Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s single-minded pursuit of school vouchers is drawing comparisons to Napoleon’s ill-fated Waterloo campaign. Long regarded as a military genius, Napoleon had overcome several setbacks – and exile – to return to lead the French military, but his overreach and resounding defeat at Waterloo led to his final military defeat and abdication.
Abbott has made enacting school vouchers his top priority in Texas, and critics have begun to wonder whether he is now at risk of a dangerous overreach. He started his promotion of vouchers by embarking on a tour of private schools to generate support, but as he failed to gain traction with legislators, his tactics shifted, with critics arguing his promotion of vouchers or Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs) “reeked of desperation.”
The Governor’s escalating use of political tactics to promote his legislative goals – such as push polls, direct mail campaigns, and alleged threats to legislators – has begun to undermine his standing with fellow Republicans. Critics accused him of lying to constituents, and many in the Capitol believe Abbott’s actions have less to do with addressing a Texas policy problem, and more to do with national politics and his future presidential aspirations.
Abbott’s latest efforts include backing primary and run-off campaigns to oust incumbent Republican legislators who opposed his broad voucher-like program. He has dedicated months of significant political capital and financial resources to this endeavor, endorsing challengers in 10 races.
These heavy-handed tactics are causing backlash within his own party and from pro-public education advocates.
In many rural districts, school districts can be the largest employer, and an essential contributor to the fabric of local communities. Any effort which pulls resources away from rural and small school districts can have a significant impact on school programs and payrolls.
State Representative Glenn Rogers expressed frustration with Abbott’s endorsement of his pro-voucher opponent, calling it “a single-issue endorsement” that ignored his record of fighting for his district. Rogers criticized the endorsement, stating, “It doesn’t seem to matter about the integrity of the candidate, what their legislative productivity is. It’s simply, ‘Do you support vouchers and I’ll endorse you.’ I think that’s unprecedented.”
Meanwhile, Representative Ernest Bailes criticized Abbott’s approach, describing it as “vindictive” against Republicans who are representing their constituents’ best interests.
These and other critics argue Abbott is using “school choice” as a political tool, without genuine concern for the impact on the education system or the children across the state. Advocates for traditional public schools, who oppose vouchers due to concerns about the financial impact on school districts, maintain vouchers are neither inevitable nor necessary. They continue to emphasize the need for honest discourse and consideration before the Legislature reconvenes.
The question arises: what is Abbott’s end game? One theory is his team has long needed a pretext to primary some of the voucher holdouts, and is going through the motions to please his billionaire donors so they will back him in a possible presidential run in 2028.
Whatever his rationale, the divisive nature of his voucher campaign is dividing key Republican constituencies, and undermining his credibility. Similar to how Napoleon’s overreach led to his downfall, Abbott’s single-minded pursuit of vouchers could have far-reaching consequences for his political future – as someone who won a lot of smaller battles, but ultimately lost the war.
The coming months will reveal whether Abbott’s voucher obsession proves to be a strategic masterstroke or a political miscalculation of “historic” proportions.
