Affairs of the City (Nov. 27th, 2011) makes some interesting observations regarding the most recent Republican attempts at gerrymandering in Texas. It seems the Republicans are upset at being called out for their blatant attempts to dilute minority voter districts. As Affairs points out, we can thank the Voting Rights Act for making this kind of chicanery a little more difficult to pull off.
I always feel a little naive in my outrage at this kind of thing. Because it's really hard for me to believe that our elected officials are really this overtly immoral. Part of me wants to believe that most people elected to public office have the best interests of the citizenry in mind, and that despite ideological divisions, reason will ultimately prevail. But it's painfully clear in situations such as these that the party in power has completely cast aside the rights of the citizens of Texas in its lust for power. I don't even really see how anyone could reasonably justify deliberately breaking up minority voting blocs to guarantee more congressional seats.
I agree with Affairs' position that redistricting should be sorted out by a nonpartisan commission. Without impartial oversight, this unfortunate situation will simply be repeated every ten years.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Marginalizing Bigots
The Texas Republican Party's 2010 Party Platform comes out swinging on the topic of gay rights, claiming that homosexuality "tears at the fabric of society" and "leads to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases." Not content merely to deny marriage (or domestic partnership) to gay people, the Republican Party would also make helping a gay couple get married felonious and reinstate sodomy laws in Texas. Adding a little unintentional humor into the proceedings, the Republicans claim that efforts toward acceptance and normalization of homosexuality represent "intolerant efforts to marginalize as bigots" those who would deny equal rights. I'm sure I'm not alone in appreciating the irony in our "small government" party attempting to place draconian laws governing consensual sexual behavior back on the books.
I see several possible explanations for the extreme tone I perceive here:
1. Emboldened by the Tea Party's success nationally, the Texas Republican Party seeks to push its radical agenda on a wave of popular regressive politics.
2. Perhaps due to growing popular support for gay marriage rights nation-wide, the party is simply becoming more strident in its insecurity.
3. The Republican Party has always been reactionary and regressive, and it simply stands out as more ludicrous as the nation becomes more accepting of gay folks and social justice.
(It's also possible that, having been raised in the liberal bastion that is Austin, I'm simply out of touch with the extent to which the Texas Republican Party has adopted hate speech as a valid political tool.)
In fact, a combination of these factors, along with a healthy dose of frantic political posturing, probably accounts for this aggrieved and hysterical screed. And I have to wonder what percentage of Texans identifying themselves as Republicans actually support this particular part of the platform, or have even read it.
Regardless of how shrill, reactionary, and, yes, bigoted, the G.O.P. of Texas decides to make its platform, equal rights for LGBT Americans are inevitable and I believe that not too many years will pass before the Republican Party will look back in shame at its intolerance and fear mongering.
I see several possible explanations for the extreme tone I perceive here:
1. Emboldened by the Tea Party's success nationally, the Texas Republican Party seeks to push its radical agenda on a wave of popular regressive politics.
2. Perhaps due to growing popular support for gay marriage rights nation-wide, the party is simply becoming more strident in its insecurity.
3. The Republican Party has always been reactionary and regressive, and it simply stands out as more ludicrous as the nation becomes more accepting of gay folks and social justice.
(It's also possible that, having been raised in the liberal bastion that is Austin, I'm simply out of touch with the extent to which the Texas Republican Party has adopted hate speech as a valid political tool.)
In fact, a combination of these factors, along with a healthy dose of frantic political posturing, probably accounts for this aggrieved and hysterical screed. And I have to wonder what percentage of Texans identifying themselves as Republicans actually support this particular part of the platform, or have even read it.
Regardless of how shrill, reactionary, and, yes, bigoted, the G.O.P. of Texas decides to make its platform, equal rights for LGBT Americans are inevitable and I believe that not too many years will pass before the Republican Party will look back in shame at its intolerance and fear mongering.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Rick Perry: Criminal Justice Reformer?
On October 2nd, Scott Henson wrote a blog post on Grits for Breakfast regarding Governor Rick Perry's record on criminal justice. Henson begins by quoting an article in which Cory Sessions of the Innocence Project of Texas praises Perry's support for life without parole and his signing of reform-minded criminal justice bills. These included bills dealing with compensation of wrongly incarcerated men and women, and with policies regarding eyewitness identification of suspects. Furthermore, according to Henson, much of the talk surrounding the large number of inmates put to death during Perry's governorship has more to do with his lengthy tenure and the small role of the Texas governor in capital punishment than with a hard-line death penalty stance. The Texas governor, unlike many other states, can only issue a 30-day stay of execution. In addition, because of the protracted nature of the appeals process, many of the inmates executed under Perry's watch were sentenced under previous governors.
Henson suspects that while the record portrays a somewhat moderate governor content to stay with mainstream conservative opinion in the arena of criminal justice, Perry's political ambitions necessitate projecting an image of the tough Texas lawman, unhesitatingly sending the worst criminals to their deaths. The post also notes polls indicating that most people who believe innocent people have been put to death still support the death penalty. Henson concludes that while Perry may not be the killing machine made out by the press, neither is he a crusading reformer out to right the wrongs of Texas' criminal justice machine.
Taking a moderate approach himself, Henson has written a pragmatic analysis of Perry's record. This approach is refreshing, especially given the funhouse mirror through which most political reporting seems filtered. Henson's extensive background in criminal justice advocacy establishes his credibility, as does his avoidance of inflammatory rhetoric. His claims are clearly backed by public record, and the resulting post should resonate with readers who wish to discern the hard reality behind Perry's bluster.
Henson suspects that while the record portrays a somewhat moderate governor content to stay with mainstream conservative opinion in the arena of criminal justice, Perry's political ambitions necessitate projecting an image of the tough Texas lawman, unhesitatingly sending the worst criminals to their deaths. The post also notes polls indicating that most people who believe innocent people have been put to death still support the death penalty. Henson concludes that while Perry may not be the killing machine made out by the press, neither is he a crusading reformer out to right the wrongs of Texas' criminal justice machine.
Taking a moderate approach himself, Henson has written a pragmatic analysis of Perry's record. This approach is refreshing, especially given the funhouse mirror through which most political reporting seems filtered. Henson's extensive background in criminal justice advocacy establishes his credibility, as does his avoidance of inflammatory rhetoric. His claims are clearly backed by public record, and the resulting post should resonate with readers who wish to discern the hard reality behind Perry's bluster.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Statesman Editorial Board on Death Penalty Doubts
The Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman published an editorial on September 12th ("It's Hard Not to Have Death Penalty Doubts") regarding Perry's assertion during the September 7th Republican debate that his conscience has never been troubled by the large number of inmates put to death in Texas during his time as governor. Over applause from the bloodthirsty audience, Perry explained his reasoning: "The State of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place (in) which when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that's required."
To those of us who, like the Statesman's Editorial Board, have grave doubts with regard to the infallibility of our criminal justice system, this kind of blithe certainty sounds, at best, disingenuous. In fact, Perry's record displays a marked unwillingness to even consider cases where breakthroughs in forensic science may have cast new light on the appeals of death row inmates. Although the editorial only hints at the facts surrounding the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, it is widely known that in 2009 Perry replaced key members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission two days before they were scheduled to meet to discuss new evidence that may have led to Willingham's posthumous exoneration.
The editorial's author attempts to stay away from inflammatory statements while dealing with a subject that is highly emotional for many people. Thus, it seems that the author hopes to reach readers who are still on the fence regarding the death penalty. Rather than stake a hard position on the death penalty itself, the author casts doubt on Perry's apparent absolute certainty, and invites readers to consider the implications. This approach lends credibility to the author, in that many people tune out the more strident voices in an already heated debate. Through a measured presentation of facts, critique of Perry's own public statements, and a judicious call for more public scrutiny, the author ably shifts an emotionally fraught topic toward a hopefully more dispassionate dialogue.
To those of us who, like the Statesman's Editorial Board, have grave doubts with regard to the infallibility of our criminal justice system, this kind of blithe certainty sounds, at best, disingenuous. In fact, Perry's record displays a marked unwillingness to even consider cases where breakthroughs in forensic science may have cast new light on the appeals of death row inmates. Although the editorial only hints at the facts surrounding the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, it is widely known that in 2009 Perry replaced key members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission two days before they were scheduled to meet to discuss new evidence that may have led to Willingham's posthumous exoneration.
The editorial's author attempts to stay away from inflammatory statements while dealing with a subject that is highly emotional for many people. Thus, it seems that the author hopes to reach readers who are still on the fence regarding the death penalty. Rather than stake a hard position on the death penalty itself, the author casts doubt on Perry's apparent absolute certainty, and invites readers to consider the implications. This approach lends credibility to the author, in that many people tune out the more strident voices in an already heated debate. Through a measured presentation of facts, critique of Perry's own public statements, and a judicious call for more public scrutiny, the author ably shifts an emotionally fraught topic toward a hopefully more dispassionate dialogue.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Rick Perry and the Education Culture Wars
Abby Rapoport's concise and illuminating article on Rick Perry's contributions to the embattled Texas State Board of Education provides the reader with even more information on what American voters might expect from a Perry presidency. Rapoport begins by quoting a cavalier remark Perry made recently in New Hampshire to the effect that Texas schools teach both creationism and evolution. Heedless of the fact that such teachings have been ruled unconstitutional in public schools by federal courts, Perry continues to flout science and what one hopes are widely held views on the age of the universe. The article goes on to chart Perry's attempts as governor to stack the board with radical social conservatives, this despite even his own party's apparent discomfort with the beliefs of his appointees. As Rapoport points out, the negative press generated by such statements seems to do little to damage Perry's public persona.
For myself, it's frankly difficult to believe that such lunacy will fly with the general public as Perry's campaign subjects him to more scrutiny. Despite what radical conservatives would have us believe, I prefer to maintain that both sides of the admittedly ever-deepening ideological divide will ultimately opt for a more reasoned debate.
For myself, it's frankly difficult to believe that such lunacy will fly with the general public as Perry's campaign subjects him to more scrutiny. Despite what radical conservatives would have us believe, I prefer to maintain that both sides of the admittedly ever-deepening ideological divide will ultimately opt for a more reasoned debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)