| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Michael Steele's Rap Battle Response | ||||
| ||||
So, Michael Steele wants the Republican party to be relevant to today's youth, by bringing it into an "urban/suburban hip-hop context". He uses words like "bling-bling", and "off the hook", which don't exactly seem to roll off his tongue with ease.
Now, when you get past the choice of lingo...the man has a point. The Republican party as it has been in (at least the recent) past, has not had a lot to offer a more urban audience, and in African Americans in particular.
Steele and D.L. Hughley make a good point...the ideals behind the Republican party: Self Reliance and Self Determination with minimal government intervention and fiscal conservatism...are ideals that many American's can get behind. Yet, the coalition that the Republican party has built has at times taken it away from that ideal, and in so has become a party that seems to have a split personality. It's a party that wants you to keep your laws of our guns, but has no problem getting the law all up in my girl bits, as well as marriage equality. It's a party of populist rhetoric, of "the american dream" and the Horatio Alger myth, that takes a very pro-big-business stance in its policy making. It's a party that talks about cutting government spending, but has driven up the deficit with interventionist wars and tax cuts. It's a party that talks about being "pro-family values", but tends to cut supports for working families (SCHIP is a good example).
Partly this is an example of why the two party system doesn't make sense, and Jon Stewart's analysis of this in America, the Book is a great illustration of it. I mean, how did the anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions get lumped into one political movement? Or anti-abortion and pro-gun? Or anti-death penalty and pro-choice? How do people who believe that government should not be telling us how to run our lives get along with people who want a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage? It's political red-rover, which is a fun game when you're 6, but not a great way to decide how to lead the nation.
I am a loyal democrat, living in one of the most liberal states in the country (gay marriage, decriminalized pot, AND universal health care...take THAT California :P) And yet at times I chafe at the "nanny state". If I want trans-fats with my french fries, who are you to say I can't, Brookline? It's especially hilarious when in the same 12 month period we ban trans fat but decriminalize pot.
In an ideal world, we would have many more parties, and open up the debate to more potential leaders with a variety of views. With this two party system, things become so entrenched. Bill Clinton got in some hot water for saying he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". Now Michael Steele is having problems around his stance on abortion. With just two parties it is unlikely that we would ever have a pro-choice Republican (even though it fits with the reduced government intervention that small-government folks would be in favor of), and it is unlikely that we would have an anti-choice Democrat (even though there is a large portion of liberals who are anti-death penalty, and might feel the same about life after conception). With more parties there would be room for more diversity.
Having said that, right now we have a two party system, and while supporting more parties is important, we also need to figure out how to make the system we have as workable as possible. The party loyalist in me is taking...not joy....but is not exactly saddened to see the Republican party struggle to find it's identity after the recent losses in the elections, and in the view of the electorate. As a Democrat during the Bush years, it was painful at times to see my party divided by bickering, and sidelined by infighting. It is much less painful to watch it happen on the other side of the isle. And yet we need a viable Republican party to keep things in check. The biggest downside of living in Boston, is that my political views aren't challenged that often in my social circle. We all have essentially the same views about how government should be run. It makes for less awkwardness at cocktail parties, but it's not the best way to govern. I wondered why MA often had a republican Governor, even though it is a predominantly democrat state. Now I see the strength in having that balance. I like Patrick much more than Romney (and I think he would make a TERRIBLE candidate for president, especially against Obama), but it's good to have people challenging you on your positions so you can think about them more critically. The trick is for both sides to really THINK, and not just have an entrenched shouting match.
The other thing that is interesting about Steele is the issue of race. There aren't a lot of African American Republicans. D.L. Hughley described the RNC this year as looking like "Nazi Germany". For a racial breakdown of the parties, the Kansas City Star broke down the demographics of the nation, and the two national conventions.
Here’s America, 2006 numbers: 74% white, 14.8% Hispanic, 13.4% African-American, 50.9% women.
Delegates to the 2008 Republican convention: 93% white, 1.5% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 32% women.
Delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention: 65% white, 23% African-American, 11% Hispanic, 50.1% women.
And I think some of that has to do with the legacy of the republican party and segregation. To this day there seems to be more racial insensitivity coming from the republican party (although one could argue that "Liberal White Guilt" and policies born out of unexamined race/class stereotypes are just as harmful, if more covert). And I think this lack of sensitivity may express itself in policy that is build from a position of privilege, and doesn't recognize just how uneven the playing field actually is. Even Condalezza Rice pointed out the difficulty we have in dealing with racism and the legacy of slavery here.
RICE: [T]hat’s not a very pretty reality of our founding, and I think that particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront [race], hard for us to talk about [race], and hard for us to realize that [race] has continuing relevance for who we are today. … [D]escendents of slaves, therefore, did not get much of a head start. And I think you continue to see some of the effects of that. (from thinkprogress.com)
As much as we would like to believe that Obama signals a "post racial society", I don't think we're there yet. Rice, Powell, and Steele are exceptions that prove the rule. If things truly were equal, there would not be the performance gaps in school, and inequalities in incarceration and the death penalty.
Interestingly, when Steele spoke to Chuck D about hip-hop, he assumed that Chuck came from "the streets", as opposed to someone who was raised in the suburbs of Long Island by political activists, and who went to college. What does it mean that Steele, who is the first African American leader of the Republican party assumes that an African American hip-hop star was from "the street"? Is it about race? Dose Steele see himself as the exception that proves the rule? I think some of it might be an outdated understanding of the larger culture and the culture of hip-hop. The republican message (especially the one that Sarah Palin delivered) focused on "small town america" and the values of an America that I think exists more in the mind than anywhere else. It's not just kids from "urban/suburban settings" that are listening to hip hop. Three of the top five songs in the hot 100 are hip-hop/R&B songs. I don't think they realize how much of hip-hop culture is out there in "small town america".
The interview with Steele has me intrigued. It will be interesting to see how the GOP will respond to him, and any changes he might try to institute. And it will be interesting to see if he is interested in enacting real change in the party platform, or just covering the old planks with some new "bling"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment