Small Government Party

One thing about the Republican Party that has always baffled me is its repeated insistence that it is the "Small Government Party."  To my mind, attempting to legislate the morals of a nation is not the work of a small, or limited government.  And yet, the Republicans continue to fight against marriage equality, and to attempt re-criminalize consensual sexual behavior.   Equally distressing is the Right's chipping away at the abortion rights of women. 

Buried under the political posturing, what we are really looking at is a party that wants to limit government when it comes to social services and regulation of business, and to expand the scope of government when it comes to legislating fundamentalist morality.

Even by this dubious standard, one cannot help but question the moral consistency of expanding business at the expense of badly needed social services. Consider the Texas Enterprise Fund, which cut funding from the Children's Health Insurance program in order to provide tax breaks to businesses.  It seems a fuzzy kind of moral code that can justify worsening Texas' already pitiful record of insuring the poor in the service of benefiting big business.  I'm frankly sick of hearing these candidates claim piety and moral character while vocally trouncing on civil rights, attempting to promote unregulated business at the expense of millions of the working poor, and...I forget what the third one was.

As the primary draws closer, and the crowded Republican debates drift ever further into inanity, it gets more and more difficult to hear a discernible message coming from anyone beyond a few tired catch-phrases.  But voting Texans on both sides need to take a clear-eyed look at the candidates in this sad display, and consider what morality in politics really means.  From my point of view, it's nothing but a veneer of self righteousness disguising calculated avarice.

Death Penalty Doubts, Revisited

In an October 3rd post, Alice of Texas Messes' critiqued the Austin American Statesman's Editorial Board's editorial, "Death Penalty Doubts."  The post acknowledges the fallibility of our criminal justice system, and yet concludes that if only one or two innocent people have been put to death in Texas, our system must be working.

First of all, I believe that it is optimistic to assume that only two innocent people have been put to death in Texas. Consider that many people have been executed prior to the emergence of DNA testing and other forensic testing.  Furthermore, most death row inmates lack the legal and financial wherewithal to mount a compelling appeal, or are represented by unprepared or poorly compensated attorneys.  It seems quite likely to me that the death row inmates exonerated in the U.S. represent the tip of the iceberg, and that given resources and willingness from politicians, we would uncover many more.

We should also consider the permanent nature of the death penalty.  Anyone wrongfully convicted and given a lesser sentence can be exonerated and released, even after many years.  If an innocent person is sentenced to death and executed, there is obviously no such recourse.  We are left with a government that executes innocent people, however few, and this is unacceptable.  To my mind, if the possibility exists that even one innocent person might be put to death, it is ample reason to discontinue the death penalty.