You asked a good question, Evan, when you wondered how much a Texas governor can hope to accomplish, given the constitutional weakness of the office. The answer is, it depends on the governor. Most of them haven't wanted to accomplish very much. They have been ribbon-cutters with small and specific legislative agendas. Even Ann Richards fell into this category; her interest lay in being the symbol of a "New Texas" and in appointing agency overseers and directors who proved that somebody other than white males could run the government. Bush was different. He dominated the legislative agenda far more than any governor since John Connally in the mid-'60s. In fact, he dominated it totally. The only issues of consequence in the Bush years were his issues—reforms of tort laws, education, juvenile justice, and welfare in his first session; tax reform in his second, ending social promotion of failing students, tax cuts, and parental notification of abortions in his third. It is true, as his critics have pointed out, that the four big issues he campaigned on in 1994 would have gotten some attention in 1995 no matter who was governor. But no one who was around the Capitol in that year would contest that Bush drove those issues much further than the legislature would have gone on its own.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponWhat we learned from the Bush years is that the real infirmity of the governor's office is not the constitution but the nonpartisan organization of the legislature, which deprives the governor of a ready-made team that can carry the ball for his proposals. As a result, the governor has to put together his own team. This is where Bush's predecessors failed—and where he succeeded. He ignored partisan differences and put together ad hoc teams of the best and brightest legislators (please, no oxymoron jokes) of both parties. He won over the Democratic lieutenant governor, a powerful officer in Texas who presides over the Senate, and the Democratic speaker of the House. He made deals. His only failure was his tax-reform plan—it was a courageous and controversial proposal that is essential for the future of financing state government, especially education. It would have lowered property taxes and substituted, among other things, a business income tax on doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who currently avoid business taxes, though somehow I don't think that's how he would characterize it today. In any case, it was killed by Republican senators and morphed into $1 billion of property-tax relief for local taxpayers. (This wasn't very effective: It amounted to a pittance per taxpayer, which most school districts wiped out by raising taxes anyway.)
This record of legislative success is what lies behind Bush's line about being a uniter rather than a divider. It's justified. On the other hand, you may have noticed that Congress does seem to be divided along partisan lines, and it would be a lot harder for him to be a uniter up there than it was down here. What we're going to hear about from the Democrats, however, is not what Bush did accomplish but what he didn't. They'll make Texas out to have the air quality of Pittsburgh in the Smoky City days and the criminal justice standards of old Dodge City. It's not quite that bad, but the truth is that long before George W. Bush came to office, the great majority of Texans had decided that they were willing to tolerate some carcinogens in the air in return for industrial jobs (in Houston, it's called "The Smell of Money") and anything that might reduce violent crime from toting guns to executing murderers. Nothing Bush would have been inclined to do could have changed this attitude, and in fact he did play a role in getting the worst-polluting power plants phased out in the new electricity deregulation law. Of course, Bush did not buck the prevailing attitude; in fact, he reflected it. Where he can be faulted is not for his decisions on specific bills, but for having too narrow a range of interests. If something is not on his radar screen, you can't get him to care about it, or, as we have seen in the presidential campaign, even to act as if he cared about it. He'd better learn, or he's not going to be president.
Paul
Twitter and Google Couldn't Stop Facebook. Can Anyone?
Nine Theories for Why It's So Hard To Find Chocolate in China
Why Is Buttoning Up Your Shirt All the Way Hollywood's Shorthand for Retarded?
George Clooney Almost Convinced Me To Like Up in the Air. Almost.
Why Is More Than Half of Congress Still Not on Twitter?
The Best Thing About Alice: Kathy Bates as the Queen of Hearts
Reader Response from The Fray:
[Note: Should be read after most recent Dialogue entry of the week.]
I find Ms Hart's (perfectly legitimate) complaint [Wednesday] about the "news columns"--ie, that they're showing an abominable if visceral loathing of Mr Bush--quite charming in its innocence. She seems to have somehow managed to avoid realizing that such an attitude has colored reporting of the Clinton administration for years, of Mr Gore, and indeed of just about any gopher who stuck his head up far enough to be hit with a mallet. The sole recent exception---the esteemed Senator from Arizona---avoided this solely by pandering to the reporters' idiot sense of their own moral and intellectual superiority and even he would have been savaged had he had any chance of victory.
I don't particularly like Mr Bush, but he was elected twice by a real state and he did manage to generate an awful lot of money and support among real people. I'm not awfully fond of Mr Gore, but he is pretty smart and well-educated and any sensible analysis of his fundraising activities needs to balanced against a history in which Republicans outspent Democrats dramatically--it's hard not to see Republican complaints about the Clinton/Gore fundraising as analogous to their complaints about many of the administration's policies: how dare they steal our issues/our techniques?
I think they both deserve to be treated seriously, courteously, and dispassionately. The chance of this happening in the current media atmosphere is about equal to the chance I will wake up tall, blonde, and skinny. Why does not a professional journalist realize this as well?
--Alan Kornheiser
(To reply, click here.)
(3/31)
I'm not surprised Governor Bush could impress the Texas Monthly writers with his policy expertise in a friendly, sympathetic small-group discussion. Most journalists hardly study policy at all; very little expertise is required to impress them. And, there isn't a politician alive who does not look more impressive talking to a sympathetic small group than he does to a large audience.
I didn't see any recognition in their discussion that a Governor's education policy, however successful, might not be terribly relevant to the conduct of foreign relations and management of the Pentagon. Yet the next President is very likely going to spend much more time in each of these areas that in education, all campaign rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
Finally, I had to laugh at the comment that a dropped "g" at the end of the word "asking" identifies Bush as a Texan. Here in Wisconsin we have a very successful Governor who uses only two "g's", the one in "Governor" and his middle initial. I promise you that no one will ever mistake Tommy Thompson for a Texan.
--Joseph E Britt
(To reply, click here.)
Uh, who the hell is Joe Nick? And what is he so cranky about? Am I missing something?
--Paul
(To reply, click here.)
[Yes you were. Joe Nick Patoski replied here, filling in with the missing entry that made everyone else think he was cranky.]
(3/28)