Apr 28 2009
Why I Like Michael Steele
I understand why a lot of people don’t take Michael Steele seriously as RNC chair. His introduction to the mainstream media as the RNC was defined by accusations of tokenism (if you’ve never seen a picture, he’s black), accusations which were backed up by him using dated hip hop slang and his forced public apology to Rush Limbaugh. On the “right” he appears disliked because he has a moderated view on abortion and gays, and in the left wing “mainstream media” he appears to be a weak token.
Couldn’t be farther from the truth. For one, those on the “right”, which I think would be more accurately described as the social conservative populists, at least on the elite level, couldn’t care less about him saying he thinks abortion laws should be left to the states or his statement that he thinks some people are born gay. They use those as excuses to rile up populist outrage against Steele because they want him weak. Everyone knows that the Republican Party represents a broken coalition, and that a new coalition will have to emerge for the Republican Party to reemerge. And since Steele is going to play a pretty significant role in the shaping of that new coalition, the existing powers that be want to have power over him to ensure as significant of a position in the new coalition as possible. They want the new status quo to be as close to the old status quo as possible, and so they’re doing what they do best.
On accusations of his weakness and his selection being an act of tokenism, it’s ridiculous. Obviously there’s some level of identity politics and symbolism involved, as there clearly was with President Obama as well, but, like President Obama, Chairman Steele emerged because of his superior skills, the RNC Chair is a far too important position right now for anyone to put any serious weight on the public impact in terms of identity politics. As someone who followed the RNC race very closely, Michael Steele was by far the best candidate. He was the only one with the comprehensive knowledge of the problems facing the Republican Party, wasn’t beholden to the establishment, and had the force of personality to fix the problems.
And it comforts me that he doesn’t fight with the base when it’s not necessary. With the apology to Rush Limbaugh, what was at stake if he apologized? He personally would seem weak to the MSNBC types. What was at stake if he didn’t? A huge block of Republican donors who take their cues from Limbaugh would cut off their funds, leaving Steele in a very weak position in terms of ability to build the level of ground game he’s looking to build. Same with something that came out today. A lot of Republicans want Michael Steele to use the term “socialist” in describing President Obama and the Democrats. I thought that was stupid, just like I thought the Rush Limbaugh outrage was stupid. But once again, what was at stake if he used the word socialist? It’s just one more Republican saying the word “socialist” drifting off into the atmosphere. What was at stake if he didn’t? Alienating donors. And so he did the right thing, he saw what was more valuable in the long run, and took the hit.
I am a big fan of Machiavelli’s philosophy. In the current zeitgeist Machiavellian philosophy is largely understood as “the ends justify the means”, which has been understood as meaning that the ends always justify the means, if I beat up a little child to steal his lunch money, the fact that I got his lunch money justifies that I beat up the kid. That is not actual Machiavellian philosophy. An example Machiavelli used in The Prince was there are two kings that rise to power, one is concerned with feeling and appearing benevolent, the other one isn’t. The first King spares the lives of the previous leaders and their supporters, and allows them to interact as they see fit, the other King kills the old powers off. The first King then has to put down an insurrection led by the old powers, leading to many many deaths, while the people under the first King live in peace. The point of this example is that both Kings were in the same environment, but only the second King acknowledged the environment and acted accordingly. If the first King was genuinely benevolent, he wouldn’t be in power, or he’d give up his power if that was what the people wanted. But he wasn’t like that, he just wanted to feel like he was, and in indulging himself that way he cost many people their lives.
The same goes for Chairman Steele on the public image stuff. He could pretend as if it were his position to speak his own mind, to tell stupid people to stop being stupid, etc., but that’s not his job and if he were to indulge himself it would come at a cost. Instead, he’s doing his job in reality, not the reality we all would like to pretend existed.
And this takes us to the metaphor I want to use to describe what Michael Steele’s overarching plan is for the party. Look at the Detroit Lions. They have Calvin Johnson, Kevin Smith, they had Roy Williams, in terms of flashy, skill players they were stacked. Realistically, if you look at all of the teams in the NFC North, Calvin Johnson was probably the best skill player on any of those teams (him or Adrian Peterson). And yet they went 0-16 last year. In previous drafts, they went for the easy answer, I think they drafted wide receivers in the first round in 4 consecutive drafts. It’s the easy answer, this guy is amazing, we’ll just throw him the ball and he’ll be amazing.
But football games are won in the trenches. Football games are won by offensive linemen, defensive linemen, linebackers, and safeties. If you can’t pressure the quarterback he’ll eventually make the pass no matter how talented your cornerbacks, and we’ve seen time and time again that even the best quarterbacks do no good if they don’t have a line and spend half the season face down in the turf. Compare Matt Ryan his first year with the Falcons vs. David Carr his first year with the Texans. David Carr was extremely talented coming out of college, but he never emerged as a true leader because he was always getting sacked. Matt Ryan, in contrast, went to a team with a really good o-line, good solid fundamentals, and so he was able to emerge as that team’s true leader.
And that’s what we’ve been seeing with the Republicans. Right now we’re like the Lions, no o-line, no d-line, no fundamentals. And we’ve tried the Lions strategy, we find stars who we want to emerge as the true leaders we need, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, we put them out there and they collapse because a lone star cannot carry a team. You send a rising Republican star out there now, and their introduction to the nation is one of trying to mitigate blunder. They have to go to the populists, they have to avoid criticizing the ridiculous things the Republicans have been doing over the last several years, and they come across as intellectually vacant party tools. Bobby Jindal is our David Carr, Sarah Palin is our Joey Harrington.
And what Michael Steele is doing is what any good GM does upon taking over a floundering team. He’s building up the core. His biggest initiative is the development of the coalitions department, it’s about reengaging those who brought the party its intellectual foundations. Goldwater Republicans, H.W. Bush Republicans, the true fiscal conservatives who understand why we’re fiscal conservatives (beyond “I don’t like paying taxes”). Once you have that, leaders can emerge, behind which a movement can be built. You have to build the foundation first, and that’s what Chairman Steele is doing.
And that takes balls. It looks bad in the press, it alienates those benefiting from the status quo, it’s risky. It’s also something that needs to happen. And that’s why I’m such a big fan of Chairman Steele.
Trackbacks:
The Daily Galen Archives - DNC Keeping It Classy
