Texas Talk--Part IV

This is the fourth and final part of my report on the Texas Republican Convention, from June 5-7. Part I and Part II were on some of the speeches. Part III and today's Part IV are on the platform debate.

If you read Part III, then you have some understanding of how the process works. It’s kind of a game against the clock. The priorities for debate are set long before the floor of 7000 or so delegates gets to work. The minority reports, dealing with the relatively simple issue of medical marijuana and then the more complicated issue of immigration, took until around 4:00 on Saturday afternoon. By this time, everyone is tired, and frustrated by the cumbersome discussion—which had included a 45-minute counted vote on some issue—but no one can go home until this thing is done. (Well, people can go home, but they give up their opportunity to participate, and their obligation to do the job of a delegate.)

So, under the pressure of impatience, then there’s the rest of the platform, up for debate, a possible 200 or so more amendments to wade through. And everyone’s thinking, “Let’s just get this over with.” That happens every time. It is a strategy, so there is as little floor debate as possible.

One amendment got put forward by a congressman, who was also a delegate. Under the heading Promoting Individual Freedom and Personal Safety, in a section called Internet Access, the plank talks mainly about an open and free internet, uncensored by government. But hidden in there is the statement “We support Net Neutrality.”

The proposed amendment was to delete that statement. “Net Neutrality” is code for a government program in which individual websites, bloggers, and others, are required to give “equal” space to competing points of view. That would mean, on this Spherical Model blog and website, I would have to “lie” about my beliefs every other post, or maybe half of every post. That’s totally unacceptable.

In debate, someone argued that the phrase didn’t mean that, that it meant simply that government had to be neutral about what is on a website. But the capitalization in the phrase implies a specific program—a program we have heard of and strongly protest. Why put the phrase in, if it is supposed to mean something else? The amendment passed—which means the phrase was removed from the platform.

No other amendments were discussed. Let me repeat that: NO other amendments were discussed. At this point, around 4:30, the “question was called,” and debate ceased. This is a tactic to ask the ultimate question: pass the platform as is, or fail to pass a platform at all.

That means that those 200 or so amendments that were filed the night before did not get discussed, because they did not get recognition on the floor. We do not even get to see what they related to (although a good number probably related to immigration, so they were already more or less handled).

There are some questionable things in the platform. These are the things the media is having a field day with. But THEY DID NOT GET DISCUSSED AT THE CONVENTION.

One of these is related to “reparative therapy” for homosexuality. The platform says: “We recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.”

This is a freedom issue. The “gay mafia” would like to enforce—and has been pretty successful in doing so—the belief that homosexuality and its associated lifestyle (including promiscuity, sexual addiction, and failure to create committed or exclusive relationships) is normal and shall not be treated. Therapists can forfeit licensing for attempting to treat, or even suggesting that there could be treatment.* Nevertheless, data shows a fairly successful rate of behavioral help for those who seek it. This plank does nothing but state the obvious: freedom should be granted to those who seek treatment or offer it.

The plank itself is pretty mild, and supportable by data, regardless of what the media might say. But it was not discussed at the convention. Did delegates read and agree with it? I did. But I have no way of knowing whether it crossed the awareness of other delegates.

Just a humble delegate, right before the
Saturday afternoon platform debate
 

There are other things in there that are ripe for ridicule—but were not discussed. Among these is: “Full Repeal of the 17^th Amendment of the United States Constitution—Return the appointment of United Sates Senators by the state legislatures.”

This issue actually came up in a lieutenant governor debate, with Jerry Patterson accusing Dan Patrick of approving of repeal and then denying it. Dan Patrick actually said he understood the question, the history, and that it was probably a bad change made back in 1913. But that’s different from pressing for a repeal of that amendment now, 100 years later. I’m with Dan Patrick. It meant a loss of state sovereignty, and state representation. But there has been a century of gerrymandering since then, and I can’t say my trust in state legislatures (especially other state legislatures) is such that I prefer going back to their influence. It’s an academic argument that doesn’t belong in our platform. But there it is—because some group with that issue on their agenda maneuvered to get it included in the platform, expecting, accurately, that we wouldn’t have any debate on it.

There are confusing, contradictory  calls in the platform concerning constitutional conventions: “We strongly oppose any constitutional convention to rewrite the United States Constitution.” But in the very next plank, “We urge the Texas State Legislators to take the lead in calling for an Article V Amending Convention of the States, for the specific purpose of reigning in the power of the federal government.” Such a convention supposedly would not rewrite the Constitution, but would clarify that the government must abide by the Constitution. But why have a constitutional convention to say that? I know this relates in some way to a recent book by Mark Levin, which I haven't read. Nevertheless, I’m not in favor of these contradictory planks—which, again, had no debate.

The platform says, “We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished.” Maybe it should—but we did not debate that, and it’s kind of ridiculous to assume that everyone running as a Republican invariably agrees with this.

There was this little plank: “Voting Rights—We support equal suffrage for all United States citizens of voting age who are not felons. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, or creed and oppose use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts.” That makes so much more sense to me than assuming only people of a certain ethnic, gender, or racial group can represent others of that group. Ideas, beliefs, and convictions are what matter. Gerrymandering to have “black” or “Hispanic” representatives is anathema to freedom. But, again, this was not debated.

The first page of the platform has a preamble, and a list of 11 principles. I think these are the same as in the last platform, and maybe the one before that. That single page—without the following nearly 40 pages—would be a better total platform. Less for media to dig at and ridicule. Less disagreement among otherwise united conservative party members.

It may be helpful for grassroots to have some way for concerns to bubble up and get talked about; I’m in favor of that. The rest of the platform might prove informative prior to the next state legislative session, but it’s not really a statement of our beliefs.

But a platform ought to be solid, simple, and agreed on by practically everyone in the party. That single page would serve us well. Then we could boldly speak our clear message, as all those speakers encouraged us to go forth and do.

So, my advice, when the platform becomes available online (2012’s is here), check out the first page, learn to put those conservative concepts into your own words, and let people know that’s what we really believe.

______________________________________________

* A good illustration is a seven-part piece in 2007 by Mike Adams, “Of Mice and Mormons,” about a family therapy master’s degree student who asked his program supervisor where to refer a client who was asking for help with unwanted same-sex attraction; for asking the question, the student was persecuted: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII.

Texas Talk--Part III

This is the next part of my report on the Texas Republican Convention, from June 5-7. Part I covered Ted Cruz’s speech (which maybe was a preliminary to running for president). Part II covered some of the other big speeches: Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, and Rand Paul. The theme of the speeches, put together, was to speak the conservative message—Constitutional freedom and prosperity—and speak it with a welcoming but bold clarity.

Now we’re covering some of the nitty-gritty business of the convention: the platform. The platform ought to be the bold, clear message those speeches suggested that we share. Hmm.

It’s going to take two more posts. Today gets us through what was actually debated—mainly concerning immigration. And part IV will cover the rest of the platform—most of which was not debated.

First, a little background on the making of the platform.

·        Step 1 is probably to start with what’s in the previous platform, instead of simply from scratch.

·        Step 2 happens at precinct caucus meetings. Individuals meet together, after the polls close on primary election day, and elect delegates to the next level convention and propose items for the platform. Those that the precinct supports get sent to the platform committee at the state senate district level.

·        Step 3: Proposals from the precinct are read, sorted, categorized, combined, and reworded by the platform committee, made up of precinct chair volunteers in the senate district. They do some of their work prior to the one-day district convention, and then they take public testimony at the convention.

·        Step 4: This committee presents its draft, and then the floor is opened up for debate. More proposals can be offered from the floor. Amendments can be offered. Depending on the size of the district (mine is maybe the biggest in the state, with multiple delegates from 700+ precincts), this can be unwieldy, but Roberts Rules of Order are in place to protect and frustrate the process.

·        Step 5: The draft of propositions from each senate district across the state (there are 31) get sent to the Temporary Platform and Resolutions Committee (TPARC) of the Republican Party of Texas. This committee of appointees starts meeting on Monday of state convention week, weeding through the 3000 or so resolutions. They go through the process of weeding through, combining similar statements, seeing what is widely believed across the state, and trying to come up with a draft platform.

·        Step 6: This drafting process includes dividing into several subcommittees, taking public testimony over two days, and then coming together with about 300 draft platform planks by Wednesday evening, followed by more public testimony Thursday morning.

·        Step 6: Senate districts caucus and elect permanent platform/resolutions committee representatives. Often this is a formality in which the appointed temporary platform person gets elected to the permanent committee. However, this year there were a number of temporary committee people who were replaced in their caucuses. More on that in a minute.

·        Step 7: The Permanent Platform and Resolutions Committee (PPARC) meets Thursday evening, after the district caucuses. They take additional brief public testimony. Then they vote on what goes into the platform.

·        Step 8: By Friday afternoon the Report of the Permanent Platform Committee is printed and provided to the full body of delegates. Amendments to this platform can be submitted, in writing, up to 6:00 PM Friday. There were some 200 such amendments filed.

·        Step 9: On Saturday, the final business of the convention is to debate and vote on the final platform. This is an open floor debate with some 7000 or so opinionated people, discussing their various views. Roberts Rules of Order are followed, with a parliamentarian helping the state party chair keep the chaos to a minimum.

So it is this final step we’re looking at.

In that Thursday evening debate, with a significant change in the makeup of the PPARC from the TPARC, a couple of issues came to the top: medical marijuana and immigration. These became minority reports in the report. A minority report is a suggested amendment, signed by at least 7 members of the permanent committee, filed immediately after the close of the committee meeting—and they get handled as amendments prior to other amendments handled from the floor.

In the floor debate, the two minority reports related to medical marijuana were handled first, because they were simplest.

One was to include this language: “We believe that Texans should have legal access to medical cannabis as a controlled narcotic prescribed by a physician.” There was respectful testimony, from physicians and others, on both sides. Some on the “pro” side tried to convince the body that this referred not to cannabis in the form that can be smoked, but only to essential oil forms, which can be used for children suffering from seizures. Touching—but the wording is not limiting; it is open to pretty much any “physician’s” definition of medical use—which has led to a lot of abuse in states where it has been tried. The body rejected this.

The other minority report (suggested amendment) concerned studies of cannabis. The minority suggested removing this line from the platform: “We urge the Texas Legislature to allow, encourage, and facilitate the study at our Texas medical schools the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis.” Now, this is in a plank related to allowing citizens to choose their nutritional products and alternative health care choices. The rest of the plank allows freedom to choose. But this wording isn’t simply the typical libertarian “allow choice to use drugs” plank; it is putting the power of the Texas legislature into the business of encouraging and facilitating (i.e., provide funding for) these studies of a specific substance—that has been studied out the wazoo already elsewhere, so there’s plenty of testimony without further funding. Nor is there a prohibition of studies if the Texas legislature doesn’t get behind them.

The body agreed to remove this phrase. But this was a closer vote, and people next to each other could respectfully disagree. There was some perception that it was a good thing to just “be” in favor of research.

I have to say, this is the first year I have sensed anything like a significant presence in favor of medical (or recreational) marijuana. There’s a larger libertarian presence in the GOP than there used to be. On some things, that’s good, but on vice, including mind-altering “recreational” drug use, it’s a bad thing. [See "Why I’m Not Quite a Libertarian"  and "Libertarians on the Sphere"].

Mark Ramsey

The other minority report concerned immigration. Mark Ramsey, my district’s temporary and permanent resolutions committee representative, explains:

By far the most controversial topic was what to do with the immigration plank that in 2012 was consolidated into a single comprehensive one called “The Texas Solution” by its supporters (2012TS). By the time the full TPARC met Wednesday, it was already unrecognizable compared to 2012. MAJOR changes had been made to it, undoubtedly influenced by the huge popularity and recent election landslide mandate by Sen. Dan Patrick in the race for Lt. Governor.

Major differences in the immigration planks’ details include whether the border is secured “first,” who determines that it is secure (states or federal government), and whether any visa or guest worker program must wait until the border is secured. Other variables include insisting applicants speak English, preventing visa applicants from obtaining public assistance, specifying those here illegally cannot participate in legalization (visa/citizenship/etc.), whether to address “mass deportation,” penalties and back taxes, and building a fence.

The minority report failed in committee in a 15-15 vote (the committee chair, by tradition, does not vote, and a tie is a fail). Unfortunately, the full Immigration plank and the full Minority Report are both too long to include here, so I’ll just summarize as best I can.

The platform plank has three paragraphs of introduction. Then it has sections on securing our borders first (with details of how), opposing amnesty, opposing mass deportation, modernizing immigrations laws (with some probably too detailed suggestions), and a provisional visa program.

The minority report claims it is taking its language from Dan Patrick’s website—but it did not coordinate with, nor get permission or approval from the senator, and there may be disagreements in content and intent. It covers increasing border security, ending in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, enhancing smuggling laws, prohibiting sanctuary cities, prohibiting employment of illegals, providing landowners with civil liability protections, and protecting law enforcement officers when they inquire concerning legal status of someone in custody.

Then it suggests various details ways to modernize current immigration laws.

Here’s the situation: immigration is in part a PR problem for the party. We agree we need to secure the border and enforce current immigration laws before anything else is even worth doing. And we agree that we approve of LEGAL immigration, and encourage that in many positive ways. But the perception is that, if you don’t handle “comprehensive reform,” regardless of the numerous failures of government regarding the border, then you get called “anti-immigrant.”

I took this photo from a distance; it seemed so
quintessentially Texan. I learned later this citizen is
Jack Finger from San Antonio.

Nationally, GOP leadership has dabbled in the idea that pushing for “comprehensive reform” (i.e., making a path for citizenship for illegals already here, while doing nothing about the porous border) would get us more Hispanic voters; if you want to see how that is going over, take a look at the recent loss by Eric Cantor.

Anyway, there’s probably a 60/40 split between those who want border security before any discussion of anything else (the 60%) and those who say we must be realistic about dealing with the long-term illegals already here.

Mark Ramsey, recognizing the considerable size of both sides, suggested an amendment to the original platform, which might preclude the need for the minority report. He suggested changing the “Provisional Visa Program” part of the immigration plank thus:

In order to deal with the current undocumented population, only after the borders are secured and verified by the states, we urge Congress to enact establish a provisional visa program with a term of five years that does not provide amnesty, does not cause mass deportation and does not provide a pathway to citizenship but does not preclude existing pathways.

The purpose was to put in a trigger, forcing the border to be secure before the other issues could be dealt with. The Ramsey Amendment, as it came to be called, passed.

But then we went back to the minority report, in the form of another amendment, including much but not all of the minority report. This amendment, if passed, would replace the full immigration plank, including the Ramsey Amendment.

There was a fair amount of debate. But debate was frequently—too frequently—interrupted by questions such as “So, if the minority report passes, it means the immigration plank, including the Ramsey Amendment, is replaced, and no more amendments can be put forward on immigration?” Answer: yes. Then another person would interrupt with practically the same question. Eventually the minority report passed.

So, the immigration plank is more hard-nosed than the body of Texas delegates would actually feel. Nevertheless, the message that border security must be accomplished—and verified by Texas—before anything else happens is the clear, bold message that we mostly agree on.

Is there an anti-immigration sentiment in Texas? No. But there is no longer any patience with the federal government ignoring laws and dumping the results of lawlessness on our state. And we believe, if spoken clearly and boldly, Hispanic Texans will agree with us. Because there aren’t Hispanic Texans and regular Texans—there are just Texans.

Then there’s the rest of the platform. We'll finish that in part IV.

Texas Talk--Part I

This past weekend I was a delegate at the Texas State Republican Convention. It’s not a presidential year, so it might seem more low key then in those other years. Still, there’s some good conservative stuff being said.

There are more delegates at the Texas convention than at the national GOP convention. And there’s a much higher percentage of those that are conservative or very conservative. So, it’s safe to say this is the biggest gathering of conservatives participating in the government process anywhere in the world.

convention logo, from up on the big screen

Texans are plain spoken. In-your-face bold. And sometimes colorful with the metaphors. I’ve developed a taste for the Texas sound. (I’ve been imitating the sound pretty well since our pre-Texas years, when we started reading Hank the Cowdog books aloud.) One of the most Texas sounding was Sid Miller, candidate for Agriculture Commissioner. He always has his cowboy hat on. If I’m remembering his bio accurately, he’s a former rodeo champion. In his speech, he said the greatest threat to freedom is the overreaching federal government: “Standing up to the EPA, BLM, or any of those other dirty three-letter organizations” is what we’re about.

I think there’s a good chance we heard from the next US President during this convention. I’m not that good at prognostication, and no one has announced a candidacy yet, but some speeches sounded like the preliminaries.

There was a straw poll—and a change in the rules, so that two years from now our straw poll will have an effect on how the at-large delegates will be directed to vote. For now it was just for fun.

I hadn’t done a lot of thinking about Ted Cruz as a candidate for president. He’s a first-term senator, doing a stellar job there (no voting present). We’ve elected a first-term senator before, and his lack of experience is becoming more evident as he fails to learn on the job.

early purchase, in case I need it later

Ted Cruz had a lot of good experience before becoming a senator, but I do think governors are a more typical source of executive material, as a rule of thumb. But clearly other Texans have their hopes set on him. And I have to say, if he runs, I would be glad—and very supportive. (I bought myself a political button, just before they ran out, in case I need it later.)

He sounds like he just might run, although no mention of the possibility came up in his speech. I thought I’d share some highlights here, for those who didn’t get to be there. Ted Cruz, by the way, sounds like a thinking lawyer, fully capable of supporting his ideas before the Supreme Court—which he has done. He doesn’t have much of an accent, and he dresses in conservative suits and white shirts and ties. Still, he speaks very boldly, in that Texas way—and he wears cowboy boots with his suits.

Sen. Ted Cruz, wearing boots,
speaking without notes or teleprompter

His first words were, “I spent all week in Washington, DC; it’s great to be back in America.”

The speech was divided into three main parts, with some extended comments on each. Part I was Defend the Constitution. He quoted Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Cruz said we should defend all of the Bill of Rights.

Of the Second Amendment he offered this Texas perspective: “In Texas, gun control means hitting what you aim at.”

Of the First Amendment, he referred to the litigation against Little Sisters of the Poor, in which the federal government claims it has a right and overriding interest in forcing nuns to pay for abortions of others. Ted Cruz offers a “simple rule of thumb—if you’re litigating against nuns, you’re doing something wrong.”

When referring to privacy, as in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, he said, “Please leave your cell phones on today—we want Obama to hear every word we say.”

Part II was Restore America to Leadership in the World. He talked of the dangerous vacuum created when America fails to lead. Two week ago he was in Israel and visited with Natan Sharansky, who had been in a Russian gulag near the end of the Cold War. He and fellow prisoners used to pass along Reagan’s words, when he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” When he gave his simple plan: “We win. They lose.” When he stood at the Brandenburg Gate and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” This was immediately after the ineffectual administration of Jimmy Carter. Ted Cruz was pointing out how quickly things can turn around when you change from malaise to bold leadership.

He reminded us that, when Iran appointed a terrorist as their ambassador, he put forth legislation to bar that man from entry into the country. It passed the Senate 100-0. It passed 435-0 in the House. Then, under that kind of pressure, Obama signed it. Some things need to be acted on, and Ted Cruz is willing to do that. As he put it, in his colorful way, “We will no longer play footsie with the mullahs of Iran.”

Cruz called for rescue of Christian prisoners, such as Pastor Saeed Abedini, imprisoned in Iran for professing his Christian faith; and Miriam Ibrahim, a lifelong Christian woman married to an American citizen, being held in Sudan for the crime of “converting” to Christianity from Islam, punishable by death. Cruz says, “Where is the president of the United States? Why isn’t he standing up on the world stage and calling for her return?  Bring our Americans home.”

Raphael Cruz, father of Sen. Ted Cruz

Part III was Bring Back Jobs and Economic Growth. He said, “For five years we’ve been trapped in the Great Stagnation.” [I love that phrase and plan to use it hereafter.] And those who struggle the most are the ones most hurt by it. How do we turn that around? Get back to free-market principles. Specifically, “Unleash an energy renaissance.” “Audit the Federal Reserve.” “Abolish the IRS.” And “Repeal every blessed word of Obamacare.” I think the word blessed in that context was not meant to imply those words are holy, but rather the opposite.

I got to hear his father, Pastor Raphael Cruz, earlier, in my Senate District caucus meeting, and he’s an impressive speaker as well. Ted Cruz quoted his father, who fled communist Cuba 57 years ago: “I lost my freedom once, and I’ll die before it happens again.” Ted Cruz imagined a time when our children or grandchildren could ask, “What was it like, when there was freedom?” We never want to have to answer that question. We together claim freedom. 

 

There’s plenty more to share from the convention. Wish you could have been there.

I think I’ll need another day to share highlights from some of the better speeches: Rand Paul, candidate for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and others. And there’s a whole discussion about the business of getting a party platform, which is probably worth its own post. Somewhere in the middle of this series comes Father’s Day, so we’ll have to just patiently get it all covered. So come back for eventual parts II and III.