The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Nick — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:04:28 -0000

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.

Posted by wonkie | February 2, 2009 10:36 PM

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Robert M — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:35:42 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

JGR — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:51:08 -0000

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

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

sherifffruitfly — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:04:33 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Kylopod — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:53:23 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

colby — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:53:06 -0000

"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).

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Thomas R — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:39:25 -0000

"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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

BJinIA — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:31:55 -0000

"...your persistence is more important than your fuck-ups."

How true. Thanks.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Nathan — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:52:30 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

MDA — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:26:09 -0000

I may be crossing a line, but I often feel like Juan Williams and Michael Steele are Sean Hannity in black face.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

wonkie — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:36:21 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

procrastinator — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:53:04 -0000

"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).

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

bertie — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:52:44 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Rich in PA — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:54:09 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Zach — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:53:36 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Hill Rat — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:31:37 -0000

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?

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Tessa — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:22:53 -0000

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).

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

colby — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:20:28 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Dawn — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:05:02 -0000

@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

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

nina s. — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:54:08 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Hill Rat — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:39:26 -0000

@Dawn

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Zach — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:38:39 -0000

@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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

DC Fem — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:27:16 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Deborah — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:22:50 -0000

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.

Re: Some thoughts on Michael Steele

Guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:20:31 -0000

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"!