April 24, 2001

Eagle Eye on Austin

HATE CRIMES LAW TAKES WILD RIDE THROUGH LEGISLATURE
Everyone was expecting a contentious debate followed by a controversial vote in the House last Tuesday when the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act was to be considered, but no one was prepared for the firestorm that erupted in the Senate that same day. Activists on both sides of the issue had known for some time that passage of hate crimes in the House was a foregone conclusion and that the real battle would take place in the state’s upper chamber. Thus, when Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) moved to have his version of the hate crimes bill placed on the Senate calendar for a vote on the same day, politicos from both sides of the aisle assumed that he had found his votes and that hate crimes was poised to land on Governor Perry’s desk. What followed has since been debated publicly for days now, and may well prove to be the defining moment in the hate crimes saga.

The impetus behind this strange chain of events was the absence of two senators, Florence Shapiro (R-Plano) and Tom Haywood (R-Wichita Falls), who were expected to oppose consideration of the hate crimes bill on the Senate floor. According to Senate rules, a 2/3 majority must agree to consider any measure before it can be debated and ultimately voted on by the entire body. Lt. Governor Bill Ratliff (R-Mt. Pleasant) has abstained from the vast majority of votes this session, and was expected to do so on hate crimes as well. This meant that supporters of the hate crimes bill needed to net 20 votes in order to force floor consideration. With Shapiro and Haywood absent, however, this number fell to 19. Ellis had already secured the votes of 18 members, and had been able to finagle Republican Robert Duncan of Lubbock to become the nineteenth voter in time to run the bill up for a vote. This strategy was frustrated, however, by some deft maneuvering by Governor Rick Perry, who called Duncan at the last minute and convinced him to withhold his vote until Shapiro and Haywood were present. 

Almost instantly, supporters of the bill sprung into action, accusing Governor Perry of inappropriately interfering with the inner workings of the Texas Senate. Perry, in response, noted that he had observed a similar convention when, as Lt. Governor, he had held a vote on vouchers until the late Senator Greg Luna could be present. Ellis and Senator Gonzalo Barrientos (D-Austin) accused Perry of making an inappropriate reference to the voucher vote, recalling that Luna had verbally requested that such consideration be given whereas Shapiro and Haywood had not. Finally, Lt. Governor Bill Ratliff announced that he was displeased with Perry’s tactics as well, stating that he believed the Senate should be allowed to run its business without meddling from the Governor’s office. Even the Austin American-Statesman piled on, calling on the Governor as well as opponents of the bill to allow a “full and open debate.” 

The hate crimes bill is still in a holding pattern in both the House and Senate, yet to come up to the floor of either body. Given the harmful nature of the bill, this fact is by no means unfortunate. The hailstorm of criticism that Governor Perry has taken for “putting the brakes” on hate crimes is fully misplaced, however, and particularly disingenuous. Ellis’ effort to sneak hate crimes onto the floor when two opponents of the bill were away, while not necessarily unethical, seems peculiarly mischievous. Although neither Shapiro nor Haywood left word to be notified of any potential hate crimes vote, they had no reason to. Up until Tuesday, the opponents had enough votes to block the measure despite the absence of two of their number. The fact that Republican Lt. Governor Bill Ratliff allowed the bill onto the calendar with two of his colleagues—indeed, members of his own party—absent is particularly unsettling. Two years ago, the Senate experienced a near meltdown over the hate crimes issue, being rescued only by quick and thoughtful action by then Lt. Governor Perry. Ratliff’s negligence in this instance may have threatened a Senate conflagration in a year when redistricting is on the table. Far from being an example of inappropriate meddling in Senate affairs, Perry’s call to Duncan may have saved the Senate from a legislative meltdown that would have made Chernobyl look tame by comparison. 

In this instance, Perry’s action deserves praise, not derision, while the work of the Senate (Republican) leadership leaves much to be desired.

To read the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram article on Ratliff’s response to Perry click here:
http://www.startelegram.com/news/doc/1047/1:STATE51/1:STATE510419101.html

To read the Austin American-Statesman’s brutal editorial on Perry’s actions, click here:
http://www.austin360.com/statesman/editions/friday/editorial_2.html

ELECTION REFORM BILL PASSED BY HOUSE WOULD PROVE FATAL TO VOTER GUIDES 
By passing legislation similar to the McCain-Feingold bill, the Texas House of Representatives may have taken the first step toward implementing true…(drum roll please)…incumbent protection legislation! Although touted as campaign finance reform, House Bill 2 by Representative Pete Gallego (D-Alpine) would strengthen the hand of incumbents by strengthening financial reporting requirements for campaigns, PACS, and non-profit interest groups such as Texas Eagle Forum. The net effect of these requirements will be a loss of interest by potential donors who do not want their names released via the internet, and increased power by incumbents who can generate headlines thanks to their elective offices. 

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of HB2, however, is the chilling effect it would have on free speech as a result of its definition of and limitations on “express advocacy.” HB2 defines express advocacy as “means of communication, other than a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of a broadcast station…(in other words, the media is exempted—big surprise here)…that advocates the election or defeat of a candidate by containing the name of the candidate…” The paragraph then goes on to list several phrases that would constitute express advocacy, among them phrases like, “vote for,” “cast your ballot for,” etc. The real danger of this definition is the fact that it defines communication as express advocacy if it contains the name of a candidate. By definition, non-profit groups like Texas Eagle Forum would have to avoid mentioning the name of any candidate for 60 days prior to an election, or be accused of participating in express advocacy.

In this case, being accused of engaging in express advocacy is akin to having an albatross hung about one’s neck. Groups that engage in this type of speech must report contributions from each individual whose aggregate gifts exceed $200 during the 60-day window to the Texas Ethics Commission. In addition, groups must report the donor’s address, principal occupation or job title, and employer name in order to meet TEC approval. An exception is made for voter’s guides so long as they are (a) distributed by a non-profit organization, and (b) devoid or express advocacy. Of course, mentioning a candidate’s name constitutes express advocacy, so these “voter’s guides” will consist of nothing but disembodied vote records—a slight inconvenience sure to drive readers to mild forms of confusion and hysteria. 

Needless to say, requiring non-profit groups to collect and then divulge such sensitive donor information would have a significant chilling effect on those who would like to contribute to these groups, but with the maintain anonymity. Such a result, in turn, would prove disastrous for free speech because of the aversion groups would have toward discussing policies in connection with a candidate’s name. In effect, the media would become the sole “objective” information broker during the final months of a campaign cycle, having the power to defenestrate candidates at will. This would not be a healthy development for free speech or representative government, and would probably violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. This being the case, HB2 should not be allowed to pass the Texas Legislature in anything close to its current form. 

PRE-NATAL PROTECTION ACT CLEARS SENATE COMMITTEE AFTER SUCCESSFUL HEARING 
Senate Bill 815 by Senator Ken Armbrister (D-Victoria) cleared the Senate Criminal Justice Committee on Wednesday, April 18 after being heard earlier in the day. The next stop for SB815 is the Senate floor, provided that it garners the 2/3 vote necessary to be brought up for consideration. Commonly referred to as the Pre-Natal Protection Act, SB815 would create civil and criminal liability for a third party who harms or kills an unborn child without the consent of the mother; abortion is explicitly mentioned as an exception in order to ward off any potential court challenge.  The House version of the Pre-Natal Protection Act, HB509 by Representative Ray Allen (R-Grand Prairie), had a hearing on Monday, April 23 in the House State Affairs Committee and has been left pending in committee for further consideration.

BILL THAT WOULD ELIMINATE TEXAS SODOMY LAW CLEARS HOUSE COMMITTEE 
House Bill 687 by Representative Debra Danburg (D-Houston) was approved by the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Wednesday, April 18, and is headed for the House Calendars Committee. Although supporters of the bill believe that the state’s sodomy law is archaic at best, and an unconstitutional infringement on the “fundamental right of privacy” at worst, the statute is expected to remain in place—and for good reason. Because Texas law forbids the teaching of illegal behavior, the sodomy law provides a firewall against the teaching of "homosexual values" in public school classrooms. In addition, the sodomy law casts doubt on whether same-sex unions performed in other states can be granted recognition by Texas courts by providing a conflict of laws with out-of-state statutes granted "marital" rights to homosexuals. Finally, the law creates a high hurdle for those who would like to see same-sex relationships de-stigmatized in a public forum. Earlier this year, the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston affirmed the constitutionality of the sodomy law by reversing an earlier ruling that had declared the law to be in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. The 14th Court of Appeals has demonstrated a clear understanding of the Legislature’s authority to define what the law should be; lawmakers must now exercise their authority in a responsible way on behalf of Texas families by refusing to pass HB687. 

For more on this issue, click here 
For more on the 14th Court of Appeals decision, click here and see “Brief Notes”

Brief Notes From Near and Far

GREAT DEBATE TIPS FOR THOSE ENGAGED IN POLEMICS WITH “PRO-CHOICERS”
Have you ever been frustrated in your attempts to win converts to the pro-life cause by the artless, bullying rhetoric of the pro-abortion crowd? Take heart, because a man by the name of Scott Klusendorf has provided a logical refutation of common pro-abortion claims in his article entitled “Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion.” He contends that pro-aborts often commit numerous logical faux pas, including (a) confusing objective claims with subjective ones, (b) using ad hominem arguments, (c) begging the question, and (d) disguising their true position by appealing to emotion. Please click on the following link to read the full article:

http://www.issuesetc.com/resource/archives/klsdorf1.htm 

Commentary - Statesmanship and Its Betrayal by Mark Helprin

Every so often, a writer comes along who has the power to galvanize one’s resolve without stooping to the depths of demagoguery. My favorite writer, Mark Helprin, can be counted among this select group. This essay, published in Hillsdale College’s Imprimis in April of 1998, delineates the characteristics of true statesmen and the shortcomings of those who euphemistically call themselves “moderates.” 

Statesmanship and Its Betrayal
Appears in Imprimis, April 1998

When Marco Polo entered Xanadu, the capital of the Great Khan, he crossed ring after ring of the outer city, each more splendid and interesting than the one that had come before. He was used to greatness of scale, having traveled to the limits of the ordered world and then doubled that distance into the unknown, where no European had ever set foot, over the Hindu Kush and beyond the Pamir, and through the immense empty deserts of central Asia. And yet after passing through the world's most ethereal regions he was impressed above all by Xanadu, a city of seemingly endless expanse, the end of which he could not see, no matter in which direction he looked. 

For almost a thousand years, this city floated at the peak of Western imagination. Unlike Jerusalem, it had vanished. Unlike Atlantis, someone had actually seen it. Even during the glory of the British Empire, Coleridge held it out for envy. But no more. Now it has been eclipsed, with ease, by this, our country, founded not as a Xanadu but with the greatest humility, and on the scale of yeomen and their small farms, and as the cradle of simple gifts.

This country was not expected to be what it became. It was expected to be infinite seeming in its rivers, prairies, and stars, not in cities with hundreds of millions of rooms, passages, and halls, and buildings a quarter-mile high. It was expected to be a place of unfathomable numbers, but of blades of grass and grains of wheat and the crags of mountains rather than millions upon millions of motors spinning and humming at any one time, and wheels turning, fires burning, voices talking, and lights shining. But this great inventory of machines, buildings, bridges, vehicles, and an incomprehensible number of smaller things, is what we have. A nation founded according to a vision of simplicity has become complex. A nation founded with disdain for power has become the most powerful nation. 

When letters took a month by sea and the records of the United States government could be moved in a single wagon pulled by two horses, we had great statesmanship. We had men of integrity and genius: Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Monroe. These were man who were in love with principle as if it were an art, which, in their practice, they made it. They studied empires that had fallen, for the sake of doing what was right in a small country that had barely risen, and were able to see things so clearly that they surpassed in greatness each and every one of the classical models that they had approached in awe. 

Now, lost in the sins and complexity of a Xanadu, when we desperately need their high qualities of thought, their patience for deliberation, and their unerring sense of balance, we have only what we have. Which is a political class that in the main has abandoned the essential qualities of statesmanship, with the excuse that these are inappropriate to our age. They are wrong. Not only do they fail to honor the principles of statesmanship, they fail to recognize them, having failed to learn them, having failed to want to learn them. 

In the main, they are in it for themselves. Were they not, they would have a higher rate of attrition, falling with the colors of what they believe rather than always landing on their feet—adroitly, but with dishonor. In light of their vows and responsibilities, this constitutes not merely a failure but a betrayal. And it is a betrayal not only of statesmanship and principle but of country and kin. 

Why is that? It is because things matter. Even though it be played like a game, by men who excel at making it a game, our life in this country, our history in this country, the sacrifices that have been made for this country, the lives that have been given for this country, are not a game. My life is not a game. My children's lives are not a game. My parents' lives were not a game. Your life is not a game. 

Yes, it is true, we do have great accumulated stores- of power, wealth and decency- against which those who pretend to lead us can draw when, as a result of their vanities and ineptitudes, they waste and expend the gifts of previous generations. The margin of error bequeathed to them allows them to present their failures as successes. 

They say, as we are still standing, and a chicken is in the pot, what does it matter if I break the links between action and consequence, work and reward, crime and punishment, merit and advancement? I myself cannot imagine a military threat (and never could), so what does it matter if I weld shut the silo hatches on our ballistic missile submarines? What does it matter if I weld shut my eyes to weapons of mass destruction in the hands of lunatics who are building long-range missiles? Our jurisprudence is the envy of the world, so what does it matter if, now and then, I perjure myself, a little? What is an oath? What is a pledge? What is a sacred trust? Are not these things the province of the kinds of people who were foolish enough to do without all their lives, to wear the ruts into the Oregon Trail, to brave the seas, to die on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima and on the battlefields of Shiloh and Antietam, for me, so that I can draw from America's great accounts, and look good, and be presidential, and have fun, in all kinds of ways? 

That is what they say, if not in words then, indelibly, in actions. They who, in robbing Peter to pay Paul, present themselves as payers and forget that they are also robbers. They who, with studied compassion, minister to some of us at the expense of others. They who make goodness and charity a public profession, depending for their election upon a well-mannered embrace of these things and the power to move them from not from within themselves or their own sacrifices, but, by compulsion, from others. They who, knowing very little or next to nothing, take pride in eagerly telling everyone else what to do. They who believe absolutely in their recitation of pieties not because they believe in the pieties but because they believe in themselves. 

Nearly four hundred years of America's hard-earned accounts- the principles we established, the battles we fought, the morals we upheld for century after century, our very humility before God- now flow promiscuously through our hands, like blood onto sand, squandered and laid waste by a generation that imagines history to have been but a prelude for what it would accomplish. More than a pity, more than a shame, it is despicable. And yet, this parlous condition, this agony of weak men, this betrayal and this disgusting show, are not the end of things. 

Principles are eternal. They stem not from our resolution or lack of it but from elsewhere where, in patient and infinite ranks, they simply wait to be called. They can be read in history. They arise as if of their own accord when in the face of danger natural courage comes into play and honor and defiance are born. Things such as courage and honor are the mortal equivalent of certain laws written throughout the universe. The rules of symmetry and proportion, the laws of physics, the perfection of mathematics, even the principle of uncertainty, are encouragement entirely independent of the vagaries of human will, that not only natural law but our own best aspirations have a life of their own. They have lasted through far greater abuse than abuses them now. They can be neglected, but they cannot be lost. They can be thrown down, but they cannot be broken. 

Each of them is a different expression of a single quality, from which each arises in its hour of need. Some come to the fore as others stay back, and then, with changing circumstance, those that have gone unnoticed rise to the occasion. 

Rise to the occasion. The principle suggests itself from a phrase, and such principles suggest easily and flow generously. You can grab them out of the air, from phrases, from memories, from images. 

A statesman must rise to the occasion. Even Democrats can do this. Harry Truman had the discipline of plowing a straight row ten, twelve, fourteen hours a day, of rising and retiring with the sun, of struggling with temperamental machinery, of suffering heat and cold and one injury after another. After a short time on a farm, presumptions about ruling others tend to vanish. It is as if you are pulled to earth and held there. 

The man who works the land is hard put to think that he would direct armies and nations. Truman understood the grave responsibility of being the president of the United States, and that it was too great a task for him or anyone else to accomplish without doing a great deal of injury—if not to some, then to others. He understood that, therefore, he had to transcend himself. There would be little enjoyment of the job, because he always had to be aware of the enormous consequences of everything he did. Contrast this with the unspeakably vulgar pleasure in office of President Clinton. 

Truman, absolutely certain that the mantle he assumed was far greater than he could ever be, was continually and deliberately aware of the weight of history, the accomplishments of his predecessors, and, by humble projection, his own inadequacy. The sobriety and care that derived from this allowed him a rare privilege for modern presidents, to give to the presidency more than he took from it. It is not possible to occupy the Oval Office without arrogantly looting its assets or nobly adding to them. May God bless the president who adds to them, and may God damn the president who loots them. 

America would not have come out of the Civil War as it did had it not been led by Lincoln and Lee. The battles raged for five years, but for a hundred years the country, both North and South, modeled itself on their character. They exemplified almost perfectly Churchill's statement, "Public men charged with the conduct of war should live in a continual stress of soul." 

This continual stress of soul is necessary as well in peacetime, because for every good deed in public life there is a counterbalance. Benefits are only given after taxes are taken. That is part of governance. The statesman, who represents the whole nation, sees in the equilibrium for which he strives a continual tension between victory and defeat. If he did not understand this, he would have no stress of soul, he would be merely happy—about money showered on the orphan, taken from the widow. About children sent to day care, so that they may be long absent from their parents. About merciful parole of criminals, who kill again. Whereas a statesman knows continual stress of soul, the politician is happy, for he knows not what he does. 

It is difficult for individuals or nations to recognize that war and peace alternate. But they do. No matter how long peace may last, it will end in war. Though most people cannot believe that the United States of America will ever again fight for its survival, history guarantees that it will. And, when it does, most people will not know what to do. They will believe of war, as they did of peace, that it is everlasting. 

The statesman, who is different from everyone else, will, in the midst of common despair, see the end of war, just as during the peace he was alive to the inevitability of war and saw it coming in the far distance, as if it were a gray wave moving quietly across a dark sea. 

The politician will revel with his people and enjoy their enjoyments. The statesman, in continual stress of soul, will think of destruction. As others move in the light, he will move in darkness, so that as others move in darkness he may move in the light. This tenacity, that is given to those of long and insistent vision, is what saves nations. 

A statesman must have a temperament that is suited for the Medal of Honor, in a soul that is unafraid to die. Electorates favor those who have endured combat, not as a matter of reward for service, as is commonly believed, but because the willingness of a soldier to give his life is a strong sign of his correct priorities, and that in future he will truly understand that statesmen are not rulers, but servants. It seems clear even in these years of squalid degradation that having risked death for the sake of honor is better than having risked dishonor for the sake of life. 

No matter what you are told by the sophisticated classes that see virtue in every form of corruption and corruption in every form of virtue, I think you know, as I do, that the American people hunger for acts of integrity and courage. The American people hunger for a statesman magnetized by the truth, unwilling to give up his good name, uninterested in calculation only for the sake of victory, unable to put his interests before those of the nation. What this means in practical terms is no focus groups, no polls, no triangulation, no evasion, no broken promises, and no lies. These are the tools of the chameleon. They are employed to cheat the American people of honest answers to direct questions. If the average politician, for fear that he may lose something, is incapable of even a genuine yes or no, how is he supposed to rise to the great occasions of state? How is he supposed to face a destructive and implacable enemy? How is he supposed to understand the rightful destiny of his country, and lead it there? 

At the coronation of an English monarch, he is given a sword. Elizabeth II took it last, and as she held it before the altar, she heard these words: 

Receive this kingly Sword, brought now from the altar of God and delivered to you by us, the Bishops and servants of God, though unworthy. With this Sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order; that doing these things you may be glorious in all virtue; and so faithfully serve our Lord. 

Would that we in America come once again to understand that statesmanship is not the appetite for power but—because things matter—a holy calling of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. We have made it something else. Nonetheless, after and despite its betrayal, statesmanship remains the manifestation, in political terms, of beauty, of balance, and truth. It is the courage to tell the truth, and thus discern what is ahead. It is a mastery of the symmetry of forces, illuminated by the genius of speaking to the heart of things. 

Statesmanship is a quality that, though it may be betrayed, is always ready to be taken up again merely by honest subscription to its great themes. Have confidence that even in idleness its strengths are growing, for it is a providential gift given to us in times of need. Evidently we do not need it now, but as the world is forever interesting the time will surely come when we do. And then, so help me God, I believe that, solely by the grace of God, the corrupt will be thrown down and the virtuous will rise up. 

Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list.

Phone: 972-250-0734
Fax: 972-380-2853
e-mail: ryanbangert@texaseagle.org
web: www.texaseagle.org