Political Parties In Texas

It appears that political parties can't win per professional commentators and the general public. It is possible that they're in charge of causing divisions in society by being too partisan or they don't stand for anything since they represent too many diverse interests. These contradicting criticisms of parties are not new. Some of the Founders of the United States famously saw political parties as a source of intolerant spirit, which is a view that has continued in contemporary circumstances. At the same time, we frequently criticize parties for lacking any coherent political program. The long list of issue positions delivered by party committees is the outcome supposedly caused by the needs for parties to unite enough interests in order

to win more elections. This can also frequently appear to be driven by pragmatism as opposed to principle. Parties regularly do emphasize divisions in the society while still uniting multiple groups within the electorate. They can be driven by ideology, while also bowing to the practical need to build coalitions to win elections. Furthermore, their platforms frequently contain something for nearly everybody, at the expense of a clear and detailed vision. Despite all the complaints about parties, they perform roles that are critical to the operation of our democratic system and to the complete condition and functioning of our political system.
The political parties in Texas is marked by several unrestrained periods of struggle among competing groups and interests.

These have a lot to do with a struggle for independence from Mexico, Civil War inside the United States, the contentious post-Civil War Reconstruction period, a long and relatively stable post-Reconstruction period, a irritable struggle for civil rights for African-Americans, and a post-civil rights period of party change and obvious alliance. Over the period since original statehood in 1845, the constituencies and ideologies of the two main parties we know today have encountered significant changes. The Republican Party didn't exist in the United States until just before the Civil War, and hardly existed in Texas and the rest of the previous Confederacy for decades after

Reconstruction.
The Democratic Party advanced from a party carefully related to white racial supremacy to a coalition of groups that included African Americans and ethnic minorities, while the Republican Party gradually picked up majority status as a home for social conservatives. Both parties today remain economically conservative, resisting tax increases and guidelines on businesses, while advancing government support of business activities. Although the two major national parties have dominated electoral political issues in the state, Texas additionally brought forth significant third parties that affected national politics. The Populist Party existed from the 1880s to the 1910s and played a very important role both in the state and at the national level. Even more recently, H. Ross Perot established the Reform Party in the early 1990s. Other parties that have appreciated the support of a small yet dedicated number of citzens in the state consist of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, which got a little more than two percent of the vote in the 2000 presidential election.
Political parties play numerous critical functions and provide unequaled mechanisms for political organization and representation. Parties are regularly criticized for either fostering partisanship and providing a forum for ideologues or, conversely, for lacking intelligible vision. These criticisms are both true, but in isolation provide only a fractional understanding of the roles and evolution of the Texas party system. The struggle between moderates and more ideologically driven members provides part of the vitality that helps parties progress over time and keep their significant role in the state's political system. Whatever the criticisms leveled at them, political parties provide a critical mechanism for citizens of changing interests and means to associate with others, to pool their resources and to attempt to effect institutions at all levels of government. Throughout the history of the Lone Star State, various interests and coalitions of interests have used political parties as a reason for participating in politics and influencing government.
The pattern of successive party systems in Texas closely bear a resemblance to that seen in other states of the old Confederacy, except with a healthy drop of uniquely Texas flavor.

A Democratic Party long ruled by moderates and conservatives succeeded in stunting what seemed like the natural growth of a successful Republican Party until the 1990s. Since then, various forces have contributed to the growth of the Republicans, and in the end, to an altering of the core membership of each party. Most recently, the state has seen the development of a dominant Republican Party that doesn't yet hold quite the dominion the Democrats enjoyed through most of the twentieth century. The Republican Party has certainly benefited from the defection of former Democrats, the arrival of Republicans and independents from out of state, and organizational difficulties in the Democratic Party. Thus, Republican officials dominate state government, and Democrats find themselves reduced, for the present, to the status of an embattled minority party seeking to recreate themselves among their voting and financial constituencies. This is showing that the newfound Republican dominance can be the beginning of a new strong party system, or if we are in a state of transition in which the terms of political competition are still in change. If it is a new party system, I don’t think it will be very durable or last too long for that matter. Now, it seems that Republican dominance of state government will

continue for several years, but however, the pace of social and economic change in the state has moved even quicker considerably from the time when moderate and conservative Democrats could count on a stable base of support. Consequently, Republican dominance is unlikely to have the lifespan of the century-long Democratic hegemony.