80th Legislature: Will The Smaller GOP Majority Move To The Middle? Doubtful.

The Statesman this morning has a look at the six new Democrats who will take office as State Representatives in January.

The point of the article is that the new slimmed down Republican majority in the House will be forced to the middle as a result of the Democratic gains.

Lobbyist Bill Ratliff, a former GOP state senator who doubled up for a spell as lieutenant governor, agreed, partly because voters scuttled some “more extreme” members.

“Inevitably, that moves the House a little more to the center,” Ratliff said.

And, one major Republican leader believes the smaller majority will stop some GOP agenda items dead in their tracks:

Rep. Sid Miller of Stephenville, vice chairman of the House Republican Caucus, said that at least one conservative cause won’t advance in part because of the new Democrats: state-funded vouchers that would enable selected low-income students to attend private schools.

Miller said issues that previously divided members along party lines — including redistricting, abortion and same-sex marriage — are not likely to return.

“I look for some more healing, really a more congenial attitude in the Legislature. . . . We’re going to have a lot less fireworks,” he said.

I will respectfully disagree with both Rep. Miller and Sen. Ratliff for a number of reasons.

First of all, a major indicator of a move to the middle in the house would be a coup d’é tat to unseat Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland). However, all indications are that all challengers to Craddick have either been quelled, appeased, or otherwise discouraged. It’s highly unlikely, at least at this point, that any challenge to Craddick would be successful.

Second, a move to the middle simply isn’t part of the Republican strategy. If anything, there will be a move farther to the right.

Consider this: a more “moderate” House with the GOP moving toward the middle gives Republicans nothing to gain, and everything to lose.
Less moderate hard-liners who find themselves too far to the right of the middle will find themselves in very vulnerable places in 2008 because Democratic opponents will be able to paint them as even more “out of touch” with a moderate legislative body.

Therefore, it’s more beneficial for Republicans to stay on the far right, at least for their own political purposes (whether that’s a good thing for the state is clearly another matter).

The only real way Republicans can ensure gains and preservation of vulnerable seats is continue their rightward motion and force Democrats into positions where they are forced to cast votes on hot-button issues that fire up evangelicals and other parts of the hard-core GOP base: vouchers, abortion, immigration, social issues.

Consider 2002. Not only was the Legislative Redistricting Board’s disgusting gerrymander a key factor that led to the flip of the House into Republican hands, but Republicans were able to cherry pick a couple of key issues to paint Democrats as liberals, namely tort reform and taxes.

In 2004, Republicans attacked with “values” issues they were able to force Democrats to cast votes on that could be painted as “out of touch” with their districts.

The 2006 election was a signal from voters that it is time for a move to the middle in the Texas House just as much as it was specifically a rejection of certian ideals promoted by the right (like vouchers, anti-choice sentiment, etc.).

The problem that Republicans face this session and going forward to 2006 is “who” they are as a group. Are they the far-right wing Republican Party that rose to power, or will they moderate themselves?

A key factor is that the far-right wing Republican Party has built-in constituancies like evangelical Christians (in spite of their departure from the party nationally this year). Without “red meat” issues to appeal to that base, Republicans will find themselves in much tighter races and, ultimately, in the minority again.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It