Mel Martinez v. Michael Steele

Wizbang has a defense of Mel Martinez for RNC Chair.

Michael Steele is certainly the more charismatic of the two men, although Martinez is no slouch. But why would Steele be a preferred choice for the RNC? The same people who argue for new conservative leadership in the House wanted Steele, who is no more a "movement conservative" than Arlen Spector. Steele's campaign for Senate was based on his independence from the President and the Republican Washington establishment - and NOT by being more conservative than Bush. Oh, he did take a hard line on immigration, so perhaps that draws in the single-issue conservatives. But J.C. Watts, he ain't.

snip

Martinez, on the other hand, has been loyal to the party and to the President. Unlike Steele, he can attract Hispanic voters, with whom we had made strong advances until this year, because they are receptive to hearing both sides. He has a far more "compelling story" than media darling Barack Obama - the son of two college professors in Hawaii. Mel's parents risked their lives and abandoned everything they owned to flee Castro's Cuba - just the sort of society Democrats envision for America.

snip

In a rational world, both blacks and Hispanics should support Republicans. Both groups are more conservative on many issues than whites, in fact - including abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, strong national defense, support for the military, and tax cuts. That's close to the whole nine yards of our agenda! But blacks, because of lingering suspicion and resentment over civil rights bills from the '60s (not, we must concede, always completely unjustified), will not consider Republican candidates in significant numbers. Hispanics will. You have to appeal to the people who will listen to you.(emphasis added)

Fine, I will admit that Michael Steele is not a "movement conservative" but he is more conservative than Arlen Specter. No, Steele is not J.C. Watts nor should he be. But what Steele brings to the table is much stronger than Martinez.

First, and this admittedly is obvious, Steele can bring his entire, day to day focus on helping the RNC. Martinez has a job and if he wants to have an impact on electoral politics outside of Florida, let him run for chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and win back a majority in that body. Only a sitting Senator not up in the next election can have that seat and that is Martinez, since only 28 Senators are eligible.

Second, Steele has run a political party, albeit in Maryland where the GOP is weaker, but the GOP is a minority party in Congress and in many more states than we were six weeks ago. Steele is hungry to expand the party, not simply do what was done in the past. You expand the party, not by being wedded to "movement conservatives" but by appealing to the common conservative instincts present in most Americans, that of smaller government, personal liberty and responsiblity, and fiscal discipline. Michael Steele believes in these ideas and believes that America can do better with these ideas. That is not to say Martinez does not believe in these things, but Martinez is not movement conservative either.

Third, throwing your weight behind a strategy to "appeal to the people who will listen to you" means that you miss opportunities to talk to people who normally would be disposed not to listen to you. A good politician and leader can sway people to follow them, to come to a party with ideas that match their own. Steele can do this, and be more effective I think than Martinez. We must regrow the party, not simply appease a base. Long term success means party building, not simply winning the next election. Talking to everyone is important, even when the audience is hostile, because you may convince just one person and that can mean all the difference in the world.

Having said all this, I don't like to think that picking Steele or Martinez is being done because of their race. I know society is not color-blind, I am not stupid. But so long as we as Americans continue to define our minority leaders by race, we cannot begin to appeal to minorities for they will always look at our efforts with a rightful suspicion that they are being manipulated. Put a good, effective leader, of what ever race in front of them and people will respond, regardless of their race.