The Texas Left: The Radical Roots of Lone Star Liberalism (review)

David Cullen and Kyle Wilkison, history professors at Collin College, have edited a rich tapestry depicting two centuries of Texans' struggles for a deeper democracy. These eleven essays comprise thoughtful conversations the fourteen authors have with preceding authors in the field. The editors' introductory essay surveys changes in Texas historiography that serve as a prelude to this reexamination of Texas's history. The writers' recurring themes are equality, disenfranchisement, poverty, and economic opportunity, stirred by populist and socialist movements and labor unions.

Traditional Texas history is frequently iconography—the Alamo, cowboys, the frontier, oil—and too often depicts segregation and white supremacy as sidepieces, while minimizing crucial figures covered in this volume (e.g., Lucy Gonzales Parsons, Joshua Hicks, Emma Tenayuca); these observations are particularly ironic in a time when the State Board of Education is whitewashing history and excluding the few leftists or minorities that have cameo appearances in textbooks. If this new contribution is to enrich the study of history, what would it use in the place of iconography? It could have focused on the politics of group identity—class or race and ethnic status. But to their credit, the writers incorporate these crucial identity aspects within the larger framework of the organization of power. Cullen and Wilkison begin by defining the Texas Left as "a political movement with the avowed ends of a more equal and humane society through reform, restructure, or a revolution of the economic or social system," emphasizing those with sufficient following to influence change (6).

Gregg Cantrell's exploration of the populist movement of the 1870-90s hits home even today. His description of populists' core belief—"the incompatibility of monopoly with true democracy" (69)—can be heard today in the voices of Texans like Ronnie Dugger, Bill Moyers, and Jim Hightower. Likewise, Carl Moneyhon documents the post-Civil War fight for expanded franchise as a defensive move: if blacks could not vote, then the status quo would continue, and those in power would continue their abuses; then and now, voting rights are crucial pieces in the game to rearrange power blocs.

A dilemma for edited volumes is that the chapters can appear as unconnected puzzle pieces. Here, though, the editors and authors have done a fine job of connecting the threads of history and complementing the companion pieces. Cantrell shows that the Populist Party grew out of both the Farmers Alliance and parallel labor union efforts. George Norris Green recounts a brief history of Texas unions, nicely weaving together the social and economic dynamics that have long stymied the Left: "Class warfare was waged far better by the capitalists than by the workers, through control of the state or at least powerful influence over it, and the use of naked force, open-shop drives . . . successful court cases, [and] racial and gender discrimination" (94). He notes bluntly that "labor solidarity splintered in the face of racism and fear of radicalism" (93). Bruce Glasrud and Gregg Andrews also describe successful biracial efforts with populists and unions—but how, ultimately, racism split the movements. Arnoldo De León argues that for Mexican Americans, land, education, labor abuse, and violence were the focal issues, with respect and justice the desired (but often unachieved) outcomes of reform.

Conventional histories sometimes suggest that populists were reactionary anti-intellectual hayseeds. Some were (what movements do not have their idiots?), but highlighting individuals' foibles does not prove a point. This volume demonstrates that populism and socialism had diverse membership and leadership; their leaders may have invoked icons of the past, but they prescribed inventive, radical plans for their times. The Texas Left argues persuasively that the Left has consistently had faith in public solutions, in community, and in the vote to advance a democratic ideal.