Quote of the Day: David Frum On Attacks On RNC Chair Michael Steele
The political Quote of the Day comes from conservative writer David Frum, who is a high profile Republican critic of conservative radio talk show hosts and America’s often exclusionary talk radio political culture. On GOPer attacks on RNC Chair Michael Steele:
During an appearance on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Frum, who served as an adviser to President Bush, was asked whether Steele’s view on abortion — as exhibited during a GQ interview published this week — was acceptable under the tent of the GOP.
“It should represent a view within the Republican Party,” he replied. “It should be permissible to say such a thing. I speak as a Republican: we need Michael Steele. He’s exciting. He’s warm. He has a marvelous TV presence. That’s the face that our party should be presenting to the country and we need to support him. And the very fact that he is opening up, talking to constituencies that need to be reached — these are valuable and fresh things. And I’m sick about the kind of level of attack he’s taking. Because we need him.”
Later in the program, Frum argued that Steele’s appeal was far more than just racial or political superficiality.
“He’s not a black face, he’s just a different face,” he said. “We need different kinds of people. It isn’t ‘you put a black face on the party and you get black voters.’ You put a different face there … His knocking down the walls is saying we can have a wider discussion within the Republican Party than we’ve allowed ourselves.”
Frum’s comments underscore a divide in the GOP between conservatives more anchored in the baby boomer style of politics, which divides the world into sharply defined “us versus them” groups, and some in younger generations — who scratch their heads at partisan or ideological litmus tests that demonize and try to marginalize those who don’t pass the tests. His reaction also reflects the ongoing battle over whether the GOP will become a bigger tent or demand special credentials from those who want to enter into it.
16 Responses to “Quote of the Day: David Frum On Attacks On RNC Chair Michael Steele”
“It should represent a view within the Republican Party,” he replied. “It should be permissible to say such a thing. I speak as a Republican: we need Michael Steele. He’s exciting. He’s warm. He has a marvelous TV presence. That’s the face that our party should be presenting to the country and we need to support him. And the very fact that he is opening up, talking to constituencies that need to be reached — these are valuable and fresh things. And I’m sick about the kind of level of attack he’s taking. Because we need him.”
Uh…. isn't that what a lot of Republicans, including Colin Powell, tried to do over the years? Each time they didn't toe the party line they were marginalized. Let's not even talk about the stimulus bill where the GOP leadership forced everyone to vote the party line (except for three senators).
Just talking about “different faces” with other ideas doesn't actually mean the GOP will change their platform. The GOP would be more than happy to point to a wide range of views within their party, as long as they all supported the same old tired GOP agenda at the end of the day.
Frum is more enamored with the idea of Michael Steele than the man himself. The problem with Steele is that he has never really done much of anything. He's only won one elected office – Lt. Governor of MD – and did nothing of note there.
And while he has the political instincts to survive personally – to fail upward – he has never leveraged that into a movement or larger political course.
I think it's great that the GOP elected him as Chair. The idea of Steele is a good one – a more moderate, inclusive party open to ideas and voters not tethered to the Deep South or the conservative Plains and Mormon states. But I just don't think Steele has what it takes.
Sadly, if he does get replaced, it will be by a right-wing Rove-type like Katon Dawson. And then the GOP will step backwards.
Eventually the GOP is going to marginalize itself out of existence if they don't start accepting people with differing opinions. I don't think they're going to realize that until around 2012 though, and unless the Democrats do something stupid (which is always a good possibility) won't make a major dent into US politics until after that.
I think Steele is what they need, but the GOP can't see that right now. It doesn't matter that he hasn't done much since he is largely symbolic, however that symbol is extremely important. What people need to see is a minority who speaks his mind and doesn't always toe the party line, but is still taken seriously by his fellow party members. The traditional GOP is publicly fighting against that image, which is counter to their own long term interests.
DaGoat: “What people need to see is a minority who speaks his mind and doesn't always toe the party line, but is still taken seriously by his fellow party members.”
Agreed. Because Steele is now party chair let's see if he can be a leader who will make changes or whether he will be someone who speaks his mind but lacks the courage or will to make changes.
I love how liberals keep telling Repubicans that they need to become Democratic-lite in order to keep the brand going. Of course, the problem is why would the middle class whites who are the base of the Republican Party want to stick around in a party that cannot distringuish itself from the Democrats?
Maybe Steele should spend time apologizing for the failures of the Bush Administration. If a Republican Administration was going to have a 20% approval rating, they should have at least balanced the budget and cut spending. What Steele really needs to explain is why should anyone support Republicans if they keeping spending like Democrats and running up huge deficits? Also, Steele needs to explain why the white middle class should give a single dollar to a party that supports open borders and unlimited immigration. If Repubicans care about educations, jobs, the environment, they should be against unlimited, uncontrolled immigration. Yet, Steele is so stupid he does not understand that every poor immigration from Mexico will eventually be an automatic Democratic voters.
Why should conservative whites want to be part of a party that gives its support to quotas, racial set asides, affirmative action, and race based social engineering. Steele supports race based government programs even though almost no Republicans do.
Steele is a Republican for career reasons and for quota reasons. He has nothing in common with middle class whites who are the base of the Republican Party and seems to delight in insulting them. How can such a quota black head of the party ever hope to grow the party when he is working so hard to run off the base?
Good Luck! Once you get over the politics of resentment, you realize that there is nothing there. The republicans don't have any policies that they can sell to the American public without lying.
They don't! What they care about is cheap labor.
DQ – and the Democrats only care about turning the U.S. into a Socialist Dictatorship.
Now that we have gotten the venomous lies out of the way, do you actually have anything insightful or intelligent to add?
DQ,
the problem with the Democrats is that they claim to want to help the environment and provide goverment services but still support open borders and unlimited immigration. Immigration shows that the Democratic party does not really care that much about the environment, improving wages, or helping blue collar workers.
Of course the Democrats are the party that want to do away with nuclear power plants because of their irrational fear of radiation while also shutting down coal fired plants.
It's only fair, W wanted to create a unitary dictatorship. LOL
How can such a quota black head of the party ever hope to grow the party when he is working so hard to run off the base?
The key I think is to retain the base while trying to re-attract people they've already run off, as well as attracting new members. While Steele may do some things to offend the base, the alternative being offered by his opponents seems like the same strategy that shrunk the party in the first place.
As far as his being a “quota” I guess he is in the same sense that Sarah Palin was a quota, in that they have personal characteristics that might appeal to people not currently in the GOP. While I don't like the idea of people getting their position because of their color or gender, from a pragmatic standpoint Steele is a reasonable choice.
The technical term is “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, haven't you been paying attention to Fox News?
Please feel free to list the economic policies pursued by Shrub and his merry band of congress critters that have been good for the Median Household?
A relevant context for understanding Michael Steele's role is generational. Limbaugh is a Boomer. Steele, born 1958, is a member of Generation Jones—the generation between the Boomers and Gen X'ers. Many influential media venues (New York Times, Time Magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) have specifically used the term Generation Jones to describe this new generation of U.S. leadership.
Obama, and many of his Administration's top players, are Jonesers, including Geithner, Duncan, Rice, Summers, Emanuel, Jarrett, Napolitano, and Axelrod. Many of the top leaders of the GOP now (besides Limbaugh) are Jonesers, including Steele, Palin, Pawlenty, Cantor and Sanford.
Here is a recent op-ed about GenJones as the new generation of leadership in USA TODAY:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090…
And in this short video, Steele discusses his own Generation Jones identity, and the relevance of this new generation of leadership:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbbVe_Twui0
DQ -
lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent
expanded the refundable child tax credit
reduced the typical low-income tax burden to below zero
increased the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers
the remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes
the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent
The Medicare Act of 2003
The problem for the Repubican Party is that if Steele, Palin, Pawlenty, Cantor and Sanford is the future, then th efuture is very dim. They are not the type to lead because none of them have any leadership skills. they have horrible media presence. they do not do their homework. And they seem incapable of managing a staff. they also have a track record of pork, spending, bigger government, expanding entitlements, and open borders.
Sounds like Frum is going for a concept that has long been lacking in the GOP— diversity. The party of Lincoln has become the party of the middle-aged Southern white Christian male, who is fed up with immigration, welfare moms and elitist liberals.
The only way to generate new ideas is to drop the connection to a moribund ideology and try flexibility in problem-solving. That in turn would attract a new generation of voters.
As far as Steele himself, I think he's better suited as a conservative talk show host— because he's up against some rigid ideologues who still believe the party lost in 2006 and 2008 because it wasn't conservative ENOUGH.
Reduced the median federal income tax bill by a couple of hundred bucks and raised local taxes to compensate for the tax cut.
Took a regressive tax code and made it even more regressive.
because the median American household really needs to worry about estate taxes that kick in at 3.5 million per spouse, or investment income.
Ah, yes the give away to big pharma so thoroughly loved by real conservatives.