Thursday, October 23, 2008

Michael Steele for RNC Chair?

With all due respect to our former Lt. Governor, why would we wish to have a moderate as head of our party?  Have we learned nothing from the past few years?

Let's see, Michael Steele supported a liberal over a conservative in the First District congressional primary.  Steele is more closely aligned with the same moderate party power structure that has effectively surrendered the Reagan Revolution to Bush's "big government conservatism" (an oxymoron if ever there was one).

Steele is a fine man.  I am sure that he has a bright future before him.  Does this mean that we should make him RNC Chairman?  I think that the GOP wants to go back to it's pre-Goldwater days - the party of big business and permanent minorities.

Social issues (particularly when the GOP simply panders to "values voters") will never put the GOP in the majority.  Economic issues will always be pre-eminent in the grand coalition that brings a GOP majority.

While we wish the Honorable Mr. Steele well, we do not wish to see him or any of his philosophical allies wielding the gavel at the RNC.  When the final tally of Congressional seats is announced in two weeks - you will see why.

cross posted at Delmarva Dealings

8 comments:

P. Kenneth Burns said...

G.A., with all due respect and hopefully I will see you the next time I am in the area, here is a newsflash...AMERICA IS PISSED AT THE HARD RIGHT WINGERS AND THE HARD LEFT WINGERS.

America hates Bush and they hate Congress even more. If anyone is to blame to the GOP fall out it's the people who took advantage of the value voters that placed them in power in 2004 and disregarded them a year later.

My question is, if not Steele than who? I am certainly not in favor of Mitt Romney. If anyone close to left if not far left, it's him. As far as I know, he is the best thing the GOP has.

Case in point, when he was Lt. Governor. Ehrlich was Pro-Choice, Steele was not, but Steele knew that his role was to support the Governor. You also have to remember who else supported Gilchrest in the primary...Newt Gingrich.

P. Kenneth Burns said...

When I mean he is the best thing, I am referring to Michael Steele.

Gunpowder Chronicler said...

I think it is also ridiculous to call Michael Steele a "moderate". Nothing can be further from the truth.

One should not confuse the positions he took as Lt Governor in support of a moderate Republican Governor for his own deeply held beliefs.

G. A. Harrison said...

You both make a good point that Steele is not a moderate on social issues. That is not what I was claiming. Unfortunately, social issues have become the "litmus test" for what a conservative is.

How else could George W. Bush be considered a "conservative". Simply advocating the overturning of "Roe v Wade" and tax cuts does not make you a conservative. Simply supporting big business v. advocating strong economic growth policies (lower taxes along with lower spending, free movement of capital, and overall economic freedom) does not make one a conservative.

I certainly bear no personal animosity to Mr. Steele. I may have to re-examine my label. However, I still believe that we need a real Reaganite leading the party and not someone who is more in tune with the Bush wing of the party.

Kenny -
I humbly suggest that you have allowed yourself to be too easily swayed by your friends in the media. Contrary to what you may read, my views (and the views of those like me) don't represent "hard right" anything. Those of us who were part of Reagan's army in 1976 and 1980 know what we believe in. We are philosophical not dogmatic. We are the current minority within our party. Those who now attempt to wrap themselves in the mantle of RWR in a vain attempt to give their views some credibility are merely Rockefeller Republicans who pander to my socially conservative brethren in order to garner votes.

BTW -
You are absolutely correct about Mitt Romney. I would just as soon switch my party registration to Libertarian as support him.

You are both absolutely correct about asking "If not Steele, who?". I don't know. It's not that Steele is wholly unacceptable, it is that we need leadership. I would love to see someone like Mickey Edwards take over the reigns, but I don't see that happening. The Bush wing will decide this go round.

P. Kenneth Burns said...

G.A.,

I am not saying that you are hard right. The argument I am making is that right now, Michael Steele is the best guy for the job right now. Going hard right might not be the best way to go because everyone is kind of against it right now.

G. A. Harrison said...

I understand. Again, my problem is not with Mr. Steele. I just think that we need an RNC chair who is more in line with the basic principles that brought us to a majority. Those were not "hard right" principles. I believe that many of the "hard right" ideas are merely pandering to an activist base.

In all honesty, I can't tell you who would be better than Michael Steele right now. I've had several consrvations with some of my fellow conservative activists and there is no consensus on who the next generation of leaders are.

I like Ken Blackwell, but I think that he is too closely tied to Tom DeLay (who was a chief architect of our current demise). I would love to see someone like Mike Pence. It's just tough for members of Congress to also chair the RNC.

As I stated earlier, I would love to see Mickey Edwards. Unfortunately, Mickey isn't "pure" enough on the social issues.

We'll have to see. I do know that the problem facing the GOP won't be solved by a new chair. We need more leadership from the bottom up and I'm not seeing it. We have become too much of a society interested in instant gratification. There are many days that I question if we can get enough people willing to devote 5, 10, 20, or 30 years to the cause. That is how we won the last time.

Cygnus said...

Kenny:

If McCain hadn't picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, do you know how many social conservatives -- like me -- would have sat out the election?

I submit that America is not pissed at the hard right wingers; they're wondering where the hell they went, because absent folks like Palin, they're not to be found. As for the hard left, well . . . just wait until B. Hussein Obama is anointed, er, elected.

Regards from the land of Dingy Harry.

P. Kenneth Burns said...

G.A. and Cygnues, you guys make some great points. Cygnus, I submit to you that we gotta stop meeting this way man! You have my email...but in al seriousness, I want to address this in order.

G.A., I agree that the hard right principles pandered to the activists, but it seemed to me that pandering to that faction turned a lot of Americans off to the Republican party. Check out a book called "The Truth in Black and White" by Harry R. Jackson who talked about how the party pandered to the evangelical vote in 2004, only to disregard it a year later. By the way, DeLay is an embarrassment in general.

Cygnus, people staying home was part of the problem in 2006 as far as Maryland goes and it was part of the problem during the primary. Although I will be honest with you, McCain and Huckabee were the best options in my opinion. Guiliani was a disaster (nevermind that I really don't think he liked black people all that much.) Romney, for reasons stated earlier. Tancredo, Paul and Hunter are just nuts. Thompson, as much as everyone saw him as the great one, in all honesty did not really want the job and it showed.

Like I said earlier this year, I saw those in the base who wanted Thompson to run, get behind him and got tired along with him. Then many of them ran to Romney, after dogging him before hand, then they decided to support Hillary. Wow that was long winded.

The problem with the GOP is that they ahave a problem operating outside of the world of old white guys. They either don't want to try or get discouraged when they get brushed back and give up. Diversifying the party and dumping a fountain of youth into it is not an overnight process. It takes time and the GOP should not give up.

We all know where pandering leads us so that solution is officially tried and failed. Pick some principles and stick with them. There is no such thing as Reagan Conservatism. It's just conservatism with Reagan as the virtuoso conducting the sheet music. Reagan never improvised the sheet music, Gingrich and DeLay did.

Just keep the message pure, and we will come. We meaning everyone.

ShareThis