Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Michael Steele and the Southern Strategy


The GOP cannot and will not survive another election round with the GOP being a regional party. What the Democrats did in 2008 was build a coalition, and that is the exact thing that Republicans have not been doing. You were either 100% in line with them or you were not. It was this kind of thinking that got rid of wonderful people like former Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut (Shout out to Greenwich, Ct my home town), former Senator Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island, and the countless New England Band of Republicans.
By De’Von “Van” Weatherspoon

This past week an amazing thing happened; for the first time an African American man was elected head of the Republican Party. While many may taunt that, this election is just a ploy; that the republicans want to catch up. I say not. It is truly an historic moment.

One of the first things that I realized about the RNC election was how just about each faction of the party had their own candidate. Social Conservatives had Blackwell, Moderates had Steele and to some extent Anuzis, Southern White Voters had Dawson, and then Southern White Social Conservative voters had Saltsman. Like many have been predicting for years (myself included), it was a battle to the death over ideology and who will rule over the weakening confederation of conservatives. Luckily for moderates like me, Steele won. Right now you may ask yourself why exactly I am over elated, well it is very simply; it is Michael Steele.

As I watched Mr. Steele’s congratulatory speech one phrase caught me and made me intensely emotional. The saying went something like “I will work hard to bring all people together and to bring life to the Party of Lincoln.” Just this simple act made me happy. For years GOP Strategists have been saying that the party needs to grow. By Steele invoking Lincoln instead of Reagan, Steele brought relief to Moderates and More Liberal Republicans my suggesting at the diminished role that social engineering policies would have on the party. This is an important concept. No longer will Religion, guns or abortion be a litmus test on the party. Steele’s philosophy is simply this “We will elect pro-choice politicians in the Northeast, Kitchen table economic politicians from the Midwest, and try to get the West.


However, being the pragmatic Ciceronian-Hamiltonian-Rockefeller republican that I am, I know that the party will not change overnight but it gives the party something to work towards. The GOP cannot and will not survive another election round with the GOP being a regional party. What the Democrats did in 2008 was build a coalition, and that is the exact thing that republicans have not been doing. You were either 100% in line with them or you were not. It was this kind of thinking that got rid of wonderful people like former Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut (Shout out to Greenwich, Ct my home town), former Senator Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island, and the countless New England Band of Republicans.

I have one thing left to say: The Southern Strategy is over; it is in its dying days. With Michael Steele the Republican Party can form a new coalition to work with the Democrats and have progress in the right direction.


~De’Von “Van” Weatherspoon a high school student and contributor to HipHopRepublican.com. He is from the great state of Michigan and describes himself as a "Hamilton-Rockefeller Republican".

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

De’Von,

I look forward to reading your articles they are very insightful, I am more conservative than you but you are correct the party must be willing to craft messages tailored for every state

Anonymous said...

Good article, I see Michael Steele as the Republicans' Adam Clayton Powell. He will change the GOP to its very core. God Bless Him!

uptownsteve said...

When I see Steele stand up to Rush Limbaugh and tell him that his remarks about wanting to see President Obama fail were unpatriotic and unproductive, then I'll believe he's about real change and outreach for the GOP.

If not, he's just black window dressing.

Anonymous said...

Steele is not a moderate, he is just against kicking people out of the party (ie. Reagan Democrats). His election is not a refutation of conservatism.

Anonymous said...

Rush Limbaugh did not say he wants Obama to fail. He said if President Obama's policy is a liberal, socialist, one he wants him to fail. Nationalizing our banks is not the way to go. If Obama policies means more abortions in the developing world, I too hope he fails.

Rush is a Fiscal and social COnservative. Hence you have to understand he will oppose Obama on just about anything. I too hope Obama fails if he goes down that anti- capitalist road.

Obama is weakenign America's defense. If he must fail so that America can remain strong so be it. He is Carternesque in his early days.

If Obama governs as a conservative or even as a center right leader,, I wish him every success. But from his first 10 days, I see Obama is pandering to the far left.

And yes, I listen to Rush every day. If you have a thin skin you will not like his message. You cannot take snippets from Rush and get his message. You have to listen to the context of his entire radio program. Rush is harsh with any liberal. Even Bill Clinton saw his wrath.

My Suggestion to Obama is to look at the ratings of Congress. They are at an all time low of 17%. Mr. President do not allow Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to doom your presidency.

We want leadership not indecision.

As far as Micahel Steele, I need to see he can rasie large amounts of money.

uptownsteve said...

"Nationalizing our banks is not the way to go."

What is the way to go since it was the rightwing policies of deregulation that got the economy in it's present condition?

Do you have an answer?

"If Obama governs as a conservative or even as a center right leader,, I wish him every success"

You had your conservative leadership in almost total control for 6 of the last eight years and it brought us a total disaster.

How can you defend getting 4 more years of failure?

uptownsteve said...

"My Suggestion to Obama is to look at the ratings of Congress. They are at an all time low of 17%. Mr. President do not allow Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to doom your presidency."

Congress' ratings are low because they refused to take on Bush and the rightwing which is exactly why the voters put the Dems back in charge in the first place.

Seems that you've been listening to a little to much Rush.

Anonymous said...

Everything was fine until the Democrats took over. First 6 were fine last 2 f**d up and you blame who?

sbm said...

Democrats where put in place to end the war or win it but they ended up stopping no war and screwing up the economy

Anonymous said...

Uptown steve,

George Bush did not govern as a conservative. Bush was crippled when he seek out bipartisan help from Nancy Pelosi after the democrats got controled of the Congress. The economy was in great shape from 2002-2006. After the Dems took over the HOsue, Bush went on this silly spendign spree just so his bills can get pass a Democrat House.

The President of the United States cannot spend one dime unless COngress approves it. So the spendign under Bush needed demcorats and well as republcians votes to succeed. The true fiscal Conservative republicans and Blue Dog demcorats voted no on almost every one of Bush Spending programs.


Deregulation was never the problem. The American financial system has detailed laws and rules on what to do. Again the problem is that the regulations were not followed. In this case both democrats and republicans are to blame for not enforcing the rules.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd both democrats were and still is in control of the most powerful House Committees (Banking and Finance)that regulate our financial system. As far as republicans, Chris COx over at the SEC did not follow the rules he was place there to do. I am not a blind partisan, but I can see this problem is not the fault of one person.

If deregulation was the problem in America, how do you explain the most regulated economies in the world in worse financial trouble than us? England, Japan, Iceland, China, France all in financial woes on the verge of bankruptcy.

President Obama is doing the samething Bush tried do, spend more money to fix a debt problem. I wish Obama would highlight the need for the American dollar toi remain strong. If our currency is devalued, inflation will skyrocket and we will all be in dire straights.

uptownsteve said...

"From 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.

The effect of Bush's tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same.

During the Bush years, the two main sources of class mobility - a good job and money for higher education - have increasingly failed to materialize for those who most need them. Last week's jobs report from the Labor Department confirmed that a strong labor market recovery has not taken hold. Wages for most working people failed even to outpace inflation in the past year.

That might be more bearable if things were rough all over. But the share of economic growth that is going toward corporate profits, which flow to stockholders and bondholders who are concentrated at the top of the income scale, is at historic highs.

Which brings us back to the super wealthy and the merely rich. The divide between rich and poor is unfortunately an old story, but income-class warfare among the top 20 percent of the scale is a newer phenomenon. One cause is that the further up the scale one goes, the more of one's income comes from investments, which under the Bush tax cuts enjoy about the lowest rates in the tax code. But many families making between $100,000 and $200,000 are not exactly on easy street. They don't face choices anywhere near as stark as those encountered further down the income ladder, but they face serious tradeoffs not experienced by the uppermost crust, particularly when hit with the triple whammy of college for the children, care for aging parents and preparing for their own retirement.

There is something deeply wrong about a system that calls into question a comfortable retirement or a top-notch education for people who have broken into the top 20 percent of income earners. It starts to seem politically explosive when you consider that in a decade, those making between $100,000 and $200,000 will pay about five to nine percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $1 million, assuming the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.

This is not about giving wealthy people more money to invest back into the economy. At this level, it's really about giving more money to those who have nothing to do with it except amass enormous estates for their heirs. Fixing the problem will require members of Congress to summon the courage to say no to a president who wants more for the richest of the rich at the expense of everyone else. We're not holding our breath."