Friday, October 16, 2015

Clinton's Texas


Deep in the red, red state of Texas, Erica Greider observes Hillary Clinton's Texas popularity and theorizes about Bernie Sander's loss in the Texas democratic primaries. Greider points out three items that lead her to believe Clinton will win the Texas primaries. 1.) Clinton's centrist views, 2.) her Texas nomination in 2008, and 3.) Texas connections.

While the second two are good pointers, Clinton's actual policies are what makes her a Democratic Texan favorite. Especially when set next to ultra-left Bernie Sanders, Clinton is relatively moderate. She voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, has had a pro-war foreign policy, and doesn't actively slam the 1%. Of course, she remains distinctly democrat with left policies such as pro-choice and substantial gun control, but a little right goes a long way. Even the democrats of Texas cannot help but pick up on the overall conservative political culture, causing them to favor the centrist democratic candidates. 
Hillary's moderate views are what led her to Texan victory in the 2008 primaries. Greider sums up her view of the Texan democrat culture in 2008, "Only in Texas did I regularly encounter Democratic voters who were sincerely, spontaneously enthusiastic about Clinton." Those who were enthusiastic for Clinton in 2008 will be voters once again in 2016.
Along with a good Texan track record, Clinton has ties with Texas. She also achieved the highest honor Texans care about - she lived in Texas. In the 1970's, both Clintons lived in San Antonio while working on a campaign, and it has inspired a sort of hometown pride for San Antonio democrats. Her ties get stronger with endorsements from multiple Texas politicians like Leticia Van de Putte and Carlos Uresti. Her best Texas tie is a biggie with Julian Castro, previous mayor of San Antonio, who is assumed to be her potential running mate. 

However, Erica Greider does mention a few doubts to Clinton's coronation. Bernie Sanders held widely attended rallied in Houston and San Antonio in July. Sanders does have substantial Texas support. It's hard to drive through an Austin neighborhood without running into a "Bernie 2016" yard sign or bumper sticker. However, his left-of-left policies seem hard to stomach with the general Texas democrat culture. The other threat to Clinton - in Texas and nationally - is Joe Biden's tauntingly unclear presidential candidacy. Greider admits that should Biden run, he could offset Clinton's overall Texas popularity.
While Sanders or Biden might not be major threats to Clinton, her positive 2008 track record is not as positive as Greider made it out to be.  Clinton won the democratic primaries by approximately 3% - really too small a margin to give as a point to Hillary. 

Doubts considered, Hillary Clinton  is still the more moderate of the democratic front runners and her substantial Texas ties point to a Texas primaries win. 

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Tinkering or Honoring?



Jan Reid observed the removal of Jefferson Davis's statue of honor from the University of Texas south mall and angrily declared, "The Absurdity of Tinkering with Texas History." However, "tinkering" is a blatantly inaccurate word.

Filled with a dedicated love for Texas, Jan Reid has established himself as a well-qualified author and journalist with successful novels and contributions to Esquire, New York Times, and other media sources. As with most of his work, his editorial on Davis's statue gears itself towards those enamored with Texas and nostalgic with its history. The University's recent decision to remove the statue honoring Jefferson Davis did not fit with Reid's history nostalgia.

In "The Absurdity of Tinkering with Texas History," Reid summarizes the more positive accomplishments of the four men - Woodrow Wilson, Albert Sidney Johnson, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis - honored with statues at the UT south mall, along with a few other honored men commemorated on UT campus, then briefly makes the case that removing these statues is, "a surrender to vandals," and an attempt, "to airbrush our state's past."

Jefferson Davis, president of the confederacy, stood at the forefront of the racism of civil war south. He fought for his ideas of, "The inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator." He referred to African Americans as, "This species of property." He not only admitted but was proud of the fact that Caucasians exploited and benefited from racism. As he said it, "White men have an equality resulting from the presence of a lower caste."
Jan Reid describes Davis as, "A Mississippi planter and congressman, he championed Texas' entry into the Union as a slave state." Reid, arguing to preserve the authenticity of history, makes no mention of Davis's passionately racist views.

The statue of Jefferson Davis is not a learning moment in a history class to discuss the political power or public speaking skills of Jefferson Davis. The statue is an honor. Davis's methods to get his cause accomplished were effective and convincing, and maybe we can learn from them. Yet regardless, Davis's cause was the brutal enslavement of human beings no longer recognized as human. "Tinkering with Texas history" would be to take mention of Davis out of history classes. In fact it might even be summarizing his life without a single mention of his idea that "African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing," exactly as Reid did.

The statue that used to sit in the south mall did not teach history, it honored a man who led the split of our nation and sought to preserve slavery inevitably. Its removal does not in any way tinker with history; it is not a surrender to vandals or an airbrushing of history. It rightly takes away the honor from an evil man. It is listening to the voice of the people and recognizing our state's wrongs. 

I wonder if Jan Reid would like to critique the 2012 removal of all Russian statues of Vladimir Lenin. Maybe he could emphasize how Lenin got a gold medal in school. After all, removing statutes honoring a man who tried to destroy a nation is, of course, tinkering with history.