Author: mopress

  • Lessons from the Texas Primaries

    Looking for a Coalition with Legs

    By GREG MOSES
    Published at

    Counterpunch

    Although pundits from right to left have been magnetized into horserace

    election analysis, comparing man to man, there is something else, and something more difficult to

    consider. How are the people moving beneath it all? And what are they trying to work out?

    Last week they, the people, appeared crisp in the morning and crumpled by afternoon,

    the smell of cologne giving way to diesel, as election-day wore on. It was a fair day for voting in

    Texas, and from what I witnessed as a substitute election judge, Democrats were trying to get a

    movement on. Although Democrats in Texas managed to top their turnout of four years ago, Republicans

    let their numbers dip dramatically. And the regular staff of Republicans at one South Austin polling

    place gave anecdotal evidence that the lopsided Democratic turnout last week was a reversal of recent

    trends.

    Signs of hope were produced. Liberal Congressman Lloyd Doggett easily won the

    party vote in a new Hispanic district that was drawn by Republicans to defeat him.

    And

    liberal Congressman Ciro Rodriguez also prevailed in a 126-vote squeaker against more conservative

    Henry Cuellar, who campaigned on his ability to get along with Republicans. We’ll return to the

    Rodriguez example below.

    As San Antonio columnist Carlos Guerra summarized the local

    races, four Democratic incumbents of the Texas legislature were turned out by angry voters for sins of

    financial scandal or Republican collaboration. Most famously, the iconoclastic Black Democrat Ron

    Wilson of Houston was retired after three decades, because he had testified in favor of the Republican

    redistricting plan.

    Wilson’s argument, by the way, that the redistricting plan would

    yield more Black representation in Congress, was actually verified by the election of Houston NAACP

    activist Al Green, who beat a one-term white liberal incumbent, just as Doggett was supposed to be

    defeated by Hispanics.

    Finally, an exit poll by the Houston Voice showed that a majority

    of Texans do not favor a Constitutional definition of marriage.

    So if you put the pieces

    of the puzzle together, it would look like the Democrats are restless in Texas and fighting mad. That

    was also the impression I got from hundreds of Democrats who lined up to vote in South Austin. Some

    joked loudly about being “Yellow Dog Democrats” who would rather vote for yellow dogs than

    Republicans.

    One Hispanic family and one Black family filed in with three generations of

    voters each. Yes, they each said, you may stamp my card Democrat.

    At the Republican

    table, too, there were signs of fierce party loyalty. “You can stamp my forehead if you want to,” was

    a line I heard more than once, from both partisan camps.

    The experience left me with an

    impression that the choice between John Kerry and George Bush does not represent what is really at

    stake in November. People on the ground are tussling with each other over something else, not quite

    embodied in either man.

    Of course, the Bush machine has helped to make Texas a foregone

    Republican state for the first time since Reconstruction, and despite the compelling evidence that I

    wanted to take from the polling place, I wonder if that machine is not about to solidify the trend

    worldwide. Of course, I hope not. But the Bush machine can’t do what the people won’t

    allow.

    Although a recent Gallup Poll shows that Kerry is a contender with the voters and

    that Bush is below 50 percent approval, the same pollsters report that Bush holds an astounding 91

    percent loyalty among Republicans (second only to Eisenhower in 1956). If Bush is to be defeated, this

    loyalty has to be somehow cracked and made vulnerable to facts. But this will require taking our eyes

    off Bush in order to understand where that loyalty is really based.

    Furthermore, says

    Gallup, the issue of terrorism still tops the list of “critical threats” among all voters, ranking

    far above the much-vaunted issue of unemployment. This makes the chore of deflating Bush loyalty all

    the more daunting, since it requires national therapy for the reactionary psychology so effectively

    implanted on Sept. 11, and perpetuated last week in Spain. Don’t we fear what another horrific

    massacre will do to the national mind?

    Concerning the “jobs issue,” it is instructive

    to witness up close how election-day voting is crammed around the work day. Lines form before work,

    during lunch, after the early shift, and especially after five o’clock. Between these times come a few

    retirees and mothers with babies. Campaigns that focus too much on unemployment might miss these actual

    voters. By and large, it is working Americans who take time to vote, or not.

    And

    Americans who are caught up in the work day have precious little time. To how many voters did we

    explain, that this was a party primary? But why did they have to pick a party, some asked? Or why

    couldn’t they pull a straight ticket? Later in news reports, these primary-party voters would be

    lumped together as “activists,” when it was clear that political literacy was sometimes quite

    minimal.

    Despite the passion that I saw on election day in Texas, and despite the signs

    of hope, I worry about a Bush victory. Yes, many Democrats are angry. But who else is their anger

    convincing? If the playing field is all about anger this year, then Bush wins. Republicans have long

    mastered the anger card.

    In the suburbs of Williamson, Collin, and Montgomery counties-

    -north of Austin, Dallas and Houston respectively–new roads and subdivisions get built every day.

    Homes in the 100’s with new streets and no trees. People moving into neighborhoods that chill you with

    tidiness. Fresh-waxed cars that hustle to and from the office. In the midst of this progress, people

    are angry and afraid. Bush’s relationship to this landscape is taproot to the Republican

    nation.

    As Kelly Shannon pointed out in an Associated Press analysis, these burgeoning

    suburban counties are bread and butter to the Bush machine.

    Lots of Democrats don’t

    like it. There is something scary about what counts for normal development. Home building, Fox News,

    and the Pentagon add up to a curious projection of national character that has made push-button

    warriors of us all. Robocops are us. If the Kerry campaign can figure out how so many Democrats have

    nevertheless managed to see through it all, the grassroots may help to teach him how to project another

    kind of America.

    From what I saw last week, a coalition is waiting to be made: Black and

    Hispanic voters hanging tough with their legacies of opportunity and civil rights; Liberal white voters

    refusing to give up their ideals of fair play and democratic participation; Independent voters looking

    for somebody with a straight and sensible game.

    And what about retirees, and mothers

    with babies? Is it possible among such voters that issues of human care can overcome the national

    psychology of fear and insecurity?

    Returning to the example of Congressman Ciro

    Rodriguez, instructive is the list of issues highlighted at his web page. Although the contest between

    Rodriguez and Cuellar was largely a tug of war between Laredo and San Antonio, here are the issues that

    helped Rodriguez squeak out his victory: strengthening national security, promoting better health,

    honoring veterans, enhancing educational opportunities, developing economic growth, preserving natural

    resources, and supporting working men and women. Are these the issues that can help transform red

    states to blue?

    I asked one voter which party he’d like to vote in, and he answered

    sincerely, Independen
    t or possibly Green. I think he was looking for Ralph Nader. I liked the guy. He

    showed up during
    one of the alternative hours, not so closely regulated by the work day, wearing black

    t-shirt and jeans. It would have been good to give him the ballot he was looking for. But he cast his

    vote on the Democrat side, perhaps joining me in the point nine percent of Texans who went for

    Kucinich. If the national ballot comes down to a squeaker, he can be a crucial part of the coalition,

    too.

    I think Democrats would be foolish to cut Nader out. He’s been shaking up

    Washington for more than forty years. He is organized, informed, and no fool. As people on the ground

    are looking for a way to go, Nader can help with facts, strategies, and ideas. A day spent campaigning

    against Nader is a day wasted by Democrats who should have better things to do.

    So I was

    pleased by news that the Kerry campaign is in a fighting mood, rolling out a counter-spot late last

    week, only one day after the Bush campaign attacked him. That’s what the emerging coalition wants to

    see–a fighting chance to go somewhere else but through the Bushes again.

    And yet,

    important questions remain widely unasked. Who are the American people this year? In the difference

    between Bush loyalists and the would-be Kerry coalition, what aspirations are vying for leadership of

    these United States? What is happening when all these feet hit the ground to vote, or not to vote, on

    election day? These are the questions that may guide what we most need to know. It can’t be a

    horserace if it takes millions of legs to win.

  • Archive: March 2004 Cover Story

    Published at

    Counterpunch

    The War on Civil Rights
    What Gives Texas A&M the Right?

    By GREG MOSES

    [Editors’ Note: During February the Texas Civil Rights

    Review uncovered documents from a specially appointed task force at Texas A&M that recommended strongly

    in favor of affirmative action on Aug. 29, 2003. That finding was over-ruled by the President and

    buried from public view. Following is the cover story that will appear for the next month at the Texas

    Civil Rights Review.] During the Fall Semester of 2003, Texas A&M University President Robert Gates

    put the Civil Rights Act in his pocket and he left it there until people thought it was his. And when

    he refused to take it out of his pocket ever again, people said, okay, he can do that. But can he?

    Can the President of a University pocket-veto the Civil Rights Act? Ultimately this is

    a question for the federal government to decide. It would make a fine question for our Presidential

    candidates. If elected president, Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards, will you enforce the Civil Rights Act in

    College Station, Texas?

    It was because of the Civil Rights Act that the Office of Civil

    Rights visited Texas in 1978 to determine if de-segregation had been accomplished. But de-segregation

    had not been accomplished in the higher education system of Texas.

    At that point the OCR

    had the power to make an adverse ruling against the state of Texas, which would have caused serious

    difficulties with federal funding. And so, once again, because of the Civil Rights Act, Texas was

    feeling some heat.

    It is well documented in records kept by Texas A&M, and by analysis

    that was produced at the time, that Texas A&M University Regents adopted affirmative action as a way to

    show federal authorities that the Civil Rights Act has a meaning they were bound to

    respect.

    It made plain sense in 1980 that affirmative action in admissions was one

    necessary means that a University under federal supervision for de-segregation should adopt. The state

    of Texas then entered into a series of agreements, under federal supervision, for de-segregation. These

    facts are plain as one can find. They are also plainly evaded.

    In 1997, OCR returned to

    Texas, found de-segregation still a work in progress, and in the summer of 2000 received from Governor

    Bush assurances that all available means would be used to advance the de-segregation process. Then in

    the summer of 2003 the Supreme Court restored the Constitutionality of affirmative action in Texas with

    the Grutter ruling.

    Where it is plainly agreed that a University should undertake every

    means necessary for de-segregation, where that same University has previously agreed that affirmative

    action serves as a baseline commitment of good faith toward de-segregation, and where affirmative

    action is clearly vindicated by the Supreme Court as a Constitutional means to de-segregation, there

    can be no plainer conclusion at hand as to what a University should be doing. But the conclusion is not

    at hand. It is in the pocket of President Gates.

    Soon after the Grutter ruling,

    President Gates called together his best and brightest, and he asked them to consider what should be

    done. By the end of the summer, his own hand-picked committee strongly recommended a return to

    affirmative action.

    Not only did President Gates put that report in his pocket, but he

    failed to consult with state regulators about his responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act. Folks he

    asked he ignored, folks he should have consulted, he did not.

    If during this Black

    History Month we are going to share platitudes about the meaning of America, if during this traditional

    month of celebration for Lincoln’s birthday we are going to speak of one nation, and if the Civil

    Rights Act actually happened and is really law in America, and in Texas, too, then, we have to say:

    give back the Civil Rights Act President Gates, or step aside and give us a University President who

    respects the laws and Constitution of the United States.

    There are perhaps a thousand

    ways to cut the argument for affirmative action in admissions. But given the peculiar circumstances in

    College Station, Texas, crucial considerations have not yet been addressed. What is the meaning of the

    Civil Rights Act? Is the federal Constitution still a framework that a Texas University President is

    bound to respect?

  • A&M Celebrates 25th Place, but Why?

    In early March, the Batt celebrated Texas A&M’s ranking
    number 25 for the enrollment of

    Hispanic women. There
    were quotes about the attractiveness of the campus,
    etc. But what’s to

    celebrate? For Texas A&M, a
    ranking of 25th demonstrates an obvious failure.
    Here’s a letter

    to the editor that did not get
    published this week: “When considering the significance of

    enrollments by
    race and ethnicity, raw numbers are never enough. For example, Texas A&M ranks 25th

    in total enrollment for Hispanic women (1,479). But Texas A&M is the fourth largest university in the

    nation (according to the College of Science), serving a state that is 32 percent Hispanic (according to

    the 2000 Census Bureau). So why does Texas A&M not rank at least among the top four universities when

    it comes to total enrollment of Hispanic women?

    “When Texas A&M ranks eighth in the

    nation for total
    women enrollment and fourth in the nation for granting degrees to women of all

    races and ethnicities (Batt Mar. 3), the rank of 25th for Hispanic women
    enrollment actually

    demonstrates a strong continuing
    tendency toward white privilege.”

    So what needs to

    be explained is not the success of
    Texas A&M’s ranking among Hispanic women, but its
    failure.

    Why are more not choosing A&M. How safe do they really feel?

    **********

    I circulated the above note to some faculty at Texas A&M and

    received one response. In reply, I wrote the following:

    Thanks for the note…. It

    sent me looking a
    little deeper into the stats. And thanks for saying
    you appreciate these

    emails.

    We agree that the raw number, 25th place, is not by
    itself sufficient for

    celebration. Your note helps to
    refine the questions that need to be answered before
    we start

    presuming that 25th place is an obvious mark
    of success.

    If we take 21% as a standard

    percent (actual 2000
    Hispanic enrollment in public colleges statewide) then
    we would be looking

    for ten percent Hispanic women,
    but the total for Hispanic women reported by the Batt
    (1,479) is

    far off that mark.

    http://txsdc.tamu.edu/pubsrep/pubs/txchalcog/cogtab7-

    09.txt

    As for your crucial question, what can we do to ensure
    success, I agree that

    it is a crucial question.
    Meanwhile the question of what counts for excellence
    in enrollment

    remains answered. 25th place is not
    excellent for A&M. Half a loaf is still half a loaf,
    even

    if it ranks 25th in the nation.

    cheers,
    Greg

    Moses

  • Gates Memo: Appoints Task Force July 18, 2003

    A 2-page memo appoints a task force to study the new admissions environment created by

    Supreme Court rulings in Grutter and Gratz.

    July 18 Memo [pdf 116k]


    The memo raises several questions, mostly concerning its wide distribution. How could a

    task force so widely known produce findings so carefully withheld?

    For example, the memo

    invites participation from the
    speaker of the Faculty Senate and the chair of the
    Undergrad

    Advisory Committee. Yet the Task Force
    report seems not to have been publicly introduced

    by
    either the Speaker or the Advisory Committee Chair
    during Nov. 10 deliberations at the Faculty

    Senate.

    Would the Faculty Senate decision have been affected
    by fuller disclosure?

    Was the Task Force report
    considered by the Undergrad Admissions Committee?

    Also,

    the last line of the memo suggests a willingness
    to “impact in a major way the excellence to which

    we
    aspire.” So what happened between July 18 and Aug.
    29?

    Although the Task

    Force indeed suggested major changes on Aug. 29, the cover memo also recognizes that the President is

    reluctant to agree.

    As for the “initial set of documents attached”, I have
    received

    copies of “confidential” legal advice that I
    will be posting soon. The documents were provided

    via open records requests.