Monday, April 26, 2010

Republican Bipartisanship and President Obama

The following is an essay I wrote for a Political Science class this semester. Domestic and local politics have been the foci of recent entries, but the next entry will pertain to foreign affairs. I plan to examine Middle East politics, with special attention to Turkey. Stay tuned.

For now, here is my case for bipartisanship:

Introduction

Solomon Yue, a member of the Republican National Committee in Oregon, effectively described the fundamental need of his party when he said, “articulating a political philosophy is equally important as applying it consistently.”[1] Because Republicans need to articulate and apply their principles as Mr. Yue suggests, I firmly believe in the necessity of the party’s cooperation with President Barack Obama on a bipartisan basis. To best articulate and apply their principles, Republicans must engage in bipartisanship for the benefit of their political ideology, their party’s long-term health, and the functionality of the United States government as a whole. To make the wrong decision by rejecting any notion of cooperation with the president would mean the continuation of a long and painful spiral of political brinkmanship fueled by a conflict-hungry and polarized media and American public. Bipartisanship, despite being rarely conducted in a spirit of fellowship across gulfs of opinion, should lead to a needed reaffirmation of American values and trendsetting as one of the world’s most dynamic and healthy democracies.

Claims to Compromise

The first key reason I believe Republicans serve to benefit from bipartisan work with President Obama is the president’s willingness to compromise. President Obama’s policy agenda contains three main centrist elements that make bipartisan cooperation from the GOP worthwhile. In foreign policy, the president followed through on policies such as troop increases in Afghanistan, protection of some wiretapping operations, and an increasingly hard line on U.S.-Iran relations that are all supported by the Republican platform. In energy policy, President Obama put forward proposals to allow for nuclear energy loan guarantees, expanded offshore drilling, and clean coal power initiatives, all of which are issues espoused far more by Republicans than Democrats. Finally, in economic policy, the president passed tax breaks for job creation and promised incentives to small businesses and loans to community banks, both issues supported by Republicans. If the Republicans cooperate on these issues, then they can lay claim to victory on certain policies and strengthen their ideological foundation for long-term direction in their platform.

Adding to the benefits of Republican compromise with President Obama is his renewed efficacy as the nation’s policy leader. Emerging from the shadow of a Democratic Congress that assumed the face of domestic policy, the president recently “took charge, and started doing all the things he ought to have been doing a lot earlier.”[2] A bitterly divided Congress with approval ratings dipping as low as 14% in a recent CBS poll is not the place for Republicans to begin efforts at bipartisanship. Instead, looking to a president with renewed control over policy issues who is also willing to compromise is the best option for the party.

Fiscal Conservatism and Moderation

The second key reason the GOP should cooperate with President Obama through bipartisanship is the benefits the party would reap in electoral politics in the long run. While this may seem counterintuitive, given the current political climate of the United States, an examination of trends in the electorate substantiates the claim. When presenting an image of obstructionism, typified by Republican members of Congress waving Crayola marker-made signs from Capitol balconies to protest health legislation, the GOP plays directly into the hands of antiestablishment anger and inflamed anti-Democrat rhetoric. Staunch Republicans argue that capitalizing on such anger with broad and radical promises of dismantling government programs and dramatically reducing taxes means success in the 2010 midterm elections. Indeed, the Republican National Committee and different ad hoc conservative organizations around the country considered implementing, and did implement informally in some cases, a checklist for lawmakers to test their conformity to hard line ideology, with the end goal of purging “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs) from the political ranks at all levels of government. While I agree that there would be short-term gain from this approach, the Republican Party could not sustain support from such antagonism, as the movement would lose momentum soon after economic recovery and greater stability set in after 2010.

Instead, the party would be best served by the bipartisan appeal of moving to a pragmatic center-right stance. As young people in the party’s evangelical base become less socially conservative and more pluralistic[3], other issues of importance to conservatives like economics and the role of government will have increasing relevance in the future. By working more flexibly with President Obama, the GOP can tie itself to long-term policy issues like the reform of government entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. As these programs face an impending lack of sustainability and associated government debt rises precipitously, a cooperative and solutions-oriented Republican Party could realistically frame the desire for less government and reduced spending in the context of such political discussions.

The American electorate would respond well to a fiscally conservative platform from the GOP in the future. Since the election of President Obama in November 2008, the percentage of the public “very worried” about their long-term financial future increased from 38% to 50%, according to a Associated Press/Gfk poll. The case of British politics illustrates the ability of a center-right group, like the Tories, to present a viable and pragmatic alternative to economic problems handled badly under the existing Labor government. The Tories project to win in called British elections in upcoming months. Furthermore, the Tories largely divorced themselves from far right radical movements like the British National Party (BNP), just as the GOP could do in 2010 by distancing the party from the radicalized Tea Party movement. While campaign platforms that appeal to the inflamed minority appear beneficial in the short run, bipartisanship and political moderation will assuredly help the long term efficacy of the Republican Party as an organization.

"Scratch My Back..."

The final major reason why the Republican Party should work with the president on a bipartisan basis is the benefits such an approach would bring to the functionality of American government itself. With the benefits of cooperation already proven, and the trends showing a tilt towards future fiscally conservative policies, I strongly believe that the GOP could buy political insurance for the future through bipartisanship. With the threat of filibustering from Republicans, Democrats used parliamentary techniques like budget reconciliation to bypass the need for cloture, and with Republican blocking of presidential nominees, which crippled organizations like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the party is not establishing a productive precedent for the potential of acceding to the majority in 2010 or 2012. In the operation of Congress, quid pro quo and reciprocity are fundamental values. If Republicans continue obstructing legislation, Congressional Democrats will have every incentive to do the same if they fall to minority stature.

Not only will bipartisanship restore the value of legislative reciprocity and pave the way for a brighter future for a Republican political agenda in Congress, it will also unclog other pathways to action in the government. Unwilling to compromise and using harsh political statements to berate Democrats over healthcare legislation, Republicans in many ways shut themselves out of the lawmaking process. Without sufficient GOP input into the reform, a succession of alienated Republican governors and state attorneys general promised to block the implementation of new state-based health policies from Washington. The drawing of lines in the sand in this way will only lead to a conflict over federalism and a protracted and widespread battle over the issue in the court system. Bipartisanship, therefore, operates as a preventive measure for long and expensive conflict in other pathways of political change. I firmly uphold the value of such preventive measures to save time and funds, and therefore see an even greater necessity for Republican bipartisanship.

Consideration and Conclusion

Before concluding, I must respond to an underlying critique that bipartisanship from the GOP is equivalent to “selling out” the party’s core values. Considering my previous points, bipartisanship upholds Republican core values far better than refusal to compromise does. If Republicans wish to turn their values into policy, my contentions show that bipartisanship upholds more conservative policy from a Democratic president, a national trend of fiscal conservatism, and the ability of Republican lawmakers to implement core values in the future.

The great political philosopher John Stuart Mill advocated political cooperation when he said, “it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the truth has any chance of being supplied.”[4] While my beliefs on the necessity of bipartisanship for long-run health of Republican ideology, party sustainability, and governmental functionality will not come to fruition in a world where political strategists want to exploit the trends of the moment to win a single election, it is important to present firm and logical arguments for rationality in the American political scene. If Republicans cooperate with President Obama on a bipartisan basis, not only will they be more able to articulate and apply the principles advocated by Solomon Yue, they will also bring to light greater political truths, as Mill believed, leading to a stronger and more dynamic policy future for the world’s premier example of a strong and dynamic democracy.



[1] Fund, John, “Wall Street Journal Political Diary” December 31, 2008 http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/1956-Oregon-delegate-Solomon-Yue-makes-WSJ-quote-on-GOP-revolt.html

[2] The Economist, “Now What?” March 25, 2010 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15770733

[3] Allen, Bob, “Researcher: Young evangelicals shun 'conservative' label, embrace 'justice'” May 14,2009 http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4077/53/

[4] Mill, John Stuart, “On Liberty” London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Half Mast: Patriotism and Civic Engagement

Most recent entries to this blog involve a carefully moderated and neutral perspective on issues both national and international. As a result, they are evidence-laden and research-oriented. This entry has a more normative focus, less research, and more call for broad solutions from a basis of personal values. Keep that in mind while reading.

A Parable


It's been a long day at work today. When the clock hits five, it's time to make the grinding commute through interchanges and gridlock to the quiet, welcoming seclusion of one's own property. Thank goodness that there's news and talk shows on the radio to block out the noise of other cars. A text message from home says to stop and get take-out.

Turning onto the street now. The neighbor is out mowing the lawn, but the car is too quick into the garage to allow for a chance to ask him about his daughter's upcoming graduation. Oh well. She'll probably have a big party soon, and people will hear it happening. The triathlon runner down the street is out training again, too. It would be nice to know when the next big race is, but the music from the headphones is too loud to allow for asking. Wasn't she getting a divorce, too?

Inside now, greet the family, set down the take-out boxes, drop in on the kids playing their video games, asking if they've finished their homework. Did they enjoy soccer practice? Maybe. Their vague and stunted responses while immersed in a game are hard to decipher. The refrigerator started leaking today, too. Hopefully Home Depot or Lowe's will have someone who knows what's going on. Maybe even their websites can help with the answer. The baseball game is on tonight. Much better than watching the news. The radio already took up enough time with that subject.

Dinner conversation is on the muted side tonight. The first pitch should be thrown soon. The opening notes of The Star-Spangled Banner blast forth from the TV as they have so many times before. The kids talk about school as a commercial break starts. There's been another spat of bullying that the counselors can't handle. One of the kids lost their lunch money in class and no one would admit to having taken it.

Didn't see the mailer from the mayoral candidate earlier. What's their position on big national issues? Can't support them if they lean a certain way. Oh well. The game's getting good now, bottom of the sixth and tied 5-5. This weekend will be nice. Have to dust off those bookshelves though, guests coming next week. Time to think about bed, more meetings tomorrow.

Themes and Thanks

The story just told is an intentional extreme meant to exemplify the ills of the 21st-century American civic culture. While this lifestyle trend set in gradually and generally unnoticed by successive generations born in the 1980s and 1990s, it has drastic social implications in the small and large picture, and the short and long run.

The following consideration of the decline of American civic culture and its effects on patriotism will carefully scrutinize:

(1) Indicators of and explanations for the status quo of declining civic culture,
(2) Solutions for policymakers, and
(3) Solutions for communities and individuals.

The works of Harvard scholar Robert Putnam (via Robert Pekkanen) and Princeton scholar Maurizio Viroli regarding the relationship between society and government especially influenced my consideration of this subject. Many thanks to them for spurring my mind to action!

Flagging Civics

To many Americans, the tendencies exhibited in the parable do not seem harmful. However, the isolation facilitated by such courses of action leads to a decline in civic participation, less awareness and appreciation for democratic heritage, and reduced trust and reciprocity between individuals.

What's happening: Robert Putnam's work on social capital validates this assertion, providing the bridge between day-to-day interaction and government. Putnam's social capital, which is the collective strength of mutual relationships and the associated trust they bring, shows that governments in areas with low social capital (high isolation) are far less likely to function properly and have accountability to their constituents. The lack of social capital also challenges people's sense of commitment to the true ideals of their country, and their genuine patriotism.

Examples of declining social capital in the parable include: listening to the radio for political opinions instead of actively forming one's own opinion, not talking to the neighbors about even the most mundane subjects, looking to buy repair materials instead of asking around (think Dagwood and Herb in Blondie), bullying and petty theft in young school age children, disconnection with local politics, use of television as a substitute for recreational human interaction or mental engagement through reading, and other small details.

Why it's happening: The status quo, therefore, is demonstrably harmful. However, understanding why these trends occur is critically important. Putnam labels the changing family, suburbanization, and privatized leisure as the principle factors in declining social capital. Indications of these factors abound beyond the above anecdotes from the parable. Americans routinely fail civic literacy tests, showing a disconnect with democratic heritage and patriotism. More and more children live with single parents and fragmented families, placing social stress on their early lives. Ubiquitous electronic entertainment drives people, especially children, to spend increasing time with just themselves, reducing the need for direct social interaction and peer involvement that is most beneficial for maturation.

(Associated with new forms of entertainment is the role of the modern media and its implications for society and civic engagement. I wrote about this last August in this entry.)

The outlook appears dire. However, participation could just be changing forms with no net negative effect on social capital. I disagree. Increasing isolation dissuades individuals from acting to solve problems. Internet message boards and blogs (irony? probably) produce material that seems to operate like military products operate in the economy of Orwellian Airstrip One: maximizing productivity while minimizing actual production. New-media activism for philanthropic purposes only creates the illusion of more sophisticated and informed participation in causes. The same problems still exist. Even the media-savvy campaign team of Barack Obama in 2008 relied on armies of volunteers on foot to effectively canvass in innovative ways.

With social capital and civic engagement flagging down to half-mast, solutions are necessary. Government and local communities can provide them.

"From the Government and Here to Help"

With patriotism and social bonds on the decline, the federal government can employ different strategies to foster greater love for country among its citizens. Often, indirect government action can be the best way to effect change, rather than direct and restricting legislation.

Maurizio Viroli in his book, Republicanism, advocated for a return to the ideals of classical republicanism found in Renaissance Italy. The relevant aspect of his work is his discourse on patriotism. Patriotism, according to Viroli, comes from an understanding and respect of a nation's democratic institutions. Respect for these institutions comes best from distributive justice, as Viroli states that "[for] citizens to love their republic and its laws, then the republic and its laws must equally protect all of them." Justice as equal protection and accountability under the law is intimately tied with a meritocratic state, which is predicated on equal opportunity. To act as a government with justice in the context of honest and clear-sighted understanding (avoid revisionism) of American heritage is a paramount responsibility of government.

Not only should the government uphold justice and merit in its actions, it should also establish an educational policy that upholds these values. The American culture of activism and social justice above all can at times beget revisionism out of the desire for moral security. Perhaps prioritizing a classical education with a focus on democratic heritage and institutions while viewing activism and social justice movements in the context of that heritage will improve civic literacy and patriotism.

Furthermore, the government should pointedly avoid creating an excessively nationalist tone. Synthesizing physical characteristics with the intangible love of republican institutions and justice undermines true patriotism. Viroli explains that patriotism and valuing citizenship "does not bloom on the branch of cultural or ethnic or religious homogeneity." Historically, efforts at implementing nationalist ideology ignorant of diversity have led to violence or regionalist reaction. In his book, Mexican National Identity, Michael Beezley discussed how the efforts of dictator Porfirio Diaz (1876-1910) to create a universal Mexican identity failed, and nationalists that celebrated diversity with common citizenship took power in the Mexican Revolution.

To eliminate cookie-cutter nationalism, not only should a civics-based education be encouraged, but the federal government should encourage local organizations to teach young citizens in school more about their communities and microcosms of democracy, upholding federalism and some local autonomy. After all, Reagan was the source of this section's header.

"They're Asleep All Across America"

Local autonomy is important because both broader patriotism and a reinvigoration of social capital come from community action. It is in regular interaction with one's townfolk that bonds of trust form. Maurizio Viroli cited a theorist in stating that "true patriotism is found in the city hall." Awareness of local issues and the election of officials best suited to handle local issues make the most difference for any given community. For it is local policy that makes the most impact on day-to-day living: schools, zoning, recreation, etc. People can often become too focused on large issues that have little impact at home, forsaking the foundations of a democracy by neglecting city councils and neighborhood associations. If communities function well together, patriotism and engagement on a larger scale becomes much more achievable.

Communities can also be defined beyond geographical terms and framed as ethnic groups. Technology can be used in a positive way to allow ethnic groups to reconnect and further their own priorities as a subunit, just as a specific geographic location ought to focus on its local interests. The impacts of ethnic community involvement are profound, particularly in terms of economic growth. Therefore, promoting community involvement in both traditional and unorthodox ways is in the best interest of policymakers.

Ultimately, individuals are the beginning of social capital. Working on teams, joining extracurricular activities such as clubs and sports from an early age, committing to a community cause that involves direct and regular action, holding neighborhood block parties, sitting on the front porch more often, inviting the new family on the block over for dinner, or just taking a run without the headphones in: all of these simple activities lay the foundations for trust, reciprocity, and basic democratic values while never leaving the suburban environment. Arising to involvement in this way also reduces susceptibility to demagogues, Maurizio Viroli claims, as isolated individuals will heed their own opinions or close their social circle to only those that continually reaffirm their belief system.

One more question needs to be asked: can new sources of information and media be utilized in a positive way that increases social capital? As with suburbanization, the answer is that no one development is intrinsically harmful. The real test of its impacts is how it is used. For example, the use of the Internet as a means to coordinate and lubricate the flow of information instead of supplanting human contact and the processing and development of the information itself is a worthwhile application. New growth of social capital can occur in the current reality of the 21st-century United States.

If individuals awake across America to their need for a greater amount of socialization and building bonds of trust, patriotism and civic engagement will greatly benefit.

Broad Stripes and Bright Stars

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Enlightenment theorist, accurately described what a state needs to function when he said:
"The fatherland lies in the relations between the state and its members; when these relations change or fail, the fatherland ceases to exist."
Therefore, valuing justice, education, community vitality, and individual involvement will uphold the relations between the state and its members, countering isolation and decline in social capital by building trust and awareness. With these prescriptions, the United States can witness the flag of its vibrant democracy raised proudly and patriotically from half-mast to its pinnacle.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

The Souls of Texan Folk

The greatest eroding force in the world is human history.

Mankind chews up and spits out its past, taking apart the old for a a desirable new. Yesterday passes from memory to library, and from library to scholarship, from scholarship to history textbook, and from history textbook into the dusty corners of the collective human conscience. And there the memories are made again for future generations. As the process is repeated over and over again, the window of knowledge about a time period narrows and narrows, until thousands of years in the future, it is almost entirely forgotten. Such are the works of man.

I wanted to undercut this eroding process in the most effective way possible. Thus, I ventured into what has become the forgotten past, and in part what is now the forgotten present. Texas was my destination. Or more precisely, the four counties Parker, Palo Pinto, Young, and Jack. In the mold of W.E.B. DuBois, who traversed the Deep South at the turn of the century to immerse himself in issues of racial inequality, I ventured into the Texas farm and ranchlands. What DuBois said a century ago equipped me:
"We can only learn by intimate contact with the masses, and not by wholesale arguments, covering millions separate in time and space, and differing widely in training and culture."
Fittingly, the title of this entry is inspired by the book that resulted from DuBois' Southern encounters, The Souls of Black Folk. Here is The Souls of Texan Folk (in a day).

Of Forts and Frontiersmen

Introduction
In Jacksboro, Texas, there exists a lens into one of the most dramatic and celebrated times in American history. Fort Richardson operated from 1867-1878, a formative and often chaotic period of warfare between American settlers and frontier bands of Comanches, Kiowas, and the like. What transpired at Fort Richardson during its short period of service to the United States serves as a launching point for understanding Texas history.

Independence Era
Wars against the natives of Texas were inevitable as the first American settlers, with the permission of Mexico, blazed trails out of the Eastern woodlands and into the rolling hills of the cross timbers ecological zone in the early 19th century. The woodland Indians, tribes of Caddo and other relatively sedentary agrarian societies, did not give prolonged difficulty to the advancement of American settlement. Thousands of Americans thus filled East Texas by the 1830s, farming and raising livestock in fertile lands around the many rivers flowing to the Gulf of Mexico.

Demographic tensions and provocations from the Mexican government led to the Texan demands for autonomy, and the ensuing Texan War of Independence. Armed with a declaration of independence and grievances, drafted in March, 1836, the Texans established protection from Indian raids as a key priority of their new government. For, as they saw it, the Mexicans had "incited the the merciless savage, with the tomahawk and the scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants of our defenseless frontiers."

Statehood and Fort-Building
As Texas operated as an independent nation from 1836 to 1845, its leaders adopted different policies towards the Indians of the region, who conducted regular raids on frontier farmers to steal horses and provisions. While Texas hero Gen. Sam Houston preferred policies of negotiation and diplomacy to end hostilities, his successor as President of Texas, Mirabeau B. Lamar, sought to exterminate all Indian presence in Texas. This policy had some success, but the most fearsome bands of Comanche still roamed the plains.

When Texas joined the United States in the 1840s, Indian relations were still a problem. To secure the frontier, a host of forts sprung up in the 1850s, garrisoned by federal troops. These forts had to cover huge swaths of land from mobile Comanche bands that could project their particular tribe's raiding power hundreds of miles eastward. Kidnappings and deaths occurred, but the line of forts pushed West, as garrisons like Phantom Hill, Mason, and McKavett housed both infantry and cavalry units to protect local residents. All of this unraveled, however, with the secession crisis of 1860-1861.

Secession, Reconstruction and Grant's Follies
With the formation of the Confederate States of America and Texas' joining thereof, the federal troops did not have the blessing of Texas' people. Confederate units took over security as they could, peacefully ousting the federals. However, lack of manpower for the frontier took a heavy toll on Texas frontier residents from 1861-1865. Texans did participate in forays into New Mexico with other Confederate units, and conducted friendly relations with Mexico during this period, but could not preserve frontier security.

After the Civil War and the arduous years of Reconstruction, while politics tore apart successive governments in Austin, the United States worked to reclaim the frontier for its citizens. This is where Fort Richardson came into play. The frontier line had fallen back to the East, but the new forts soon pushed Comanche influence back towards the high plains. The Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867 stymied military pressure under President Ulysses S. Grant's mandate, but Indian raids continued.

Grant also implemented the "Quaker Peace Policy" in the late 1860s, designed to encourage peaceful resettlement on large reservations far from areas populated by Americans, with oversight from Quaker officials. The condition was that the government provide rations to the inhabitants of the reservations, and other federal support. When the condition was not met, the raids began again, with dissatisfied Comanches again harassing the frontier inhabitants of Texas. Civil War veterans like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman witnessed this policy failure. Soon, many lobbied for the revocation of the Quaker peace initiative.

Victory, But How?
When the Quaker Peace Policy ended in the early 1870s, forts like Richardson projected their power with maximum effectiveness and soon drove Comanche tribes out of Texas, along with other native groups. The climactic Battle of Palo Duro Canyon ended most incursions. The Texas frontier had been won.

The winning of the frontier did not occur in some thoroughly romantic fashion, however. The garrisons of places like Fort Richardson often suffered more deaths from alcoholism and dysentery than those from battle. Soldiers deserted, became infected with venereal disease from local places of ill repute, and longed for some real sense of battle. Life was lonely and hard on the Texas plains in the 1860s and 1870s. As progress moved necessity elsewhere, the forts shuttered, becoming monuments to a forgotten era and lifestyle.

Progress and Possibility: Texas Today

Urbanization and Modernity
The second key part of my trip was the investigation of the modern state of living in the aforementioned counties. Oil and cattle, long the economic engines of Texan development and prosperity, become more centralized and lost relative importance with the growth of new industry and big urban centers in the 1960s. The interstate highway system bypassed hundreds of towns that once held major thoroughfares. The heritage and condition of small-town Texas fades more with each passing year for these reasons. It is the erosion of human history.

In a researching state of mind, the question framed is this: "How has small-town Texas responded to the modernization and urbanization of the past four decades?" (The independent variable is town leadership, and the dependent variable is conservatism) The answer to this question stems in large part from a conversation I had with a staff member at Fort Richardson. An important note is that conservatism in this context simply means reluctance to change, not American political conservatism.

I will examine briefly two case studies: the thirty-mile separate towns of Jacksboro, county seat of Jack County, and Graham, county seat of Young County.

Jacksboro
Situated at a major crossroads about an hour northwest of Fort Worth, Jacksboro is a town that should have been poised to benefit from mass movement into Texas, given its strategic location and historic ties. It is, besides being the location of Fort Richardson, the town that produced a TCU All-American football player and a TCU head football coach, Abe Martin. However, this is not the case. The population of Jacksboro has scarcely changed over the past fifty years, resting steadily at around 4500.

The staff member at Fort Richardson, a longtime resident of Jacksboro, attributes this to the intense conservatism of the town, or more appropriately, town leadership. He related a story from several years ago told by the then-96-year-old pastor at the Church of Christ. The pastor told the staff member, "I've been in this town since 1922, and they still know me as an outsider." The prevailing mentality is that one must be a native son to be accepted, even in the most extreme cases.

This mentality is not conducive to welcoming outside development and investment, and in such a small town, the attitudes of a powerful few carry a stranglehold on local policy. Jacksboro's town square appears relatively dilapidated and worn, as the people seem to care not for outward appearance, staying inside much as they have stayed inside their own little world for fifty years or more. The Ft. Richardson staff member told me that many young Jacksboro residents have never traveled farther than Wichita Falls, an hour north, in their lives. Many have never even been to or seen the Dallas-Fort Worth area, yet they drive trucks that could take them there for any purpose in forty-five minutes.

Intense conservatism not only stagnates growth, it also has counterproductive tendencies. Jack County held the status of a "dry," no alcohol county for many years, and no one on the town leadership wished for that to change. Even as Jacksboro High School students became more assertive on alcohol consumption and drove to nearby Graford, in "wet" Palo Pinto County, incurring many DWI deaths along the way, the leadership would not relent. The staff member told me how, come election day, senile residents of local nursing homes would be almost pulled from their wheelchairs by the intensely conservative town leadership to vote on keeping Jack County dry.

Such harsh austerity and conservatism in the face of changing times drove Jacksboro inward. But, as the staff member told me, small town differences can be "like night and day" in Texas. Enter the town of Graham.

Graham
Located thirty miles West of Jacksboro on U.S. Hwy 380, Graham, TX is an out-of-the-way small town gem close to Possum Kingdom Lake. It does not have the major highway convergences of Jacksboro, nor any nearby forts of places of great historical note. Yet its population is currently double that of Jacksboro, and the town is thriving.

An aesthetic view of Graham places it far higher than its neighbor in Jack County. Graham claims to have the "largest town square in America," a square that is beautifully kept and lined with well-preserved storefronts. A crisp and shining memorial to veterans of all wars stands in front of the courthouse. The streets of Graham are clean and shaded, and stately old homes line the main roads. Civic pride radiates from every block. Graham possesses a far greater amount of business development as well.

The town leadership of Graham clearly brought in this outside investment and maintained a strong culture even as the forces of time threatened to siphon its livelihood away. The high school has a thriving theater department that regularly sends students to Texas colleges on scholarship in theater production. The town also recently attracted as its high school football coach Brad McCoy, father of former Texas Longhorns quarterback Colt McCoy. Colt's brother Case graduated from Graham High School and followed his brother to Austin. Graham is quintessential Texas.

As Jacksboro's austerity drives it inward, Graham demonstrates what small town Texas must do to survive in a world that increasingly wants to pass it by. Flexible leadership that does not demand unreasonable opposition to business development, preserves the core identity of the town and welcomes outsiders (like the well-known Brad McCoy, unlike Jacksboro's reminder that its pastor of fifty years or more was an outsider) proves instrumental to a town's vitality.

A Lone or Lonely Star?

Texan identity, forged in independence and in the hardy souls of frontier settlers, can be best preserved in the small communities and county seats that dot the state. Just as the lonely Indian fighters sat at Fort Richardson in the 1870s, watching the frontier conflict pass them by, so too sits small town Texas. Will it despair, drive itself inwards, and desert? Or will it instead seize its moment of glory that it dreams for in earnest, even as human history dramatically molds the landscape all around in new and ever-changing ways? The souls of Texan folk must answer.