Hope, change, and progress — feels good when those words aren’t empty, doesn’t it?
In our years in the wilderness, the Republican Party will face a series of proxy wars that will emerge as events will determine. The race for the Republican National Committee chairmanship was the first in those series of tests. As I’d been predicting for a while now, the surprisingly intense race came down to former Lt. Gov Michael Steele — whose work as a state party chairman and head of a political action committee is overlooked by his bigoted detractors, who call him an “affirmative action pick” — and South Carolina state party chairman Katon Dawson.
Dawson had come under heavy fire for his membership in a country club with a “whites only” law on the books, which should have disqualified him from the post immediately. Now, let’s be clear: Dawson is clearly not a racist, had the backing of several blacks who testified to that fact, and had little reason to believe that the law was being enforced. To which I say: so what? If you’re spending your time explaining away such questions first thing after the election takes place, you’ve already lost. This position isn’t about Katon Dawson. I don’t care how competent he is — it’s not about him. It’s about our image, our strategy, and our party. Worst of all, the symbolism would have been horrifying, given that his competitor was black and that the first black president was sworn in a week ago. That seventy-seven members of the committee voted for the man should give us pause. But whether by one vote or by one hundred, a win is a win, and Steele is our party’s new chairman.
He is pro-life, but not a culture warrior. He is against gay marriage, but feels no need to denigrate gays. He is a Christian, but would never dream of labeling himself a “Christian leader.” He is a conservative, but never comes across as old-fashioned or inaccessible. He knows that reaching out doesn’t mean waging a heated war on other people’s sensibilities, but rather persuading them of ours. Helping them understand that, while we have our differences — even intense ones — what can unite us rises above that. That is what pragmatism is about: emphasizing what unites. Doing what works. Both conservatives and centrists can feel comfortable in a party with that sort of vision. Steele shares that vision.
It was a battle between pragmatism and hardened principle, between being savvy about the media and waging a war against it, between reaching out and bunkering down, between making history and being doomed to repeat it. Steele won out. On the path to rebuilding, I say: so far, so good.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
January 31st, 2009 at 5:22 am
Yay
The GOP might actually want to survive after all!
January 31st, 2009 at 5:50 am
I like the way he took up the fight to Barry in his acceptance speech.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Alex,
Be careful about throwing around the word “bigoted”. I thought of Steele as an affirmative action pick, but changed my mind as I had the opportunity to see and hear more of him in person. I had been underwhelmed with his media appearances on Fox News and Sunday morning programs, but having spent time looking up Steele appearances and reading more of his track record, I was convinced he merited selection.
That said, there are plenty of bona fide examples of affirmative action picks out there in politics, and one can find them without being a bigot.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:15 am
It was bigoted to call him an affirmative action pick because he was easily more qualified than the other candidates, black or white, if we’re going by resume alone. He was a former county chairman, state chairman, chairman of GOPAC, Senate candidate, and Lt. Gov.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Alex, Alex, Alex… this is a sad commentary, my friend.
I’m bigoted now because I didn’t think we should choose an underqualified candidate simply because he was black? C’mon.
Steele ran the MD state party only during a non-campaign year and never had to campaign or raise money under the pressure of actually having to win anything. He sucked while running GOPAC, turning the organization into a shadow of its former self. He sucked while running for Senate, losing by nearly 12 points. He’s never won an election on his own, winning Lt. Gov by being the undercard on a popular Ehrlich ticket.
On the other hand, Dawson had a clear and proven track record of competence, leadership, fundraising, organizational skill, and most importantly – winning elections. He’s beaten Democrats. He’s turned SC into a reliably red state. He knows how to raise and manage boatloads of money effectively. But God forbid he golfed somewhere with a law nobody knew was in effect.
So yes, let’s look at resumes. Let’s look at accomplishments. And then let’s be honest. The only reason you wanted Steele and didn’t want Katon Dawson was because of race issues. That’s bigotry, not the other way around.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Katon Dawson made the SC GOP the party of Jim DeMint. He is the most anti-moderate candidate in the field. Say what you want about the need to excite the base- we DON’T win anything if we turn off all of the moderates. Any moron could move the GOP to the right and win South Carolina. It takes someone with a different vision to package the GOP for a national audience. Maybe that is or maybe that isn’t Michael Steele, but it’s certainly not Katon Dawson.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
That being said….. I am cautiously optimistic about Steele’s chairmanship….
Just don’t expect miracles from the guy. 95% of America still has no clue their is an RNC, let alone who runs it. Ken Mehlman did not bring any more Jewish voters into the GOP, Mel Martinez did not bring any more Hispanic voters into the GOP, and Steele will most likely not bring any more black voters into the GOP.
But perhaps he can help reshape the image somehow… I just worry about interview questions like, “Mr. Steele, how can you, with your pro-Roe, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, pro-government spending program positions, lead a party whose planks disagree with all of those?” Or, “Michael, will you try and lead the GOP to take more of your own moderate positions on issues such as gun control, affirmative action, Roe vs Wade, and the death penalty?”
Those kind of interviews will make for a lose-lose situation for the GOP…..
January 31st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Robbie, I would argue Blackwell was easily the most anti-moderate candidate in the field. After that, Anuzis was arguably more anti-moderate than Dawson as well.
Dawson had a plan, Project 3141 if I remember the name correctly, to rebuild the Republican Party in every single county in America. That’s what I was most excited about. Maybe he’ll share that plan with Steele now, who knows.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I’m bigoted now because I didn’t think we should choose an underqualified candidate simply because he was black? C’mon.
To act as if the only possible reason one could support Steele over Dawson concerns race — that is: to say that he was an affirmative action pick — is utter bigotry, because it is such an incredibly cheap shot meant to disqualify him by making people feel guilty about supporting him.
Steele ran the MD state party only during a non-campaign year and never had to campaign or raise money under the pressure of actually having to win anything. He sucked while running GOPAC, turning the organization into a shadow of its former self. He sucked while running for Senate, losing by nearly 12 points. He’s never won an election on his own, winning Lt. Gov by being the undercard on a popular Ehrlich ticket.
There’s no evidence that Steele made any wrongheaded moves as the chairman of the Maryland Republican Party. There’s only so much you can do in this state; you’d have to live here to fully grasp the enormity of the liberalism here.
As for GOPAC: the organization was inherited as a shadow of its former self. It hasn’t been what it’s known for since Gingrich was at the helm. In fairness, no, Steele did not turn it around, but no one ever claimed he was brilliant — just competent enough in the behind-the-scenes work that it’s wrongheaded to attack him as nothing but a celebrity candidate.
All in all, Steele so bested Dawson on the PR/media/messaging front that Dawson’s competence in the behind-the-scenes work was not enough to trump it for me.
On the other hand, Dawson had a clear and proven track record of competence, leadership, fundraising, organizational skill, and most importantly – winning elections. He’s beaten Democrats. He’s turned SC into a reliably red state. He knows how to raise and manage boatloads of money effectively. But God forbid he golfed somewhere with a law nobody knew was in effect.
As I said in the piece: this isn’t about Katon Dawson. I stand by what I wrote in the piece.
So yes, let’s look at resumes. Let’s look at accomplishments. And then let’s be honest. The only reason you wanted Steele and didn’t want Katon Dawson was because of race issues. That’s bigotry, not the other way around.
No, it was about messaging and media issues.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
We got amazing headlines over Steele.
What would our headlines have been had we elected Dawson?
Life’s not fair; get used to it and adapt.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
MattC said: “He sucked while running for Senate, losing by nearly 12 points.”
False both in fact and tone. He did not lose by “nearly 12 points”, he lost by exactly 10 — 54.2% to 44.2%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Maryland,_2006
How sucky was that?
Dem margins in previous Maryland Senate races:
1982 – 27%
1986 – 21%
1988 – 23%
1992 – 42%
1994 – 18%
1998 – 41%
2000 – 27%
2004 – 31%
So the average margin has been 29%, the best previous was 18%, and Matt says Steele sucked at 10%? The last two open seat races in Maryland (in ’76 and ’86) were won by the Dems by 19% and 21% — so again Steele moved the meter by ten points toward the Republicans.
The Republican Party could use more candidates who suck so badly.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
By the way, I should mention that I didn’t have a dog in this fight. I look at RNC Chair as a technician’s job, not an an ideologue’s (which is part of why I couldn’t understand the SoCons getting so worked up over it). Either Dawson or Steele would have done well, I think.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“He is pro-life, but not a culture warrior.”
Culture Warrior is one thing – but, at least according to some statements, Steele doesn’t even want to get rid of Roe – and we will make absolutely ZERO serious progress on abortion until Roe is reversed. period.
That’s why I’m so concerned about Steele.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
WHAT WILL WE DO IF WE DIVERT A SINGLE ONE OF OUR RESOURCES FROM OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE???????????????????
January 31st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
We know Alex, you don’t care that there are a million abortions or more a year that are destroying lives and damaging our future…but some of us do.
====
“I look at RNC Chair as a technician’s job, not an an ideologue’s (which is part of why I couldn’t understand the SoCons getting so worked up over it).”
Let me give you some insight. In any different year, when we were in control of Congress, when we were in control of the White House, or when we had a likely Presidential nominee, you would be right – the job of the RNC chairman would be mostly about process rather than policy.
But we have no high-profile leader. We don’t a Republican President or a Republican Speaker of the House or a Republican Presidential Nominee. That makes Steele the most powerful, high-profile Republican in the country. He is the one who will be on many of the Sunday shows. He is the one who is going to be the party’s face and voice until we have a nominee in three years.
That is why so many people get concerned if that person is not clearly dedicated to conservative goals.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Sorry, Matthew, but a political party must exist for more than a single goal!
January 31st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Which is fine. You want to care about more than abortion? we can do that.
MY problem is that you don’t seem to want abortion to even be an issue.
You’re honestly telling me you couldn’t find a single candidate for the chairmanship who was unquestionably strong on the three main planks of the party?
January 31st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
No, that’s not what I’m telling you.
What I’m telling you is that we found one.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
#11… in 1994, a GREAT year for the GOP, the Rep. candidate lost by 18%…
in 2006, a TERRIBLE year for the GOP, Steele (the Rep. candidate) lost by only 10%!!! It was the best performance for a GOP Senate candidate in decades in a state and in a year where the GOP Candidate shouldve lost by 20-30%
January 31st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
“What I’m telling you is that we found one.”
How can a candidate who says that Roe should remain in place – without ever explicitly reversing himself – be a strong candidate on abortion?
January 31st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“That is why so many people get concerned if that person is not clearly dedicated to conservative goals.”
Oh, stop it. Just because he doesn’t foam at the mouth when he talks about abortion doesn’t mean he’s not a dedicated conservative.
Plus… there are a LOT of pro-choice people out there who vote for the GOP. (Though less and less…) We NEED social moderates, just like we need social conservatives. We can be pro-life while striking a thoughtful, unhysterical tone that doesn’t scare off pro-choicers.
Except you would probably prefer to purge the GOP of ANYONE – candidate, volunteer, voter, etc. – who isn’t pro-life.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“By the way, I should mention that I didn’t have a dog in this fight. I look at RNC Chair as a technician’s job, not an an ideologue’s (which is part of why I couldn’t understand the SoCons getting so worked up over it). Either Dawson or Steele would have done well, I think.”
Don’t get MatthewK mixed up with SoCons, he’s just one of them. I tend to agree with you, its the primary voters who pick the ideological direction of the party one primary at a time – I really think Matthew’s blowing the chairmen role out of porportion – the guy’s not a pope who can speak ex-cathedra on Gop dogma.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“Oh, stop it. Just because he doesn’t foam at the mouth when he talks about abortion doesn’t mean he’s not a dedicated conservative.”
Not supporting Roe is a little than just not foaming at the mouth about abortion. That said I think a position like chair of the RNC may be about the best place to put social liberals, we can give a token to the Alex’s of the party and it really doesn’t change the direction of the party. Now if Steele was presidential nominee, I think I’d go third party.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Roe IS the abortion debate. Nothing more will be accomplished on the issue until Roe has been eliminated. period. Yes, we could try and push abortion back to being only the first-trimester, but that isn’t likely to solve much.
—-
Look, if we had control of Congress, or the White House, or we had a likely Presidential nominee, I wouldn’t be so concerned. But Steele is, right now, the most high-profile Republican.