GOVT 2306 - 4
The Political Culture of Texas and its
Regions and Cities
You might not be aware of this,
but Texas is . . . different.
Texas, as a whole, tends to be more
conservative and business oriented than
the nation. Fundamental religious beliefs
are also much stronger in the state than
elsewhere. Politics in the state also tends
to be more dominated by elites, it has a
history of one party rule. National politics
is more competitive and diverse.
But Texas is not monolithic.
Texas has diverse elements within it. It contains
some of the largest cities in the nation, and by
virtue of its size contains regions that differ
tremendously from one another. South Texas
bears little in common with the Panhandle or
the suburbs or inner cities of Houston, Dallas or
Austin.
While Texas is considered a red (Republican)
state, it has blue (Democratic) metropolitan
areas. We will have to come to terms with the
internal conflicts as well.
Why?
In this section we explore how
Texas is different from the rest of
the nation – as well as the nation
as a whole.
Hopefully we will be able to
understand the nature of the
tension that sometimes exists
between the state and the nation.
You might also find it useful to look
through this chapter in an online
textbook: Texas Politics.
Texas Political Culture
Let’s begin with a quick look at
Texas History.
Some of this has been driven by
the unique history of the state and
the transitions it has made from
time to time.
See Lone Start History Links for
detail.
Let’s walk through parts of that history
in order to understand some of the
factors that have lead to change in the
political environment.
Early beginnings:
Anglo Texas began as group of
settlers that chose to become
Spanish citizens in order to gain
access to large tracts of land to
farm. Relations were fine with
Spain, but less so with Mexico after
it became independent.
From 1836 – 1845, Texas was an
independent republic. Political
disputes centered on whether the
state should remain independent
or seek statehood with the US, and
what relations ought to exist with
Indian tribes. Not everyone wanted
to join the union.
Nevertheless, Texas sought annexation
from the start, but the US feared war
with Mexico and had to maintain a
balance between the slave and free
states. Northern states opposed
annexation. Britain tried to persuade
Texas to remain independent in order
to halt the US’s westward expansion.
The annexation of Texas was a
major issue in the US election of
1844. The annexation of Texas was
part of the territorial expansion of
the US. It was supported by the
Democrats and their candidate
James Polk.
Mexico still disputed the southern and
western borders of the state, and upon
annexation the Mexican-American War
broke out in order to force a decision. It
would be the Rio Grande, not the Nueces
River.
The American victory resulted in the
acquisition of land west to California. The
general of the Army, Zachary Taylor, would
be elected president in 1848.
The Texas economy was dependent
upon cotton production – King Cotton
– and slavery was central to its
production. Political forces became
very protective of the institution. It
was also central to the aristocratic
pretenses of the South.
A more in-depth read here.
Lumber production was also
important. East Texas forests
provided plenty of lumber to
harvest, and the emerging ports in
Galveston and later Houston would
ship lumber out to the world.
Lumber mills were some of the
earliest manufacturing plants in
the area.
Texas crops were labor intensive, so
the economy relied on cheap labor.
Slavery fit the bill.
But abolitionist forces were rising in
the other parts of the nation, and
were pushing to end slavery. This led
to the obvious tension. Anti-slavery
forces in the state were very weak.
Texas would overwhelmingly
support secession, and joined the
Confederacy in 1861. It justified it
in order to support slavery and
white supremacy. It also
mentioned that the US was not
securing the border with Mexico.
Sounds contemporary.
The election of a Republican
president suspected of having
abolitionist tendencies led the rush
to secede.
The end of the Civil War led to the end of
the antebellum South and the economic,
social and political arrangements central to
it. All this was in flux in Texas after the Civil
War until the ratification of the
Constitution of 1876 restored some sense
of normalcy, or at least came close to
reestablishing the arrangements that had
existed before.
Though slavery was now illegal,
efforts made during reconstruction
to enhance the well being of the
recently freed slaves were
terminated and a hierarchical
social order was reestablished.
Efforts to strengthen the state
government were also terminated.
The national Democratic Party continued
to support the segregation policies
demanded by agrarian states. Texas
continued its strong affiliation with the
party. The Republican Party was associated
with Reconstruction and efforts to bolster
the political participation of AfricanAmericans.
They were not competitive in the state,
outside a few areas, as a result.
The 1876 Constitution reflected
the power of the agrarian sector,
especially the Grange. Members
were concerned about business’
increased influence in government.
Here’s an extended quote from the
TSHA Online:
“The Texas Grange supported the national
Grange in demanding free trade, an interstate
commerce commission, a department of
agriculture, a pure food and drug law, inflation,
popular election of senators, and reduction of
express and postage rates. . . . They worked for
free and uniform textbooks, nine-month school
terms, consolidation of rural schools, a
scholastic age of eighteen, capable teachers,
and vocational courses.”
The Texas economy would be
continued to be dominated by
agriculture – and cotton
specifically. But the proliferation of
railroads – and the market power
they developed – cause problems
for farmers who were being
overcharged by railroad
monopolies.
Farmers supported national and
state efforts to break apart
monopolies and business
regulations in general.
The state legislature began to pass
laws protecting Texas from out of
state corporations.
This led to a rise of populism in the state.
James Stephen Hogg would be elected
governor in 1890 on a promise to regulate
the railroads.
The Railroad Commission would be
established to regulate freight rates, later
(in the 1930s) it would be expanded to
regulate the production of oil and gas in
the state.
The discovery of oil transformed
the Texas economy and brought
significant wealth into the state. It
also tied the Texas businesses
more closely with closely with
those in other states. Texas based
oil companies began to compete
with companies based in
Pennsylvania and New York.
But the Great Depression, and the
refusal of President Hoover to do
anything to directly assist the
states further alienated the state
against the Republican Party (plus
– some people still had hard
feelings about the Civil war) and
solidified Texas’ attachment to the
Democratic Party.
The Democratic National
Convention was held in Houston in
1928. It was the first time the
convention was held in a southern
city and it was an efforts to place
Houston on the national stage.
It worked. Click here for a You Tube clip.
The nomination of Al Smith was made by
Franklin Roosevelt, who would later place
prominent Houstonians and Texans in his
cabinet. The most important was Jesse
Jones who was already in charge of the
Resolution Finance Corporation and was in
charge of distributing assets.
He was considered the second most
powerful person in the nation at the time.
Texas developed an integrated industry oil
industry which included refining and steel
production. It also led to the development
of the Port of Houston and the
establishment of the city as an
international presence.
The need for oil and related
products during World War II led to
a massive influx of federal funds
into the area to build the
infrastructure needed to produce
the quantities necessary for the
war effort.
This put Texas in a position where
it could dominate the oil industry
after the war was over.
See: Texas Oil Boom.
Suddenly business became more
prominent, and business interests
began to compete with agriculture.
This required a rethinking of the
role of government in the general
society. Education becomes more
important since industry requires a
more skilled work force.
It also led to a repositioning in the state
regarding business regulations. Texas
becomes, slowly, a more business friendly
place as the power of the agrarian sector
waned. Instead of pro-regulation Texas (as
a whole) became anti-regulation.
Business interests were strong enough to
ensure that unions would not take hold in
the state. This kept wages low.
Around this time the national Democratic Party
was repositioning itself on civil rights. Laws were
passed imposing the national government into
race relations in the state – as it had during
reconstruction.
This, along with other factors, would lead the
state to begin to distance itself from the
Democratic Party, but the transition would take
years. We will discuss this more fully in the
section on parties.
Some oil was found in land
dedicated to provided funding for
higher education in the state.
The University of Texas and Texas
A&M become wealthy institutions
as a consequence. This leads to
additional research and expansions
into other fields.
The 1980s oil bust in the state led
to a drive to diversify the state’s
economy by encouraging the
development of new industries in
the state and by aggressively
encouraging businesses to move to
the state.
The effort to diversify continues.
Texas actively courts industry from
around the nation and the world.
The oil boom also transformed
Texas in two key ways, both related
to the fact that energy jobs led to
immigration into the state, both
internationally and domestically.
First, cities in Texas started to grow
and the power of the major
metropolitan areas increased in
the state and nationally. Since the
interests of these areas did not
necessarily coincide with those of
the state, tension began to
increase.
Second, the influx of people from
different regions of the country
increased the cultural and ethnic
diversity of the state.
There’s more detail to add, but
that’s enough history for now.
Now a quick word on factions.
Before we continue, we should review a
point made by James Madison in Federalist
#10 about the political differences
between nations, states and local areas.
There are fewer interests in local areas
than in states, and fewer interests at the
state level than the national level.
Why does this matter?
It means that the factors that drive
politics on each level of
government will be different.
Madison claimed that tyrannical majorities are
far more likely to form and operate in smaller
than larger governments. The fewer issues that
exist to divide people, the greater the chance
that a permanent majority can develop.
These are broken apart at larger levels of
government because new issues will enter the
political sphere and will break apart these
majorities.
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame
within their particular States, but will be unable to
spread a general conflagration through the other
States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political
faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of
sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure
the national councils against any danger from that
source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of
debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other
improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade
the whole body of the Union than a particular member
of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more
likely to taint a particular county or district, than an
entire State.”
He’s telling us – in part – that tension will
always exist between the nation and the
states, and between the states and the
cities.
The tension is the result of the different
interests on each level, and the fact that
concentrated interests are more likely to
be found at the state and local level.
By being a part of the US, Texas has to face the
fact that its interests are not shared by other
states. The interests that dominate the state do
not necessarily dominate the nation. And the
rest of the nation has to deal with us.
Dominate interests in the state are matched by
other interests at the national level.
Example:
The oil industry is strong in Texas
(you may not be aware of this) but
environmental interests are not.
Environmentalism is stronger on
the national level, so the national
government is the source of
legislation opposed by the oil
industry. Conflict is inevitable.
And
On the state level, there may be
efforts to take a punitive approach
to illegal immigration, but many
cities in Texas are protective of
these communities. Interests in
those cities are different from
those in the state.
Again, conflict is inevitable.
The point is that there are innate
differences between politics on
these three levels of government.
We need to come to terms with
that in order to understand the
tension that exists between the
three.
More specifically, the political
culture on the national level is
different than that in the states,
and different than that on the local
level.
So now let’s have a word about
political culture.
Remember that we previously
defined politics as conflict over
what governments do, and that
this conflict centers on the values
and interests that affected by that
law. Politics also involves the
struggle to control governing
institutions.
Here are three definitions of political culture:
1 - “Political culture refers to what people
believe and feel about government, and how
they think people should act towards it.”
2 - "the particular pattern of orientation to
political action in which each political system is
imbedded.“
3 - "Attitudes, values, beliefs, and orientations
that individuals in a society hold regarding their
political system."
The dominant approach to the
study of political culture comes
from Daniel Elazar who developed
a three part typology of political
culture around the nation to
describe how different regions
viewed the role of government.
He discusses it at length in this article:
The Vital Role of Political Culture.
He argues that there are three
dominant strains of political
culture in the United States and
that these are prevalent in
different regions in the country
based on the immigration patterns
that led certain groups to those
areas.
“The individualistic political culture emphasizes the conception
of the democratic order as a marketplace, in which government
is instituted for strictly utilitarian reasons, to handle those
functions demanded by the people it is created to serve. Beyond
the commitment to an open market, a government need not
have any direct concern with questions of the good society,
except insofar as it may be used to advance some common view
formulated outside the political arena just as it serves other
functions. Since the individualistic political culture emphasizes
the centrality of private concerns, it places a premium on limiting
community intervention -- whether governmental or
nongovernmental -- into private activities to the minimum
necessary to keep the marketplace in proper working order.”
It emphasizes business relationships and
only sees a role for government to perform
the basic functions necessary for business
transactions to occur – solid currency,
infrastructure, education, internal and
external security.
“The moralistic political culture emphasizes the
commonwealth conception as the basis for democratic
government. Politics, to the moralistic political culture,
is considered one of the great activities of humanity in
its search for the good society -- a struggle for power, it
is true, but also an effort to exercise power for the
betterment of the commonwealth. Consequently, in
the moralistic political culture both the general public
and the politicians conceive of politics as a public
activity centered on some notion of the public good
and properly devoted to the advancement of the public
interest.”
This emphasizes government as
active force to improve all aspects
of the lives of individuals and
encourages broad participation.
“The traditionalistic political culture is rooted in an ambivalent
attitude toward the marketplace coupled with a paternalistic and
elitist conception of the commonwealth. It reflects and older,
pre-commercial attitude that accepts a substantially hierarchical
society as part of the ordered nature of things, authorizing and
expecting those at the top of the social structure to take a
special and dominant role in government. Like its moralistic
counterpart, the traditionalistic political culture accepts
government as an actor with a positive role in the community,
but it tries to limit that role to securing the continued
maintenance of the existing social order. To do so, it functions to
confine real political power to a relatively small and selfperpetuating group drawn from an established elite who often
inherit their right to govern through family ties or social
position.”
The role of government, according
to this conception, is to retain the
established order. Broad based
participation is discouraged, elite
rule is maintained.
Texas is argued to be dominated by
the traditionalistic and
individualistic political cultures,
with a scattering of moralistic
viewpoints in some population
centers.
Why?
The traditionalistic culture was (and is)
dominant in the South. Slavery and
indentured servitude reinforced a
hierarchical society. The agrarian –
plantation – economy encouraged this
hierarchical design.
Westward expansion brought many of
these people to what would become Texas
to take advantage of expanded agrarian
opportunities.
Many of the people that would become leading
figures in the development of Texas had elite
backgrounds in southern states. They were
conditioned to rule.
The original grant given to Moses Austin by the
Spanish government to allow for Anglo
settlement in Texas encouraged families to settle
and many brought slaves with them. Many came
from slaves states – Alabama and Tennessee for
example. They were hand picked by Austin, and
tended to already be propertied and educated.
They also placed emphasized on
self reliance and industriousness.
They had a traditional outlook and
expected government to preserve
traditional relationships.
Some of the conflict with Mexico
was over its reluctance to accept
slavery and its demand that the
settlers convert to Catholicism.
The drive to establish
independence was driven by an
effort to maintain what they
viewed as a traditional way of life.
Politicians with this mindset would
rule the state for over a century.
Texas’ involvement in the Confederacy was also
driven by a desire to maintain existing social and
economic relationships. It helped keep elites in
charge.
After the Civil War, Texas traditionalists used
various methods to discourage the political
participation of the newly free slaves (Jim Crow,
Black Codes, segregation, and the White
Primary). They also discouraged women’s
suffrage and efforts of the progressives to
enhance the political influence of the poor.
Many of the national battles over
civil rights were fought in Texas.
- Smith v Allwright
- Sweatt v. Painter
The Houston Chapter of the NAACP was the
litigant in many of these cases and they were
supported by national organizations that saw
these cases as good venues for challenging racial
segregation. They were right. See: The Texas
Black History Preservation Project.
The segregationists were
attempting to maintain the
traditional southern way of life
while the moralists were trying to
use government to enhance
opportunity to all groups in society.
Note the tension.
One of the places where the
traditional, hierarchical political
culture took root was in South
Texas where political bosses
controlled party machines and
certain counties until just recently.
These were called patrons.
Currently the traditional culture in
the state is promoted by churches
and faith based groups. Some of
these are very large and influential
nationally.
Most recently they have focused
attention on gay marriage, access
to abortion, and perceived attacks
on religious freedom.
Texas is home to many politically
oriented conservative Christian
organizations which promote
policies that further their values.
More recently, Texas has seen a
growing individualistic culture.
But this culture also dates back to
early days. Not everyone came to
Texas to get land to start a farm or
plantation – or be a slave on one.
Some came to pursue business
interests.
Texas – Galveston Bay especially – offered
commercial opportunities since it could
help connect the products created on
farms, or commodities harvested from the
land (first lumber, then oil) or even
manufactured, with the world.
The founding story of Houston
involves the Allen Brothers, who
looked at a map and decided that a
particular point on Buffalo Bayou,
where it was joined by White Oak
Bayou, might make a good port.
They strategically named it Houston – after Sam – to encourage
the state to place the capitol here. It briefly was.
The Allen Brothers came from
Brooklyn. New York City was, and
is, a major source of the
individualistic culture.
New York City has been a
commercial center since the early
days of the republic, and before.
In our area, Galveston and then
Houston served as dominant ports.
Business interests began to
flourish, but really took off after
the discovery of oil. This also
meant that eastern businessmen
discovered Texas, moved here and
brought a business oriented
mindset with them.
Some of these people would be
politically connected.
Example: Connecticut Senator
Prescott Bush’s son George.
Home grown business leaders also
helped enhance Houston’s
presence nationally by establishing
strong connections with national
political leaders.
- Colonel House.
- Jesse Jones.
Houston became a center not only for oil
production, but for the manufacturing of
oil field equipment and technical
knowhow. Houston exploded as a
manufacturing center in WW2.
Increased business opportunities also
made it easier for people who were not
part of the traditional elite classes to
prosper. But this can create tension.
The value system that allows one
to be successful in business
endeavors is not necessarily the
same as that held by the
traditionalists
Example:
In order to increase Houston’s
presence nationally and
internationally, its business leaders
had to accept integration. Major
League Baseball was not going to
give a franchise to a segregated
city. Desegregation was business,
not a moral decision.
The individualistic culture may now
dominate politics, but
traditionalism is still influential.
Political decisions in the state often
result from some compromise
between those two groups.
Another aspect of the
individualistic mindset is
libertarianism, which is
increasingly influential in the state,
and is centered in part of the state.
Just south of ACC to be exact since
Ron Paul lives in Freeport.
One of the sources of this mindset is
argued to be the frontier mentality
possessed by early Anglo immigrants.
There was little in the way of governing
institutions that could provide services,
keep the peace or reconcile disputes, so a
general sense developed that this was the
responsibility of each person.
There was no law enforcement or penitentiary, so many
matters had to be taken into one’s own hands.
The frontier was dangerous and
often lawless.
Comanche raids were common
(click here for the Great Raid of
1840, and here for general
information about the Texas-Indian
wars).
This led to a strong attachment to the concept
of self reliance and individual autonomy and
helps explain the aversion Texans have to
expanded government power, whether it is
national, state or local. Though there is a
preference for local control since it is expected
that the general population can control local
government better than state government, and
state government better than the national
government.
Texas also tends to supportive of
free market economics and even a
laissez faire approach to business.
But this circles us back to
Madison’s point in Federalist #10.
The local government (and to a
lesser extent the state
government) can be more easily
controlled by tyrannical majorities
which can limit the rights of
minorities.
Texas has a history of such
behavior.
The establishment of minority
rights is a dominant concerns of
the moralistic political culture.
While it is a minority culture in the
state, there are pockets of the
moralistic outlook as well as
episodes in Texas history where the
moralists were influential.
More often, they represented
views that were attacked and
marginalized.
A historical example is abolition and its
successor, civil rights. Abolitionists came
from states where the moralistic political
culture and were sometimes violently
attacked by the traditionalists.
The moralists of course did intend
to eliminate what was considered a
vital component of the traditional
way of life.
But there has never been a
tremendous influx of immigrants
from areas of the country
dominated by moralism – New
England for example.
This means, that with few exceptions,
government is not seen as necessary to
enhance the well being of its citizens.
The Progressive Movement had
less of an impact in Texas than
elsewhere.
What impact it had, was imposed by the
national government in the New Deal and
Great Society and has been opposed by
many with a traditional or individualistic
cultural viewpoint.
Texans have a high toleration for
inequity. We have higher rates of
poverty than most other states,
and indicators of well being across
the board (education, crime,
health, etc…) show great
differences between the wealthy
and the poor.
But there is little political pressure
to do much about it.
These issues seldom dominate – in
a serious way – the political
agenda.
Example: Texas on the Brink
highlights Texas’ low rankings in
various social measures, but there
has been little effort to seriously
address these issues.
Many Texans do not see them as being
problems, or at least problems that have a
governmental solution.
As a result of its unique culture,
Texas is “low tax, low services”
state.
There is little reason to think it will
change anytime soon.
Regions in Texas
Texas is a very big state (you knew
that) and contains distinct regions
within it, each with its own more
nuanced culture. Conflict within
the state can be traced to these
differences.
There are many ways these regions can be
carved up. Here is the map of regional
councils in the state.
Each of these regions represents a
“voluntary association of local
governments formed under Texas
law. These associations deal with
the problems and planning needs
that cross the boundaries of
individual local governments or
that require regional attention.”
We are in region 16, the Houston –
Galveston Area Council. It attempts
to represent the interests of the 6
million people that live in the
12,500 square miles surrounding
Houston.
Doing so can put it in conflict with
the other 23 regions.
Here’s another, simpler map from
the Comptroller’s office showing
the distinct economic regions in
the state:
Click here for the Comptroller’s
report on economic issues and
opportunities within each region.
The interests and issues that
dominate the political environment
in South Texas, will not be the
same as those of the Panhandle.
The interests of the rural areas will
differ from those of the large
metropolitan areas.
Some areas have large aquifers
beneath them and have access to
plenty of water, others do not.
What are the major issues facing
the state? Where is there conflict
and why?
Here are reports from the House
Research Organization on major
issues dealt with in the 81st Session
and 82nd Session of the Legislature.
The People of Texas
Texas is one of the more diverse
states in the nation, and the
Houston area is the most diverse
large metropolitan area in the
nation. Click here for the report.
And Pearland is more diverse than
Houston, Fort Bend county is the
most diverse county in this region.
Anglo – 39.7%
Latino – 35.5%
African American – 16.8%
Asian – 6.5%
For many years this region has
been majority–minority, no one
group has a majority, which makes
it less likely one group can
dominate politically.
Assuming all groups can vote, turnout to vote
equally, and have the same access to the polls.
The United States is on its way to
becoming majority minority as
well. The Census recently released
a study pointing out that more
children younger than 1 are nonAnglo (read a critique of that claim
here).
Question: What impact will this
have on politics nationally?
Some basic facts about Texas.
Texas Data Center
Texas Quick Facts – Census Bureau
Wikipedia
Comptroller’s Office
UT Libraries
Houston Demographics