Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Current Edition
Texas Agriculture Archive

November 1, 2002

History shows two-party
system works best

By Gene Hall
Publisher

We don't get as much mail here at Texas Farm Bureau publications as say, a daily newspaper, but we do frequently get letters from members. This is extremely valuable to us. It's one of the best ways to get feedback on our work and to know if we are addressing the concerns of our members. The letter of praise is nice to get, but the criticism is even more valuable.

I always get some letters and e-mails following the big AgFund editions of our Texas Farm Bureau publications. This year has been no different. The bulk of that correspondence has been supportive, but some has been critical of the AgFund process.

In that light, I want to take this opportunity to briefly explain how AgFund works and the philosophy that drives these selections.

No one should mistake the endorsements of AgFund as "telling you how to vote." Much like the endorsements of a daily newspaper, our board of directors listens to candidates, applies the "test" of Farm Bureau policy, and receives the recommendations of County Farm Bureau Evaluation Committees. Each county Farm Bureau has the opportunity to participate in AgFund endorsements.

What I want to tell you at this point is a personal opinion. It is not possible for an agricultural organization to exclusively support the candidates of one party and remain true to its farm and ranch family members.

I have talked about my grandfather on these pages before. Next month will be the 110^th anniversary of his birth. He was alive to celebrate 101 of those. I miss talking to that hardworking East Texas farmer who brought the first tractor and first pickup hay baler to Newton County. He voted in every election and never for a Republican.

When I told him in 1980 that I intended to vote for Ronald Reagan, I made sure I was out of reach of his ever-present walking stick. I'm kidding about that, but such was his devotion to the still prevalent East Texas "yella dog Democrat" philosophy.

Some of the letters I've received recently suggest that AgFund has made a large mistake in endorsing some Democrats. People, parties and candidates are different. Straight ticket voting has never made much sense to me. Democrats who blindly support the rape of private property rights are not friends of agriculture. Neither are Republicans who allow private property to be taken for power lines without question or effort to find a better way.

Each candidate must be examined on the basis of what he or she has done, or proposes to do. Political parties have never been the monolithic and consistent models of policy that they would have you believe them to be.

There is only one reason to vote a straight ticket, and that is if you honestly believe in a single party's ability to govern effectively. I have never convinced myself that is true. I am a conservative man, and vote accordingly. From the historical perspective, however, two party government works pretty darn well. History suggests that one party in total power, with no effective counterweight of opposition, would govern badly.

Texas agriculture owes much to the actions of Larry Combest, Phil Gramm, Kay Bailey Hutchison, George W. Bush, Bill Ratliff, Rick Perry and many great Republican leaders. The same can be said for Charlie Stenholm, Bob Turner, Robby Cook, John Sharp, Pete Laney and many quality Democrats.

AgFund is not telling you how to vote. What these endorsements mean is that Farm Bureau leaders, at both the county and state level, have carefully examined each race and concluded that the candidates endorsed have demonstrated concern for farm and ranch families and backed it up with action. Party labels have very little to do with that.

On November 5, you should vote your conscience and your idea of the best interests of America.