Republican Reformation?

[[Syl]]

Steele Asks RNC Staff to Resign

Fox News is reporting that Michael Steele has requested the resignations of the ENTIRE RNC STAFF (about 100 people). He wants to rebuild from scratch.

The story was based on a blog post written last night by Politico's Ben Smith.

It is still unclear whether or not staffers will be allowed to re-interview for their positions (my guess) -- or if this is, indeed, a real purge.

If there was ever a doubt his election represented a revolutionary shift in direction, this move would certainly put an end to that debate.

Which way do you think they should go? Back to their conservative principles? Be more inclusive? Is Steele a good choice for this kind of move, or is he just the Republican Obama?

[[Syl]]

And this probably isn't the way to do it.

[Zarathustra]

Which way do you think they should go? Back to their conservative principles? Be more inclusive? Is Steele a good choice for this kind of move, or is he just the Republican Obama?

Just the Republican Obama? Say what you mean, man. Aren't you asking if he is just the token black leader? Doesn't that question diminish both Steele and Obama? Can't we start looking at our leaders in terms of something other than skin color? What if we called Obama "just the Democrat Colin Powell"??

I saw an interview with Steele. He is damn impressive. In answer to your other questions, he said that the problem with Reps is that they have lost their way, and become the very thing they criticized (big government spenders). So he wants to take the party back to its conservative roots. And of course, that's exactly what they should do.

[wayfriend]

Just the Republican Obama? Say what you mean, man. Aren't you asking if he is just the token black leader?

I think he was asking if Steele was the "change" leader.

Dude, you made it about black.

[sindatur]

Just the Republican Obama? Say what you mean, man. Aren't you asking if he is just the token black leader?

I think he was asking if Steele was the "change" leader.

Dude, you made it about black.

With all the fanfare about Obama being black, it is a reasonable question to ask if that was what was meant.

[[Syl]]

It's about more than him being black, but yeah, that's a big part of it (it's not a fear of saying it, just feel like it's stating the obvious). One's the first black President; the other is the first black leader of the RNC. Apart from understandably agreeing largely on 'black' issue, they're both articulate, young (relatively), and 'fresh.' I suppose I could've said that, but I think we're behind the mark talking about Steele now, so...

Do you think they should also try to be more inclusive?

[wayfriend]

Shutting up now.

[Zarathustra]

Do you think they should also try to be more inclusive?

Absolutely not. I think parsing up the population into groups and then marketing to them individually is a disingenuous, inauthentic liberal tactic to win votes--nothing more. They should advance consistent ideology, and not worry one bit whether this ideology appeals to people based on their skin color, sexual orientation, gender, or age. That is pandering. They should do exactly the opposite: stick to their principles, and bring people together by appealing to universal principles, rather than tailor a position for each particular group they want to steal from Democrats. Our country was founded on common principles, and brought people from widely divergent groups precisely because those common principles of freedom are universal to all mankind. Truly conservative issues transcend demographics. It is the exact opposite of liberal "we're everything to everybody because we can create a program just for you!"

[Lord Mhoram]

Since when has conservatism had a monopoly on universalism?

[Zarathustra]

Since when has conservatism had a monopoly on universalism?

That's not what I said. But I do think that liberals try to tailor their platform to appease specific groups. I think they view us in terms of specific groups, rather than universal traits. They profit from division, whether it is class warfare, racial or sexual victimization, etc. They don't try to inspire people to see their commonalities, but instead how they are victims of specific repressions, in need of government assistance.

[Lord Mhoram]

That was a strong implication (you omitted any mention of truly "transcendent" liberal principles). You're talking about imaginary ideologies.

[Vraith]

Do you think they should also try to be more inclusive?

Absolutely not. I think parsing up the population into groups and then marketing to them individually is a disingenuous, inauthentic liberal tactic to win votes--nothing more.

As opposed to the parsing and marketing that Conservatives do? What would you call that?

They should advance consistent ideology, and not worry one bit whether this ideology appeals to people based on their skin color, sexual orientation, gender, or age.

Except that ideology is, by definition, exclusionary.

They should do exactly the opposite: stick to their principles, and bring people together by appealing to universal principles, rather than tailor a position for each particular group they want to steal from Democrats.

This might be nice, but lets be clear, honest, and realistic. You and I, for instance, agree on some basic principles [disagree on others] but even when we agree [in principle] we don't agree on the actions/mechanisms that support/uphold those principles. For example, you supported in another forum, the actions at Guantanamo. I believe that some of those actions are a complete violation of 'our' principles.

It is the exact opposite of liberal "we're everything to everybody because we can create a program just for you!"

This is not the point, purpose, principle of any liberal with half a brain (you don't hold me accountable for morons who lean left, and I won't blame you for the morons who stumble right)

[Zarathustra]

I'm not talking about imaginary anything. I was asked a question about strategy, and I responded in terms of ideology. I think "inclusive" is a liberal code word for "pandering to people based on their group identities." There are conservatives of every race, sex, age, and orientation. Conservatism doesn't have a different set of principles for each group. Conservatism isn't about group identities, and it doesn't market itself as a micromanaging ideology which can be everything to everybody (which is different from universal). Liberalism is the ideology which capitalizes on people's group-identity angst. The more people feel outraged about racial tension, or sexual discrimination, or gap between rich and poor--the more liberal politicians benefit. This "inclusion" strategy is good at getting votes, but it presupposes that you must treat people as a member of a demographic group, rather than an individual human being. Liberalism is more about "diversity" than "universality."

Perhaps there are other ideologies which appeal to universals, but not liberalism. Liberalism fosters division by capitalizing on "us vs them" rhetoric, and proposes as a solution to this division laws which treat us differently, according to our demographic or social group.

This is not the point, purpose, principle of any liberal with half a brain (you don't hold me accountable for morons who lean left, and I won't blame you for the morons who stumble right)

I'm not talking about anyone here. I'm talking about the politicians. I think it's obvious this is their strategy.

[Lord Mhoram]

I'm not talking about imaginary anything.

Do you really expect anybody to accept the little caricatures of liberalism and conservatism you are painting?

Jeff, good post.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not talking about imaginary anything.

Do you really expect anybody to accept the little caricatures of liberalism and conservatism you are painting?

Jeff, good post.

I was asked what I think they should do. I don't think conservatives should try the liberal strategies. I think they should call them out for what they are, and set themselves in contrast to those strategies.

Do you disagree that liberal politicians try to capitalize on division between groups? I think it's obvious in the question Syl asked, that he thinks conservatives aren't "inclusive" (meaning they don't get the black vote, or the Mexican vote, or the female vote, etc.). Republicans are thought of as rich white guys--or dumb white rednecks. You don't think that's a caricature?

Every strategy I described is in the liberal playbook. It's not a caricature. They pride themselves on their ability to convince every demographic that they are the solution to their group's problems. That's why people think of women's rights, or minority rights, or civil rights as Democrat issues. That's part of their marketing ploy. I don't see why this is such a controversial point. Like I said, it's pretty obvious.

[Rawedge Rim]

Do you think they should also try to be more inclusive?

Absolutely not. I think parsing up the population into groups and then marketing to them individually is a disingenuous, inauthentic liberal tactic to win votes--nothing more.

As opposed to the parsing and marketing that Conservatives do? What would you call that?

They should advance consistent ideology, and not worry one bit whether this ideology appeals to people based on their skin color, sexual orientation, gender, or age.

Except that ideology is, by definition, exclusionary.

They should do exactly the opposite: stick to their principles, and bring people together by appealing to universal principles, rather than tailor a position for each particular group they want to steal from Democrats.

This might be nice, but lets be clear, honest, and realistic. You and I, for instance, agree on some basic principles [disagree on others] but even when we agree [in principle] we don't agree on the actions/mechanisms that support/uphold those principles. For example, you supported in another forum, the actions at Guantanamo. I believe that some of those actions are a complete violation of 'our' principles.

It is the exact opposite of liberal "we're everything to everybody because we can create a program just for you!"

This is not the point, purpose, principle of any liberal with half a brain (you don't hold me accountable for morons who lean left, and I won't blame you for the morons who stumble right)

By definition, any ideology is going to be exclusionary, otherwise it's not an ideology.

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

Your description of the "liberal playbook" is a total joke. I say this not because Democrats don't appeal to interest groups and demographics, but because, well, everybody does it. You might as well call it the "American political playbook." But you like to concentrate on one party. Just don't pretend it's actual analysis. Like I said, it's pretty obvious. Anyway, yeah, the Republicans should totally ignore the Democratic electioneering strategy. It sucks and the Republicans' is rock solid.

[Vraith]

By definition, any ideology is going to be exclusionary, otherwise it's not an ideology.

umm...yea..that's what I said. So we agree on definition. I think, given this definition, ideology is by it's nature a problem, not a solution.

And Malik, I wasn't saying you were saying what you thought I was saying you were saying, I was saying it as a joke. But that sentence was funnier, so worth the misunderstanding. Know what I'm saying?

[Rawedge Rim]

By definition, any ideology is going to be exclusionary, otherwise it's not an ideology.

umm...yea..that's what I said. So we agree on definition. I think, given this definition, ideology is by it's nature a problem, not a solution.

And Malik, I wasn't saying you were saying what you thought I was saying you were saying, I was saying it as a joke. But that sentence was funnier, so worth the misunderstanding. Know what I'm saying?

Not necessarily....for instance..

My ideology says that it's wrong for me to hit you over the head and steal your wallet. That basically excludes anyone who believes that it's perfectly alright to assault and rob someone.

[The Dreaming]

That was a strong implication (you omitted any mention of truly "transcendent" liberal principles). You're talking about imaginary ideologies.

Politicians love to buy votes from special interest groups. There are opposing philosophies at the heart of the issues, but usually it comes down to "which camp is looking out for *me*". The Dems have the Gays, Jews, Blacks, and Unions. (Don't give me shit about generalizing, of COURSE i'm generalizing. And generaly these groups vote democrat.) The Reps have Fundamentalists and the Wealthy. Neither is really centrist. Both parties will bend over backwards to appease their core constituency. (Which is why Obama will NEVER take a hard line with Israel.) That's why when McCain called Jerry Falwell an agent of intolerance, he showed REAL integrity to his values, and not his constituents. Discussion of the issues of for the academics, the intelligentsia. (which are predominantly liberal, but not exclusively).

P.S. This was meant to be a little tongue in cheek.