat who would "vote for a yellow dog before they would

vote for any Republican". There were many in Texas.

This was well before ideology became a major dividing line

between the parties.

Prior the 1960s, there were liberals and conservatives in each party, issues cut across ideological lines so moderates held power.

Whichever side the moderates voted with, won. There was an incentive for ideologues to be

moderate – that incentive no longer exists since the parties have become polarized.

Southern Conservative Democrats – Texans especially – became a

vital part of the New Deal Coalition (along with progressives, union

members and workers in general). This granted them a lot of power.

Here are some names of prominent Texans in Congress:

Sam RayburnJohn Nance Garner

Lyndon Johnson

Texas was beginning to have a troublesome relationship with the Democratic Party around this

time. In the early years of the 20th Century, in order to increase its voting strength, the national Democratic

Party reached out to the Progressive movement and to labor unions.

But the increasingly wealthy members of the oil sector did not like unions – but they liked the government

contracts. This is how a lot of the petro-chemical industry was developed around here. They made

compromises with the national party because the saw a material interest in doing so.

The principle reason the New Deal Coalition was kept together was that

Franklin Roosevelt, who was responsible for it, ignored the one issue that he knew

would drive the coalition apart: civil rights. In all major pieces of legislation concessions were made to the

segregationist South.

Harry Truman did not continue to do so and the Democratic Parties in southern states began to

slowly pull away from the national party.

Truman desegregated the armed forces and promoted the development

of a civil rights agenda.

This led to the development of the States’ Rights Party (the Dixiecrats) with Strom Thurmond as its candidate in 1948. It was an early indication

that southern state Democratic Parties were dissatisfied with the national party.

Thurmond received a fair amount of votes in that election:

Election, 1948

*Harry S Truman (Democrat)..........................750,700Thomas E. Dewey (Republican).....................282,240J. Strom Thurmond (States Rights)................106,909Henry A. Wallace (Progressive)..........................3,764Claude A. Watson (Prohibitionist).......................2,758Norman M. Thomas (Socialist)..............................874 Total Vote............................1,147,245**

The Texas Democratic Party was still segregated at this time.

Until the Supreme Court case Smith v Allwright, only whites could vote in the Democratic Party

Primary. The party argued unsuccessfully before the court that they were a private organization and the federal government had no authority

over it. The court argues that since they provided a public function, they could be.

Tension in creased between the between the national and Texas

Democratic Parties.

All during this time the only party that mattered in Texas was the

Democratic Party.

Republicans not only had little presence in the state, but still carried

with them a bad reputation dating back to the battle over annexation.

The only period of strength the Republican party had (until recently)

was during Reconstruction when union interests, immigrants from

other states and African-Americans formed its core.

Ex-Confederates had yet to be allowed to become politically active again.

The fact that the state was controlled by one party was

beneficial to the power of the state on the national level.

The state and county parties could dominate the primary process and ensure the incumbents were not

challenged. Since the Democratic nominee was guaranteed a general election victory, incumbents

could serve for long periods of time.

Sam Rayburn served in Congress from 1913 – 1961.

This allowed them to amass a great deal of power in the US Congress due to strict

seniority rules. The committee members who was also a member of the majority party and had the longest service on the

committee automatically became the committee chair.

Many Texans became committee chairs as a result could direct federal dollars to the

state and their local districts.

Texas – businesses especially – benefited heavily from the

situation.

It helps explain the reluctance of the Texans to leave the Democratic Party as long as it continued to be

the majority party in Congress.

It took decades for the Republican Party to grow in strength.

The only period of strength the Republican Party had (until recently)

was during Reconstruction when union interests, immigrants from

other states and African-Americans formed its core.

Ex-Confederates had yet to be allowed to become politically involved again.

Previously we discussed how the 1869 Constitution was written by

these groups and that the document reflected a desire to

make Texas comply with national directives and to give the state

power over local areas.

The backlash against this made the Republican a minor party in Texas

until the national Democratic Party started shifting its positions on civil

rights and other issues as mentioned above.

The Republican Party was beginning to make inroads in the

state.

The first Republican elected to high office was John Tower in 1960 who replaced Lyndon Johnson in the Senate after he

became elected Vice-President. He was the first Republican Senator from the South

since reconstruction.

FYI: There were rumors Johnson supported Nixon over Humphrey in the 1968 election.

The major shift occurred with Civil Rights Act of 1964. When LBJ signed the bill it repositioned the

national Democratic Party.

Predictions were made that this would lead to a realignment of the South from the Democratic to Republican Parties. While it took time, it did come true.

For detail on the change read: Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment

Question: Did the conservatives leave the Democratic Party

voluntarily or where they driven out?

For detail read: Death of the ‘Yellow Dog’ Democrat

.

Nationally, the Republican Party developed the Southern Strategy

to lure conservatives over from the Democratic Party. It worked well in

Texas.

The Texas Legislature was still dominated by Democrats, and

would be for sometime.

In some years there were no Republicans in the Texas

Legislature. This meant that party membership was irrelevant to

politics in the state.

But there were divisions in the party between a liberal and

conservative wing.

Nevertheless, the strength of the party made the general election relatively inconsequential. What

mattered was who won the Democratic Primary.

The growth of the Republican Party happened slowly, and the shift that happened in the state went hand in hand with what

happened nationally.

Texas – and the Houston area – were where many of these national shifts were driven.

Some of the leaders of the emerging Republican majority

nationally were from Texas and the local area.

George HW BushTom DelayDick Armey

One of Karl Rove’s early successes in flipping seats from Democrats to Republicans happened in the local

area when he recruited Buster Brown to run (successfully) against long time Democratic State

Senator Babe Schwartz in 1980.

Conservatives started to shift to the Republican Party, but only

when it seems opportunistic to do so.

As long as the Democratic Party is dominant, it makes little sense to

join the minority.

Important dates:

1968: Republican Richard Nixon becomes president and a period of

Republican dominance in the presidency begins (1968 – 1988).

1978: Bill Clemens is elected as the first Republican Texas governor

since Reconstruction. He hires Karl Rove as an advisor.

1994: Republicans win control of the US House of Representatives

for the first time in 40 years. Many Conservative Texas Democrats take the opportunity to switch

parties.

1997: The Republican Party becomes the majority party in the

Texas Senate for the first time since Reconstruction.

2003: The Republican Party becomes the majority party in the

Texas House for the first time since Reconstruction.

While the current Republican Party is not as dominant in the state as

the Democratic Party was decades past, it has evolved into a steady,

consistent majority party.

As did the Democrats earlier, it contains a moderate wing and a

more ideologically extreme wing.

Forces are attempting to pull the Texas Republican Party further to

the right.

Moderates are being purged from the party.

RINOs

Republicans In Name Only

That’s enough history.

What does this matter?

Here’s a question: While there has been a shift in party identification

in the state, has this change meant for the state of Texas?

Is the political culture of Texas such that it does not matter which

party is in charge?

Remember that Texas is generally more culturally conservative in

areas such as education, religion, and civil rights than the rest of the

nation.

As we covered in a previous section, Texas’ political culture

supports classical liberalism (limited government), populism,

and social conservatism.

It does not support egalitarian policies.

Parties will take positions on issues that are more likely to win

elections

They promote policies that are in-keeping with Texas’ political

culture.

Even when Democrats were in charge, policies passed in the state

of Texas were not exceptionally “liberal” when compared to those

of other states.

But cohesive groups of liberals did exist in the legislature, even

though they were largely small and powerless. Babe Schwartz was

one, as were:

Bob EckhardtJohn Henry Faulk

Maury Maverick, Jr.

Next Topic:

What do parties do?

Here are three things:

1 - provide means for people to participate in the political system.

2 - structure and present the issues of the day to citizens.

3 - provide the glue that connects government vertically (federalism) and horizontally

(separated powers).

Let’s look at the first:

1 - Parties provide means for people to participate in the

political system.

Here are four basic things they do:

They help people get registered to vote.

They allow people opportunities to run for party office.

They provide opportunities to organize precincts.

They help people run for public office.

Altogether these factors support the claim that political parties are

central to democracy. It is the party that fosters political

participation because it makes them more competitive.

One of the beneficial aspects of parties is they help people become

involved in the political system

Parties organize voter registration drives especially among

populations that will likely vote for them. But on the contrary, political parties might attempt to suppress

registration among populations that are not likely to support them.

So this cuts both ways.

Political parties allow candidates the opportunity to run with a label that grants them a degree of legitimacy

and indicates to voters a minimal level of information about them.

They also provide a network and organization that can assist with their

campaigns.

The major parties, over the many decades they have existed, have organized down to the precinct

level.

This is one of the many factors that grants the two major parties considerable

advantage over minor parties in the state – of which there’s not much history.

2 – Parties structure and present the issues of the day to citizens.

Many people identify strongly with one or the other political parties. This can make it easier for people to make a decision about what’s going on politically because each party attempts to frame this for

their supporters.

It is simpler to figure out what news is important and what

opinion to have about them if one identifies with a party.

Independents have to figure this out on their own. Of course, that

might be a good thing.

3 – Parties provide the glue that connects government vertically

(federalism) and horizontally (separated powers).

Parties are argued to make governing easier.

They overcome two of the biggest (deliberately placed) obstacles to

efficient governing: federalism and separated power.

Remember the federalism makes vertical integration of government

difficult because it places the states and national government at odds with

each other.

The separated powers does the same horizontally. It places each of the

branches at odds with each other – they can negate what the other does.

Each creates the possibility that gridlock can occur and nothing gets done in any governing institution,

but this less likely to happen if these institutions are controlled by

members of the same political party.

Two concepts are important here:

Divided Government Unified Government

Divided government refers to periods of time when the parties only control one of the elected

branches – or at least the legislative and executive branches.

Unified government occurs when one party controls both the

legislative and executive branches.

Governing is argued to be easier in unified rather than divided government. Policies are easier to pass, and the agenda of one

party is easier to implement.

This is even easier to do if the same party that dominates the national government also dominates the state governments as

well.

It’s also argued that unified government enhances democracy

because it allows for a clearer choice for the voters. It is easier

for voters to pin responsibility for what happens in government

when one party is in charge than if each is in control of one branch of

government.

How strong are political parties?

Even though it is essential for candidates to be members of

political parties in order to win elections, it isn’t true that parties

are necessarily that strong as organizations.

Texas does not require that voters register as members of a political

party before they can actually cast a ballot.

So there’s no control over who can vote in party primaries.

Parties have limited control over candidates

Campaign costs are largely handled by the candidate and affiliated

groups.

Here is no mechanism in place to legally bind people to the party

platform.