Page Two

State reps Jack Stick and Todd Baxter deserve their very own 'Best of Austin' category

By Louis Black, Fri., Oct. 1, 2004

Best Political Cowards: Texas House Reps. Todd Baxter (District 48) and Jack Stick (District 50). In keeping with this issue, that should be the headline, though "Biggest Cowards" or "Laziest, Most Arrogant-Yet-Chicken Politicians" would be more appropriate. Just for the sheer cacophony of it, I'll add President Bush to that list, so delighted Republican loyalists can work up their Sturm und Drang over our out-of-control, deep-seated, psychotic hatred for him. Hey, why deal with substance when you can have a July-Fourth-fireworks-style stuttering fit over completely irrelevant and misleading charges? I'm not talking about ducking military obligations here (especially by those who support sending others to fight) nor below-the-belt name-calling as a crucial campaign position (as with Stick's calling a number of prominent area business leaders "anti-job-growth, anti-business ... activists" because they support his opponent). This title was not even earned by a legislative performance record focused more on power than responsibility, more on party than community, more on destroying those you disagree with then on social, economic, and fiduciary accountability. Sure, one may rationally decry a Legislature that gleefully sold its citizens down the river for the national party. Or a national administration that spends and spends with the self-destructively carefree abandonment of a serious addict self-convinced that he'll turn over a new leaf just as soon as the drugs run out. Those acts, though disgusting, aren't inherently cowardly.

Nope. Here we're talking debates. You know: "to dispute; hence, to discuss or examine." On a national level, the president has insisted on enough conditions to fill a document longer than the UN charter. The idea is to so denude the televised encounter of any potential for actual exchange, discourse, spontaneity, or controversial argument that a garden club's awards ceremony offers more depth. The president's team carefully studied Kerry's debating style and speaking skills, demonstrating as startlingly sophisticated an appreciation for nuance as they have shown for everything but making foreign policy or conducting domestic affairs. Almost all the restrictions in the document are designed not just to impede any real exchange of ideas but to blind, bind, and handicap Kerry. Now that takes guts!

As hard as it would have seemed, for this naive observer, to believe that the local Republican candidates could outdo their beloved commander in chief (no, not Karl Rove or Tom DeLay, the other guy), it was only because I underestimated their devotion to power over policy and party over democracy. After first having agreed to debate their opponents on public television station KLRU, Reps. Stick and Baxter decided that a free and open exchange of ideas was best saved for post-invasion Iraq, not wasted on a jaded Central Texas audience. They came back with a set of demands that recast the encounter as an opportunity to speechify instead of debate.

Their demand letter states, "The forum is used as an opportunity to convey a candidate's positions on issues and not to attack his or her opponent, and this should be stated at the outset of the program. Candidates are not permitted to listen to each other so as to avoid unfair advantage to either."

Now, let's all take a few moments together to marvel at this statement: "Candidates are not permitted to listen to each other so as to avoid unfair advantage to either."

This is a debate? Come on, this is a demonstration of intellectual and political cowardice that is stunning. Candidates shouldn't listen to each other because, God forbid, there might be an actual exchange about ideas. In that last sentence, I would have said any "actual discussion over ideas," but these candidates are so shameless that they conclude their letter by noting, "this format will allow each candidate a chance to participate in a thoughtful discussion at the same time."

This after they first disallow any discussion at all. You'd ask where they got the audacity if we didn't have the horrifying track record of what they've actually managed to get away with, not just staring us in the face but haunting our future. Strong, loyalist Republican supporters, especially those of the working classes, almost never acknowledge a misstep by their party, but a decade from now (or maybe even a lot sooner), let's check in with them on the state of the government and our society; I'll bet you'll hear a range of complaints, longer than a family of 10's shopping list, about government's failures, blaming the Democrats every step of the way. Roads, education, health care, mental health care, basic state services, and government infrastructure services will all fall far short of even moderate expectations. Certainly the problems will not be attributed to overly enthusiastic tax cuts, fictional budget balancing, and severely cut government services, but to Democratic policies, liberal pork, and general mismanagement.

These guys, running on a platform of cutting taxes while improving roads and education, are elected. The main policy initiative of the last session was carving up districts to better serve the Republican Party, costing the state seniority positions on congressional committees and consequently millions of dollars, as well as the dependent jobs – while pretending to cover a $10 billion budgetary shortfall by moving numbers around, rearranging dates, and disingenuously shifting appropriations doesn't even rate as "policy."

Not only do they get re-elected, but their supporters cheer them on. Why wouldn't they expect to get away with this assault on democratic discourse and the free exchange of ideas? President Bush certainly does.

The letter was actually signed by three candidates: Allan Askew, the Republican nominee running against incumbent Rep. Mark Rose in District 45, also signed. The political street take on this election is that Stick is in a tough contest for re-election against Mark Strama, with Baxter in a tense but not so tough battle with Kelly White. As incumbents with the advantage, it is certainly understandable that Stick and Baxter wouldn't want to have to actually defend their records in a public discussion of policy and ideas. But Askew is a challenger who needs all the exposure he can get. New Republicans, however, understand that their core obligation is to the good of neither the state nor its citizens. It is to serve the party. If this means undercutting one's own campaign, so be it. Hell, they recently neutered the state's power in Washington, D.C., so accepting one's disadvantage in a district race can hardly be considered even a sacrifice.

There's a Chronicle T-shirt in it for any one brave enough to endure the demagoguery of this talking-heads circle jerk and note how many times the Republicans bring up the Democrats leaving the state during the redistricting power plays. Certainly, these references won't be "attacks," but rather nonpartisan considerations of legislative performance. They'd certainly rather focus on that than education, health care, job training, sanitation, social services, and basic state government infrastructure.

The representatives are bullying KLRU, determined to make a mockery of debate and open, democratic discussion. They are the worst kinds of cowards and the most ideologically compromised of elected officials. They betray the basic ideas of the Constitution that this country has been built upon. Let us, if nothing else, rise up and ridicule them. Not for Stick's Joe McCarthy-esque tactics of dishonestly labeling those who disagree with him in an attempt to tar them, but for failing in their obligation to the principles of the United States Constitution and its basic ideals, upon which this country has been built. I know this is the "Best Of" issue, but in reality the category should be: "Embarrassing, Cowardly Performance by Elected Officials to a Democratically Chosen Legislative Body: Reps. Todd Baxter and Jack Stick."

(With a special notation for the restriction "Candidates are not permitted to listen to each other ...".)

Okay, so this is our "Best of" issue. The staff has been working on it for months. Thousands of readers voted. The result is a wide-ranging collection of items that should serve as an introduction to the wonders that are Austin – not a conclusive pronouncement of quality, but an extended opening ploy in all of our ongoing discussions and explorations of this town. As always, I tip my hat to all those businesses, artists, people, services, locations, and entities that enrich my life on an ongoing basis but that have been left out (of this round at least). Most of the staff, I hope, feels the same: that this Austin Chronicle 2004 appreciation is, in itself, a beginning and – as the latest in our annual series of "Best of" issues – part of the ongoing celebration of Austin rather than any kind of closing argument.

Already much of this issue has been authored by you, the readers who voted. The next step – reading the issue – is all yours: discovering new businesses and places as well as revisiting longtime favorites. Finally, your corrections, comments, outrage, suggestions, indignation, and celebration are all welcome – so send them in to us.

One last note: Anyone who has any kind of significant interest in modern American filmmaking should really check out John Sayles' new film, Silver City. Shortchanged by many American critics (in my opinion), the film is rich in characters, brilliant performances, dialogue, and ideas. In this time, during this administration, in the face of Orwellian newspeak and broad-based limits placed on the free exchange of ideas, any work that is so brave as to be as politically outspoken as Silver City is deserves our attention. But I also found it just great fun to watch.