House of Eratosthenes

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele is the missing person of the midterm election. Instead of cable news appearances and debates with Democratic counterpart Tim Kaine, Mr. Steele has spent the past month leading a “Fire Pelosi” bus tour across the country.

His small role in the campaign, highly unusual for a party chairman, is matched by the scaled back effort the RNC has mounted in 2010. And no one is happier than Mr. Steele’s many Republican detractors, glad to see he’s attracting little attention from the national media.
:
The RNC brought in $9.7 million in September, $4 million short of its goal. This compares with $11.2 million raised last month by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which supports House candidates. And the RGA, led by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, raised $31 million in July, August and September.

Many congressional Republicans and governors no longer trust Mr. Steele as their spokesman. They tend to work around the RNC rather than engage Mr. Steele. He does have supporters, and he has recruited an experienced staff. But his dismissal of Rush Limbaugh on CNN as an “entertainer” and other statements have stirred criticism.

Earlier this year, Mr. Steele said he doubted Republicans would capture the House in the midterm election, adding that he wasn’t sure they were ready to govern. More recently, he’s limited his media interviews and avoided gaffes.

If you’re going to criticize Rush Limbaugh for being incendiary, you ought to have least listened to his program. If you’re going to criticize Limbaugh for making money as an “entertainer,” you can’t call yourself a conservative.

Think about it: When real conservatives criticize left-wing entertainers, the criticism has to do with using mockery where it isn’t appropriate and isn’t called-for. Or mixing up hard news with witticisms, on purpose, to distort the picture of what’s really going on. They don’t criticize the entertainers for making a profit at something.

After he did that, RNC Chief Steele had nothing to sell the country except moderate democrats with the letter “R” after their names.

But maybe those phonies could still do a better job governing effectively…but whoopsie…we then have the later Steele comments about maybe they can’t govern effectively if they take back the House.

So after that, what’s the point of donating to the GOP? No wonder the fund-raising goals are falling short. Republicans certainly are polling well enough this year. That’s a miracle, and a blessing. Maybe advertising isn’t that crucial after all. But the real passion isn’t going toward Republicans, it’s going to the Tea Party movement.

And I think the Tea Party movement owes Michael Steele a note of thanks. Their popularity is due to an intersection of many highly unlikely coincidences, and Michael Steele is one of them.

Blogger friend Buck links to a Zombie essay, by way of mutual blogger bud Old Iron; the gist of it is that the Tea Party, realize it or not, is a resurgence of the Hippie movement.

I don’t know if I’m willing to go that far. If you read Zombie’s piece you see it has to do with the construction of a two-dimensional graph — individualism versus authoritarianism on the X axis, human behavior being a constant vs. shaped by a culture and the events within it on the Y axis. I was ready to buy into the idea that Hippies and Tea Party people occupy a similar point on the X axis, but remained to be convinced about the Y positioning…and Zombie’s piece didn’t go into great detail there, at least not enough to answer my questions. Seems to me the Tea Party is rigidly certain about its selected Y value whereas you could’ve been a good Hippie with any ol’ Y, as long as your X was way off to the left (individualism).

When I think of Steele, though, I think of this essay. We’re living in a time where the establishment has become crystallized and monopolized, whether it be a liberal establishment or a so-called-conservative one. It discourages “controversy,” which I suppose is a constant for the word “establishment.” But there is more. It discourages individuality, and seeks to impose a softly destructive aerosol upon whoever deigns to show any kind of creativity, especially if they seek to make a profit by it. It seems to be grasping for the ultimate authority, to dictate who is allowed to be rich and who is not. And it doesn’t very much seem to matter who’s in charge.

Yeah, now you’ve even got me talking somewhat like a Hippie. Maybe there’s something to Zombie’s essay after all.

Let me make as much money as I can, and as I want. Tax me to fund the vitals…not to whittle me down to some economic profile you happen to think “fits” me, and if my bank account balance happens to be higher than you’d expect, that isn’t a problem. Butt out. And government, you don’t pass judgment on me; people like me pass judgment on you.

Seems like so little to ask. This was the point to the experiment in the first place, wasn’t it? But it’s complicated by the fact that some people were born into the experiment, who seem to think respect for the individual is too tall an order. Real freedom is just a bit too tough.

Somehow, the tendency is for them to be in charge. Even though, when you watch them over time, their energies go into preserving or promoting very little, save for the thoroughly mediocre.

Our mutual friend Rob pointed out in my comments… as did Zombie, in his essay… that the Hippies wished a pox on liberals and conservatives both. “Establishment” is as Establishment does and there’s been precious little difference between the mainstream GOP and the Democrats over the last few years, other than their rhetoric. The actions of both are largely the freakin’ same… more gub’mint, more spending, yadda, yadda.

So, yeah… I’m getting to the point where neither party seems to be the answer… it’s a matter of choosing the least worst these days. Go ahead, call me a Hippie. I don’t mind. At all.
- bpenni | 10/18/2010 @ 13:17
Perhaps the abandonment of future generations into a morass of unmaintainable debt, is just part & parcel of being in power. I’m dreading the day the tea party becomes a real party, gets some congressmen & senators elected, and then those new politicians are successfully seduced by “special interests.” You know what they say about special-interests…nobody thinks of himself that way, it’s always the other guy. And then what will the hippies say — ALL THREE of the major parties are the same! And they’ll be right about that.

Perhaps we need to be more choosy about what it is we’re trying to oppose. To me, if you want to make yourself unelectable, the first thing you need to do is be a socialist. And I define that generously: If you are bothered by someone having money, or earning money, above a certain amount, then you are a socialist, you shouldn’t be running for office, and you probably shouldn’t be living in this country.
- mkfreeberg | 10/18/2010 @ 13:29

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Where’s Steele?Monday, October 18th, 2010

Where’s Steele?
Monday, October 18th, 2010