By Ryan T. Robles
Barack Obam's election to the presidency last year affirmed that the US had turned a corner in both political thought, and in the way Americans receive their information. Republicans tried to play off their losses in the ’06 midterm election cycle as a fluke: a result of their unpopular war, or of several high profile Republican congressman scandals. The results of the ’08 election, however, were unequivocally Democratic, with the Blue Party winning vast majorities in both houses of congress as well as the presidency in a landslide (365 – 173 electoral votes, and a margin of 9.5 million votes). New and young voters registered as Democrats in droves, and millions turned out to vote for the political pop-culture icon of the twenty-first century.
Angry, disappointed and confused, the Grand ‘Ol Party turned against itself in a struggle for direction: neo-conservatives against libertarians; governors against legislators; McCain against Palin. Republicans needed someone who could lead their party in a much-needed new direction. With the Republican National Committee’s election for chairman on the horizon, what better time to elect (albeit grudgingly) a young, charismatic, technologically savvy, ahem… black leader? So it was that, amid controversy and much infighting, the former Lt. Governor from Maryland, Michael Steele was elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
As fate would have it, Michael Steele would become a point of contention in the GOP. There are a number of reasons for this. The first, and probably least obvious to the casual observer, is that his policies were at odds with many prominent Republicans.
In an interview with GQ, Steele said that he believed that abortion is “an individual choice,” that homosexuality “isn’t a choice,” (even going so far as to say that it’s as immutable as race) and that he sometimes votes… democratic. It goes without saying that these stances are more in line with the Democratic Party than with the GOP. Days after that article was published, however, he apologized to the Republican Party and promptly changed the info on his Facebook page. The fact that all these views diametrically opposed to the party platform passed unnoticed by the Republican National Committee during the election for chairman is not only astonishing… it’s false. Unfortunately, it seems the reason Steele’s political views were overlooked was directly related to his race and not (necessarily) in the bad way we’re accustomed to. More on that later.
There was another black candidate for chairman of the RNC, and his name was Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio Secretary of State. Blackwell has made a reputation for being one of the most conservative members of the RNC, by such action as opposing abortions for women whose lives are in danger due to their pregnancy, and his desire to keep Terri Schiavo “on life support for thirty years,” if it meant avoiding her death. What does this have to do with Michael Steele? That the RNC chose Steele, someone whose political views don’t reflect those of his party, over this man, who was an honorary co-chair of the Committee to Re-elect George W. Bush, seems to me to be premeditated. It’s not like Chairman Steele was an unknown entity. As he likes to say often, “there was a Michael Steele before there was a Barack Obama,” and that’s true: Steele was the highest elected black Republican in the country while President Obama was still in the Illinois State Senate. He was definitely known to Republicans.
So why elect someone to lead the party if you’re going to spend all of your time at odds with them? To compete with Democrats. It’s a move right out of the Grand ‘Ol Playbook: take a politician from the Democratic Party and market an outwardly similar Republican as a substitute. Remember the hubbub stirred up by John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential choice? Voters (generally) saw this as McCain’s pandering for votes from an apparently impressionable female electorate. Upon further review of her politics and professional demeanor, they quickly ruled out any possible similarities with the exception of their womanhood. Along that same vein, I believe Chairman Steele was selected because President Obama is black, and the Republican Party felt they needed a moderate black Republican to counter the successes Obama and the Democrats had gained over the course of the campaign.
Democratic gains in places like North Carolina and Virginia inspired the GOP to “reach beyond [their] comfort zones” for support, and the adoption of an “off the hook public relations offensive” toward “urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”
Although that may be the case, Chairman Steele’s leadership to do so has already been called into question from within the Republican Party. This second point (of contention) has been spearheaded by Katon Dawson, the runner-up for the chairman election, has even been rumored to be building support for a “no confidence vote” in Steele’s leadership. This movement has begun to pick up steam, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal points at several prominent members raising concerns over Steele’s unwillingness to label President Obama as a “socialist,” instead of Steele’s preferred “collectivist.”
In a completely unrelated series of interviews and op-ed political programs, members of the Democratic Party as well as some talking heads in the media have taken to calling Rush Limbaugh, the Bill O’Reilly for the radio, the ‘defacto’ head of the GOP due to his vocal opposition to the Obama administration, and the fact that Republicans often take it upon themselves to apologize to Rush. Like the time when Steele apologized to Limbaugh for asserting that he, not Rush, was the head of the Republican Party; a ridiculous notion for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee to have.
In general, Republicans feel that “since… the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right,” and that movement is increasingly representing a smaller, albeit very vocal, number of people. The fact that Michael Steele’s fairly moderate set of views has in and of itself called his leadership of the GOP into question – by the very people who elected him to lead in the first place – is crazy. That Steele is working to increase the base of the Republican Party doesn’t matter; he doesn’t resemble the Party as it now stands: far right and white.
The point is that the Republican Party has fundamentally changed. The 2008 election made it clear that Democrats’ inclusive, equitable platform appeals to many more Americans than has been the case in decades. Their ability to move legislation through both houses of Congress relatively unchallenged has only served to further anger the remnants of the GOP.
The Republicans seem to insist on reacting to the Democrats’ political innovation and leadership. Their repeated use of bait-and-switch techniques to win votes isn’t only insulting; it doesn’t truly reflect their candidates or the Party. Offering Sarah Palin as a substitute for Hillary Clinton is at best disingenuous, but at least she reflected that small, vocal part of the GOP I referred to earlier. Michael Steele, on the other hand, was presented to the American voter as a new direction for the party, the Grand ‘Ol Pledge to reach out to younger “hip hop” voters, and as a plea to minorities across the country to consider registering under their banner. Steele represents the Republican Party’s attempt to seize some of the buzz and recognition that Obama’s election enjoyed.
All the while, Steele seems to be completely oblivious to these fairly well known observations. Chairman Steele is an intelligent man; I’ve seen his interviews. How he doesn’t pick up on his Party’s motivation behind electing him as their Chair escapes me. Either he is a terrific actor or he is the most naïve person in the public eye today.
Fact of the matter is that the GOP is using his likeness (and thus, Obama’s likeness) to attract new registrants to the Party, while not only distancing themselves from Steele’s centrist stance but also publicly questioning his ability. Steele needs to read the writing on the wall for his sake: he no longer belongs to the group he represents. The RNC should be ashamed of itself for attempting to ride President Obama’s coattails in this manner; it’s not working with the voters, and it’s only serving to distance itself from the center more and more. Republicans need their leadership to show them the way now more than ever. Michael Steele was a surprisingly good choice to lead their Party, and I personally feel he would be a great leader of GOP… if only they took him seriously and decided to listen to him and not take all of their cues from the Democrats.
Born and raised in Las Cruces, New Mexico, Ryan comes from a strong Democratic family that is active in New Mexico Politics. He is a recent graduate from the University of New Mexico's Anderson School of Management. He plans to continue investing in the communities that made him who he is today and sharing his perspective on politics, pop culture, and other curiousities. Ryan is the newest columnist here at the New Mexico Politico. You may contact him at rtr@newmexicopolitico.org.
Posts
