It's tempting to go all roflerz over the RNC's selection of Michael Steele as chairmen. But I think the proper response is a salute. I have no idea whether Steele will be any good, but I think his selection marks the start of excising the Obama is a M00zlim contingent of the party. I am, perhaps, being too optimistic. But I maintain that you have to begin somewhere. Conservatives have, for years, ridiculed Democratic diversity efforts and some of those efforts should have been ridiculed. There is no question that Geraldine Ferraro, for instance, was a token.
But in the fight for inclusion, like most fights, your persistence is more important than your fuck-ups. The result of decades of persistent Democratic efforts towards inclusion yielded a primary featuring a white woman and black man, both of whom were talented heavyweight politicians--the anti-Ferraros, if you will. Because the GOP, has spent much of the immediate past, celebrating its own homogeneity is way way behind.
Think about it like this whereas Democrats have several potential African-American stars on the horizon--people who can actually go out, compete and win--Michael Steele essentially owes his career to appointments. That's not a dis--Steele's electoral problems have less to do with his own political gifts, than they have to do with the relationship between his party and minorities. As a black man running in a state like Maryland, you could be the next, well, Barack Obama. But if you're running under the banner of a party that your original constituency thinks hates them, you will not win.
I think Steele has a Sarah Palin problem. Remember the silly math that had Palin giving Obama fits for the votes of women? Ultimately, that line of attack fizzled because, I'd argue, a lot of women found Palin embarrassing--an obvious token who wasn't ready for prime-time. I think Steele is twice the politician that Sarah Palin is. But the question remains--How does he get black folks to look at him as more than a token? And how does he get that magic to extend itself to the broader party? Mel Martinez failed at doing exactly that for Latinos. Will Steele be any better?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Nate Silver has a good post on how Steele is a good conservative politico. But the problem is his party has become synonymous with bigotry: the Southern strategy, demagoguery of immigration bills, and ignoring feminist issues like equal pay.
Steele has the same problem Kay Bailey Hutchinson has IMO. She's a great woman. I liked her a lot on Meet the Press. I dislike her positions on this stimulus but for the most part she's a thoughtful legislator; to the right of me but a thoughtful one. I'd probably have thought a lot about McCain if he has put her on the ticket instead of Palin. But she has a hard time IMO reaching the potential of a Hillary Clinton because her party is hostile to women.
The Republican party doesn't simply have issues with African Americans: they have SERIOUS issues with Latinos after the immigration clusterfudge under Bush, they have problems withe women when they can't bring themselves to support the Ledbetter act. They're not a party of this century and we've got so many problems, a party based on a nostalgic vision of the 20th century won't fly in the 21st.
And that's what the Republican party has become: a bankrupt nostalgic party that can't get it's shit together.
Michael Steel was on the Tom Joyner Show this morning. Did anyone hear it? I was leaving for work, so I didn't catch the actual interview with Roland Martin.
I have some advice for Mr Steele, He should keep the debate on conservative issues/ideology, as opposed to some of the blatantly racist rhetoric that come out of the GOP from time to time. In other words, yes he should defend the freedom of speech (i.e. "Barack the Magic Negroe") that is every American's right, but he should definitely take issue with the sentiments behind some of this speech. If he can at least be seen trying to curtail the racist rhetoric, then he may actually have a slim chance (some might say infinitely slim chance) of at the very least opening the door to African Americans and other minorites not seeing the GOP as racist idealogues.
I wish him luck, as we heard this weekend (talking 'bout you David Duke), he'll need it.
Also, he may need to make sure he has a bodyguard at any and all Palin rallies or rallies in the South in general.
Good luck Mr Steele
As much as Steele's election feels like keeping up with the Joneses, I don't think this was done to attract minority voters. No--this is about covering their asses. Steele says Bush II is his homeboy; he's a right-to-lifer; he's a "small government" hornblower. But most importantly, Steele allows the RNC to project the illusion of diversity without, you know, actually doing anything to facilitate diversity within the party. Steele thinks there's nothing wrong with the party's message--which means that he's just another Republican d-bag, only he tans more easily.
Let's be real: if the Republicans had any aspirations toward diversity, Saltsman would have been shunted out of the race as soon as his bullshit mixtape came out. Katon Dawson would have been kicking rocks, too--how, in anyone's imagination, can a man who (until recently) belonged to an all-white country club tout diversity?
Shallow tryna be hard speechifying like his acceptance speech probably won't do it, if only because it looks so obviously political and ill-fitting on him.
That said, I think he will be appealing to the young black bourgeous, especially those who've been "afraid" to say they were Republican already.
The problem here is that this gesture is not genuine and people do see through this. Perception is a cardinal human fixation. It will take them a solid twelve years to clean out the loud voices of the bigot in their party. The likes of Sean Hannity and Rush will not allow personable tone of Mr. Steele to see the light of day.
The only real solution for them is to abandon the glorious southern strategy and grab LBJ courage of focusing on the moral human compass.
With Obama in the White House, anything the right does about race is going to temporarily be like pissing into the wind. So the RNC had better hope Steele is more than just a pick about race, but has ideas to move the Republican party out of their two or three year rut. He doesn't need to be the Republican Obama, but more the Republican Howard Dean.
"I think Steele is twice the politician that Sarah Palin is."
So he's what, like 1/4 of a politician? 1/3?
Steele is NOT a better politician than Palin. He's the King of Being Appointed as you said. Steele is simply there to provide cover for vicious racially coded attacks on Obama that will be forth coming from the Right. And like a previous commenter said, Steele gives an illusion of diversity. Steele puts a black face on Right wing racism the way Obama will put a black face on Capitalism's epic fail.
What do you think of the Economist profile title?
Ta-Nehisi, I share your optimism that Steele's appointment will further marginalize the wackjob contingent of the Republican party (David Duke's complete flip out is a good start). I don't see him attracting minority voters without a change in GOP rhetoric, and if Steele's "we must defend the border!" chant is any indication, he's not willing to go there.
I am, perhaps, being too optimistic.
Good luck, but remember that every other time you wanted to be optimistic about the Party of Lee Atwater, it didn't turn out too good.
I think he will be appealing to the young black bourgeous, especially those who've been "afraid" to say they were Republican already.
I think you're exactly right about that, because there are some young brothas out there who are down with the GOP. I'm not myself and I'm also not down the Democrats either, both of the major parties suck.
"Steele's electoral problems have less to do with his own political gifts, than they have to do with the relationship between his party and minorities."
Steele, in fact, doesn't have much in the way of political gifts given his lackluster (embarrassing, really, what with the hiring of homeless guys to pass out bogus flyers in black neighborhoods that made it appear Steele was either a Democrat or Democrat-endorsed), but more to the point, Steele's problem is that he's a knee-jerk "conservative" on nearly all of the signal issues.
Colin Powell was a black Republican who could have gotten black (and generic Dem) votes - hell, he might have even gotten this hard-core liberal's vote or at least due consideration - because he's always been an "Eisenhower Republican" not an ideologue out to please the usual suspects.
Steele isn't the worst cat in the GOP bag, but he's not impressive and pretty much comes across as a run-of-the-mill GOP lightweight with more slogans than solutions. At best he's a less obnoxious version of Newt Gingrich. Not enough to rally black votes in the best of times and pretty much of a joke in the Age of Obama. But, yeah it's nice to see GOPers continue their track record of affirmative action among their very slight pool of black adheerents -and he's not as rank as Ken Blackwell.
Well he's not off to a great start. I thought his acceptance speech was---to use a Coates phrase--- serious weaksauce. As the new RNC chairman, he didn't articulate what the Republican Party stands for, even in broad terms, and he completely missed the opportunity to talk about a new direction for the party. The only thing of any substance he gave was:
"We stand proud as the conservative party of the United States, and we will make sure that the values that have made our party the Party of Lincoln, are part of the issues, part of the policies that are reshaping this country."
Seriously, that's the best he can do?
After saying basically nothing, he was ready to get off the stage: "My first job as RNC chair is to end this speech."
It just strikes me as odd that the first African American chair of the RNC couldn't get off the stage fast enough. Not very inspiring.
Steele pulled 10% more of the black vote than Ehrlich in 2006 (Steele running for Senate, Ehrlich running as an incumbent governor; Ehrlich actually got a larger percentage of the total vote). Being a black Republican in Maryland should earn Steele more opportunities to run for elective office if the State GOP was smart. Instead, he's been put in powerless jobs (county party chair, delegate, state party chair, Lieutenant Gov, hopeless and absurd run for an open Senate seat, GOP chair).
He's succeeded personally and it's definitely a triumph of sorts to get the GOP chair (especially given the racial dynamics of the election, Saltsman/Rush, etc). But Steele holds his own in political debates; he's a great surrogate which means he'll be a good national chair. That skill also translates well to running for and holding elected office, and it's unfortunate that he never got a chance to run on his own merit in an election where he'd have a chance to win.
I don't agree with the guy about anything, but he's too talented compared to other GOP prospects to be stuck with chairmanship gigs forever. He'd probably win MD-1 if he ran for it in a cycle or two. Having a Steele in national elected office would be more impressive than having him run the party from a progress standpoint (and yeah, JC Watts, but it's not good to be regressing on that front).
@Zak
So he's what, like 1/4 of a politician? 1/3?
It depends on if you are squaring Sarah Palin (1/2 * 1/2 == 1/4) or multiplying her by two (2 * 1/2 = 1) and let's face it, multiplying SP by two scares the living shit out of me.
I should have mentioned, I am in favor of squaring SP, because as you repeat the operation, SP ends up asymptotic to zero. Never quite being nothing, but so close as to not make a difference.
It just strikes me as odd that the first African American chair of the RNC couldn't get off the stage fast enough.
Look at what the GOP has done over the last eight years, Steele was probably embarassed.
Not that David Duke is representative of all or even most of the Republicans but Coates you might want to go see his take on Steele on Sully's blog. Same shit different day. And the people who listen to Duke are likely the same ones who bought the "Obama is a Mooxlem" meme
Prediction: Steele will be a terrible RNC chairman. The guy has no new ideas and has not done well in any of his previous jobs, public or private. Putting a black man out there to spout the same garbage the GOP has been peddling for 20 years isn't going to help them.
Everyone knows this is just a reaction to Obama and it's incredibly cynical for the GOP to think they can undo 40 years of a racist "southern strategy" through his appointment. Let's be honest, if Obama wasn't the prez this guy wouldn't have made it past the second ballot.
You know what? I was actually impressed with the GOP. Steele impresses me. He's definitely not a token, that's for sure, not like Alan Keyes.
Seems to me this was the ONLY step the GOP could have made, and it shows they are at least trying to send a message to all those who might have voted for McCain if they felt that campaign even wanted their vote. There are tons of conservative-oriented minorities out there who are uncomfortable with Obama but who felt too alienated by the Palin wing of the party.
This is only one step, of course. And for Steele to not be a token, and for this to represent legitimate change, they're going to have to start making their message and their agenda inclusive.
However, its probably a fair bet that so long as Obama is on the scene, the GOP won't be able to do that very successfully. They have their work cut out for them.
~
TNC, it's a respectable urge to view Steele's winning so optimistically, but it will go completely unrewarded.
I think the hope is not so much to get black votes, but oddly more to get back some white (and maybe other non-black) upscale voters. The Republicans, even in years they lose, usually do better with college educated types than they did this election. So they might be thinking Steele will help with those alienated or horrified by the anti-urban/anti-intellectual element of Palin supporters. People who basically share most of the Republican values, but don't connect them to Atwater or racism the way y'all do.
I think Steele has a problem. Mainly he will be seen as a taken because thats how his own RNC members see him.
On Ambinders blog friday, he reported this comment from an RNC member:
""It's a diverse party. We're tired of being labeled as white supremacists."
No mention of his skills or qualifications. The only thing these people considered was the color of his skin. If that's not tokenism, i don't know what is.
The Republican Party's problems are way deeper and more profound though. They think they can solve all their problems with a paint job and an air freshener (which would be steele in this really bad analogy). But a new coat of paint aint going to fix the fact that termites have eaten through the walls and your foundation is crumbling.
My point is: They think Steele is the answer to their problems. In fact, until they fix the policies and practices that have alienated minority voters for decades, if not centuries, it won't matter if their chairman is black, white, orange or pink.
"I think he will be appealing to the young black bourgeous, especially those who've been "afraid" to say they were Republican already."
"I think you're exactly right about that, because there are some young brothas out there who are down with the GOP. I'm not myself and I'm also not down the Democrats either, both of the major parties suck."
Really? Is that why he lost the vote in Prince George's County, Maryland (to and old white Jew)? In addition to being the home of Michael Steele, it's the largest black middle class in the country.
freaktown
If you want to see it put in stark terms check out how RedState founder Eric Erikson put it on his twitter feed.
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-love-twitter.html
Look, everyone agrees that Bush was a disaster, but Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice were high cabinet picks. Of course, as a liberal I would argue that Powell betrayed the American public in his pointy stick presentation to the UN, and Condelezza Rice was National Security Director on 9/11 and did not have the dignity to resign, then becaume one of the most ineffective SOS in American history. Clarence Thomas who is one of the most embarrasingly bad Supremes is also black.
Will Steele attract more African Americans to the Republican party? We live in a very tough minded society right now in which the bottom line is what matters. If Steele can find a way to make things happen that work in meaningful ways, he'll be successful. What is important is that we live in a society in which race is not an arbiter of greatness, that no one person has to carry the entire load for their background or all(including whites--embrace what is right) have to carry that load.
I don't know much about Steele; personally, I think he has been given a thankless task as conservatism is currently in the tank, and Republicans for the most part are becoming the "I dunno, can't we all just do what we have been doing--not paying taxes and letting the populace eat cake--party, becoming less and less attractive to most of society as a result.
As a Jew, of course I cringe when some Jewish financier lives up to the stereotype of being a crooked money man, but still I think that unless society accepts that people from all backgrounds are good, bad, or indifferent (and by this I don't mean to forget history or culture), so called post racialism will continue to be a bit of bull bleep.
The selection of Steele is does not represent "tokenism." It represents the death throes of the republican party. The remnants of the party see in Steele not an African-American, but a different, unique face who, they hope, can drive a stake through the different, unique face of Palin. Palin is the "real American": brainless, simplistic, petty, vengeful, and xenophobic.
By 2012 the republican party will split in two, the conservative idealogues and the racialists who hate everything about America but the flag and the military.
The selection of Steele is the last step of the republican party of into the grave. Good bye and good riddance.
"Well he's not off to a great start. I thought his acceptance speech was---to use a Coates phrase--- serious weaksauce."
-------------------------------------------
Lol. That was the first thing I thought when I heard the line "get ready to get run over". SG uses that phrase too, but this was my first personal encounter with a truly weaksauce phrase.
k1
ryanculver.blogspot.com
Democracy in America deserves a medal for the headline "Michael Steele in the hour of chaos". the Economist has hidden depths.
The GOP understanding of affirmative action is that it's the hiring of unqualified women and minorities, just to make sure you have some women and minorities.
The GOP's takeaway from the Obama-Clinton race for the Dem nomination, and Obama's subsequent electoral success, was that affirmative action works.
So they decided to do some affirmative action, first with Palin, now with Steele.
They're a very long way from having a clue.
As William Jelani Cobb aptly put it, Steele is the Republican's idea of General Zod.
http://americanexception.com/?p=118
@ low-tech cyclist:
I think it's giving McCain too much credit to say that Palin was a nod to affirmative action. It's worth mentioning that many dyed-in-the-wool Republicans couldn't stand Palin. I think her selection was about desperation and cynicism.
Twice the politician Sarah Palin is? Despite the epic fail of Palin on the national stage, she did become governor against the will of the establishment party. Even if Michael Steele had a "D" next to his name, I don't see him elected to any state office in MD or any other state.
One thing I've yet to see mentioned...Steele is the new head of the Republican National Committee. So what?
How much power will he really have, how much does any RNC or DNC head really have? And what are the chances that four years from now, more than 10 percent of America knows who the hell he is?
To me, Howard Dean was an exception, not the norm. He had high visibility and more juice because he was a former Presidential candidate. I mean, how many DNC or RNC heads get on the cover of Time Magazine at all, not to mention years before they get the top job?
If Palin can manage re-election in 2010, the party will be hers for the taking...and that's if she doesn't already sew up the 2012 nod in the next few months. After that, to paraphrase "Leo" from "Miller's Crossing", Steele will "be as big as Palin let's him be and he won't forget that, ever"!
I think Steele is twice the politician that Sarah Palin is.
Ouch.
But the question remains--How does he get black folks to look at him as more than a token? And how does he get that magic to extend itself to the broader party?
Figure out what "black issues" are and deliver on them. As near as I can tell, we've determined that blacks favor social programs (advantage D), are more socially conservative (advantage R), and view the Republican party through its more embarrassing Thurmondesque members (advantage D). Addressing the first will be met with howls from traditionalists, but a serious effort to be serious would win a second look from moderates and progressives. Addressing the second--they seem to cast social problems in ways that have a "like that unwed black mother there" tone, and that could be improved. Both of these are within Steele's individual mandate to set a tone, but I don't see him successfully pulling the whole party after him.
With all three branches, he could do something if he could just get a large part of the party to hush up and let its rational former partisans speak for it. (I'm thinking of all the "into the wilderness for 8 years" Republicans.)
I've decided that fiscal conservatism IS what Rs should run on, but in 8 years time when the Dems will have had plenty of chances to overshoot their mandate. You can't think deficit spending is a great idea right up until the end of January, when it's a terrible idea even if we have an unprecedented problem to address. I suppose their best hope is to have everyone look away for a few years while they fight it out--but right now, rather than the into-the-wilderness Rs shooing out the know-nothings, the know-nothings are trying to purge everyone else and the into-the-wilderness people (who were out in the spring and THEN got Palin rubbed in their faces) are wondering if they should bother.
One of the best analyses of the Rs I read back in the spring was from an into-the-wilderness Republican. His prescription was to trim away the people who scared away women, and young people, and minorities, so that in 8 years the Republican primary debates would not be 10 old white men.
As an African American, I can say that the tokenism of the Steele and Palin picks hasn't changed my mind at all about the GOP.
But after reading these comments, (and I know I'm not the one to answer) does anyone really think that picking a black, reasonably smart man will attract more educated white voters? Really? That sounds like another GOP fantasy to me. They keep telling themselves it's that easy to get new voters to take attention away from the fact that they have no ideas. Because anyone of any color who's been to college can easily see that they have no ideas.
@low-tech cyclist
Steele's been Chairman of a county party and a state party as well as Lieutenant governor on a ticket that put Republicans into a Governor's seat that hadn't seen one for 35 years. I think the guy's ideas (and his anti-welfare schtick) are ridiculous, but your affirmative action quip is neither clever nor accurate. He's overqualified for the gig if anything.
@Dawn
What's your point? Jesus Christ himself would lose an election if he ran as a Republican in PG County. I'm agreeing that the Black bourgeois is Steele's target demographic, whether or not he will be successful is another question all together.
I agree that the GOP has tons of work to do, and Steele's win could be a baby step in the right direction. This isn't really about attracting African Americans, because it's clear that the Democratic Party is going to known as the Party of Obama for a long time to come. But it could be about showing openness and inclusion, two things that have come to seem anathema to the GOP.
The reason Steele doesn't matter much is that the average voter doesn't see much of party chairmen. He may not even know their names. If the Republicans want to turn things around for themselves fast, their best case scenario would be for their next emerging leader to be a centrist Latino. That could potentially bring a sea change.
@Dawn
What's your point? Jesus Christ himself would lose an election if he ran as a Republican in PG County. I'm agreeing that the Black bourgeois is Steele's target demographic, whether or not he will be successful is another question all together.
Posted by Hill Rat | February 2, 2009 1:39 PM
My point, Hill Rat, is that he's already targeted that demographic and was rejected. Contrary to popular opinion, Black folks are note the politically unsophisticated "just vote Black" idiots the media and white politico dismiss us as. Black folks, including his neighbors, see him for what he is: a permanently tanned Sean Hannity.
I don't think that Steele was chosen because he's black- whether that means he's a token, a response to Obama, or a sincere attempt to broaden the party. Cynical or sincere, he wasn't chosen 'cause he's black.
He was chosen 'cause he was the least bad option. Duncan was a disaster nationwide, Anuzis was a disaster in Michigan, Saltzman and Dawson would've been horrible PR moves. Steele was the only one left.
I don't think he's going to do much to improve the Republicans' fortunes on his own. It's not like anyone ever votes for the party chairman, and he didn't exactly come in with a new electoral strategy like Dean did. Party chairmen, especially on the Republican side, are very weak, and Steele so far hasn't been willing to tell Republican elected officials that they've done anything wrong, so I can't imagine he's going to get them to trim their sails on policy or rhetoric.
Hey, Ta-Nehisi, congratulations. This post got you an Yglesias Award nomination.
Andrew really ought to hand out Coates Awards instead, but for now I guess we'll deal with the awkwardness of Coates as Yglesias nominee (just doesn't seem right, a coates like quote is categorically coates, not categorically Yglesias).
My point, Hill Rat, is that he's already targeted that demographic and was rejected. Contrary to popular opinion, Black folks are note the politically unsophisticated "just vote Black" idiots the media and white politico dismiss us as. Black folks, including his neighbors, see him for what he is: a permanently tanned Sean Hannity.
So based on one election; in a heavily Democratic state, in a county where Democrats have routinely carried 70+% of the vote in Gubernatorial and Senatorial elections for the last 20 years; you declare Michael Steele's effort to win over upper-middle class Black voters a failure? Don't be ridiculous. Do you declare everything that doesn't work the first time a failure and abandon the project immediately?
Steele might not be the most charismatic politician out there, but there are plenty of Black people out there (myself included) who are eager to get off the Democratic Party plantation. Even so, I rarely vote Republican because for all their talk of fiscal responsibility, they've turned into the party of choice for racists and evangelicals who want to ram their faith down everyone's throat. Steele's presence as party chairman gives the GOP a chance to work on rehabbing their image and probably makes it a little less embarrassing to be a Black Republican. What's your problem with that?
To piggy back on Hill Rat's comment w/ some numbers, Steele got 23% in PG County in 2006.
In MD-4, the Republican challenger only got 9% of the PG votes. In MD-8 the GOP and Green challengers combined for 9% in PG.
Not saying that Steele's a cure-all or anything, but he's legitimately pulled black votes for his party. I don't think that the Ehrlich/Steele ticket in 2002 did much better with black voters than the Ehrlich/Cox ticket in 2006. Can't find a good 2002 exit poll.
I agree with the comments above that suggest Steele was chosen not to attract blacks--which is impossible in any meaningful numbers--but to attract non-racist whites. I think something can be politically vile and mercenary yet historically progressive at the same time, and Steele's victory (if that's the right word) is one of those things.
People vote for candidates...not national party chairmen. So I don't buy this idea that Steele will siphon off educated right leaning white independents simply because he's black and not from the Strom Thurman wing of the republican party.
But I don't think he is a token either. As I understand it, his job is to fundraise and recruit candidates. While he may not be the republican Obama, he may be better at recruiting a more diverse roster of republican candidates to run for office and more inclined to put resources behind these minority candidates--which in turn could lead to the GOP truly becoming more diverse. He has a shot, but only time will tell.
"I agree with the comments above that suggest Steele was chosen not to attract blacks--which is impossible in any meaningful numbers"
Is it really? If republicans get 20% of the black vote, instead of 5%, that's a lot of votes. Even if blacks were only 10% of the electorate, 15% of 10% is 1.5% of the country...
In the tight world of two-party politics, the magnitude of a 1.5% shift is essentially doubled. You take 1.5% off the other party's percentile and add 1.5% to your own.
In 2004, for example, Bush beat Kerry by 50.75 to 48.25. With a 1.5% shift, Kerry would have beat Bush 49.75% to 49.25%. (The other 1% went to third party candidates).
I thought it was pretty obvious why they picked him.
Remember last spring during the height of the Wright flap? The most overtly critical of Obama talking heads on TV were black. As a matter of fact during the coverage of the Inaugeration and election night the talking heads who said the most critical things were black.
Lots of white people are afraid of appearing racist. Lots of white people are afraid to say anything critical of a black person for fear of appearing racist.
The chair of the paraty is the face of the party. The Republicans needed a black man to criticize a black man.
I may be crossing a line, but I often feel like Juan Williams and Michael Steele are Sean Hannity in black face.
When Bill Clinton won in 1992, the Republicans put Haley Barbour in charge of their party. In spite of his many faults, Barbour was and is one hell of a politician and his savvy and game-plan helped guide them from the wilderness to control of both houses of congress. I'll be amazed if Michael Steele does something similar because the only thing he's shown thus far is that college Republicans like him - a dubious honor at best. Other than being the moat prominent black politician in the GOP (which is like saying Ringo Star was the most prominent drummer in the Beattles) I think this guy is just a temporary band-aid for a crippled party trying to get its shit together. When the Republican second act comes, this guy will be in the past.
Further, I'm glad you brought up Sarah Palin again TNC because that's where the future of the Republican Party is - not with the dingbat from Alasaka but with white, working class women. That's one more reason Mr. Steele ain't going nowhere. He's neither the man of the future nor the face of the future of the GOP.
"...your persistence is more important than your fuck-ups."
How true. Thanks.
"that have alienated minority voters for decades, if not centuries," freaktown
TR: The Republican Party hasn't been around "for centuries." I think until FDR/Truman it did well with racial minorities except for American Indians and Tejanos. (The mostly Hispanic border-counties in Texas have pretty much never went Republican and some of the toughest periods in the Indian Wars occurred during Republican administrations)
"So I don't buy this idea that Steele will siphon off educated right leaning white independents simply because he's black and not from the Strom Thurman wing of the republican party." bertie
TR: I said I thought this was the hope, I didn't say anything about it being a reality.
"Is it really? If republicans get 20% of the black vote, instead of 5%, that's a lot of votes." procrastinator
TR: Yes, but that's not very likely to happen. At least not on a national level. The last Republican to get even 20% of the black vote was Bush Sr. in 1988. (Even that's uncertain, it might have been more like 18%) Around 70% of black voters believe in a "larger government with more services" and small government seems to be a core principle Republicans won't abandon. I'm sadly sure they'd dump all the anti-Choice/anti-euthanasia stuff that matters to me well before that. So the Republican "ceiling", for the black vote, is likely no more than 30% and I think it's unlikely they'll reach that high in the foreseeible future due to the damages of the Bush years.
"Is it really? If republicans get 20% of the black vote, instead of 5%, that's a lot of votes. Even if blacks were only 10% of the electorate, 15% of 10% is 1.5% of the country..."
Yeah, sure the math is there, but Steele's not going to cause that shift from the RNC perch. His name isn't going to be on any ballots, he's not gonna be doing the "I approve this message" tag. Hell, by 2010, he probably won't even be on TV very much as he'll have to cede his time to the actual candidates. People just don't vote based on who the chairman of the party is, and 9 times out of 10, they don't even know.
"In spite of his many faults, Barbour was and is one hell of a politician and his savvy and game-plan helped guide them from the wilderness to control of both houses of congress. I'll be amazed if Michael Steele does something similar because the only thing he's shown thus far is that college Republicans like him - a dubious honor at best."
Barbour was also aided by a raft of Democratic retirements and some pretty good Republican leadership in Dole and Gingrich. Steele isn't gonna have either (in fact, it's the Republicans who keep retiring).
As a Marylander, I can attest that Steele is a total goofball, a black Dan Quayle with better English. His ascendancy to RNC chair is a great gift to Democrats. Just watch.
One thing nobody seems to have pointed out is that their second choice for the position was Katon Dawson! That just goes to show that they still don't "get" it.
Of course, he's no Sarah Palin. His views aren't anywhere near as extreme, and I doubt he's as ignorant as she. But I'm not sure I'd call him a savvier politician. Going before a Jewish group and comparing stem cell research to the Holocaust isn't just in bad taste, it's plain dumb from a political standpoint.
Yeah, I know Howard Dean said some pretty dumb things too (the Confederate flag business), and he ended up being a great strategist whose plans are part of the reason Obama is president now. But that's just not my impression of Steele. Nate Silver is wrong here; his 2006 Senate campaign was laughable.
Be real.
Republicans see Clinton, they get themselves Palin.
Republicans see Obama, they get themselves Steele.
Their thought process is perfectly clear: Women are all the same, and black folks are all the same - any of either is completely interchangeable within their respective groups.
It's the epitome of what the bigot party believes.
Oh, and Mr. Steele: They'll never like you. Ever.
I dunno, TNC... this doesn't seem right to me. Especially, when you consider that they pulled the same shit with putting Keyes up against Obama in Illinois. I suppose the first black RNC chair was always going to be a token, and yes, you're right that Ferraro and other dems were in a sense as well. Nonetheless, there was always some substance behind democratic tokenism (strange as that is to say). In other words, did you ever doubt that Ferraro had a pro-woman agenda? (Back then anyway!) Maybe the dems put her up to get votes, but the people voting for her were doing so based on her politics and her substantive views. They were not voting for her just because of her sex. I got a hunch there's little more than "let's get a black guy of our own so that we can bloody up this inspiring character and no one can say shit" going on here... They basically said as much.
The Eternal Optimist,
JGR
He could but it is highly unlikely unless he is willing to expose the racism and class consciousness of his party from its economic policy. The racism/classism has always been there to hide to the predatory nature of their economic policy against everybody but the predatory wealthy.
Bingo!! And it's also the only reason he was even on the list to begin with; it's not like he has any influence in the party.