Michael Steele has been elected as the chair of the RNC. The question of whether he is a token or not is probably laughable considering the history of conservatives and their strategic use of people of color to further their agenda that rarely benefits the needs of people of color. But I have to say, I agree with Ta-Nehisi Coates, that while it is obvious that similar to Sarah Palin, Micheal Steele is a symbol, I can't really complain that they chose a black man to be the head of the RNC. It is as though, they want the joke to be on liberals, but the joke is kind of on them. As in they are playing into our agenda a little bit and they might just be becoming more progressive. I have no problem with conservatives alienating their white supremacist constituents and at least begin to move the right back towards the center.
But let me not get too optimistic. Calling someone a token is generally problematic. It assumes that this person, whether it be a woman, a person of color, a queer person or another member of a historically disenfranchised community, didn't work to get to where they are and they are probably not qualified, but instead they function as a symbol. I think given the history of the right-wing in strategically recruiting people of color to be spokespeople for them makes it difficult to think that they actually believe in the advancement of people of color and/or other disenfranchised communities. And by believe in, I don't mean, just a thought or a prayer, but creating, endorsing and passing legislation that will change the lived realities of disenfranchised communities.
So it is a bittersweet nomination as the right gears up to build back after the election that destroyed any belief Americans had that right-wingers are not total racists. Unfortunately, the way that racism functions in this country, people of color are not always put in leadership positions to help their people, but to make white people feel better about their racism. We are entering a very interesting time, where our leaders may be diverse and representative, but disenfranchised communities are still disenfranchised. Will the majority now be marginalized? After all, he may be black, but he is pro-life and against gay marriage, not to mention a supporter of other conservative measures. Not that I was expecting his views to be any different, just restating the obvious.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Michael Steele: Token or Progress?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11769
Given the Republican Party's recent history, I'm going with token. Michael Steele is from my state, and was destroyed in elections there. His qualifications for RNC chair are little to none. He is, moreover, a complete shmuck. Also, consider the time of the appointment. When did the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin? After Hillary Clinton proved women are a powerful force in politics. So when do they appoint a black man to chair the RNC? After Barack Obama proves that people of color and really anyone interested in minority rights are becoming a force. This is just the latest ploy to convince people that Compassionate Conservatism is slightly more real than magical unicorn fairy land.
Rush Limbaugh: "We need a shot in the arm. You hear me boys? In the goddamn arm! Election held tomorrow, that sumbitch Obama would win it in a walk!"
John Boehner: "Well' he's the hope candidate, Daddy."
Rush Limbaugh: "Yeah."
John Boehner: "A lot of people like that hope. Maybe we should get us some."
Rush Limbaugh: "I'll hope you, you soft-headed son of a bitch. How we gonna run hope when we're the damn party of resentment? Is that the best idea you boys can come up with? Hope?! Weepin' Jesus on the cross. That's it? You may as well start drafting my concession speech right now."
John Boehner: We could hire our own black, even darker than him.
Rush Limbaugh: Wouldn't we look like a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies, bragging on our own black, don't matter how dark.
Brilliant!
as soon as I heard about michael steele, i thought about o brother.
Thanks! As soon as I hit submit I tried to change "my concession speech" to "Sarah's concession speech," and of course Limbaugh'd use other words than black, but my upbringing was much much better than his.
I'm going to apologize to the folks here who don't like Dan Savage, but I really liked what he had to say about Michael Steele:
So Michael Steele—the new head of the GOP—says he intends to "reach out" to supporters of gay rights. Steele opposes same-sex marriage and backs constitutional amendments banning marriage equality—but only at the state level, which some see as a sign of Steele's moderation. Because, hey, at least Steele doesn't want to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage—and he doesn't! Unless the states, all of them presumably, fail to ban same-sex marriage. Then Steele does support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Keep reachin', Michael.
This is the GOP's new position on gay rights: We will "reach out" to you, meaning "we will chat amiably with you about our efforts to deny you your rights." Michael Steele will use the word "gay" in the same sentence with the phrase "reach out." John McCain will go on Ellen and tell Ellen that he wishes her and Portia every happiness. But he wants to ban same-sex marriage, of course, so he's wishing Ellen every happiness save that happiest-day-of-your-life happiness.
Sorry, GOP, but you don't get any points for being polite about oppressing us.
The GOP has such a poor relationship with minority communities that Steele isn't even a token. A token implies that the person is a symbol of some sort of constituency within an organization, whereas the RNC has something like four African-American members total.
That's like looking at a Utah Jazz basketball game and surmising that there must be a sizable number of African-Americans in Utah (it's 1.32%).
Put simply, he's an anomaly... possibly a highly effective anomaly that has to be countered, but an anomaly nonetheless.
I'm pretty cynical re the GOP. I think that in general its good to have a POC. But my cynicism says this is little more than tokenness. This is the party of the magic negro song, and an elected congressman having to *apologize* for upsetting blatantly racist blatantly sexist radioloser Limbaugh.
There's a difference between just putting a POC in a position, as you said, to appease white people and make them feel good, and putting in someone who genuinely wants to fight invisibility and structural inequalities for their group of people. I see this as the former.
"to appease white people and make them feel good,"
It's important to remember that point. GOP outreach to blacks isn't about getting black votes - they're not that delusional. Black voters are the most partisan constituency in the country. Republicans don't try to win their votes, just suppress them (Florida voter rolls being scrubbed of perfectly legit black voters in 2000 being the most egregious and successful example). "Compassionate Conservative" black baby kissing is about appealing to moderate whites who are turned off by blatant surface racism but not sensitized to the racial infrastructure that's pretty much defined the Republican Party since Nixon.
Token or not, I'm happy to see the GOP put under-represented minorities in high profile positions, because at the very least, it increases the likelihood that the party will eventually adapt to the views of said minority.
I recognize that Steele was picked for his race in the same way that Palin was picked for her gender, and I recognize the achievements are different from their democratic analogs: race and gender were OBSTACLES for Obama and H-Rod. (That's not to say that they haven't been for Steele and Palin, but race and gender were also ultimately the SOURCE of their sudden elevation.)
So, even interpreting this selection with the worst kind of cynicism (which I am), I'm still excited. Remember, the voters of the party ultimately drive the platforms. More power for minorities in the GOP, however incremental, will eventually equal more support for minority issues by the party. 50 years ago in my state, Virginia, the democratic party stood for segregation (and we were integrated by a Republican gov.) Today, we dems are the party of equality in VA. I hope the GOP will come around again too.
Token
To me this is as painfully obvious as the Sarah Palin fiasco and neither of them really earned the position they were hurled into.
I'm really bothered to see this reaction on this blog (happiness????) in response to Steele, however. I remember for WEEKS if not longer HERE and on every liberal blog I visited being beaten over the head with how vile and conservative Sarah Palin was. As if we needed to be told that a woman wasn't liberal because we were too stupid to see past her gender.
No one thought that it was a step forward to see a woman in that position for the first time on the Republican ticket, even before all her unraveling really took hold. No one thought that, while a token, it was still nice to see women being included.
I think disingenuous "tokens" are harmful and I will not celebrate success of any politician who is anti woman, anti gay and otherwise fundamentally against what I believe in.
The idea that "minority/black community" ideas are going to find their way into the RNC just because they have a black figure head is ridiculous. That figure head doesn't share a liberal agenda, so one won't follow in on his coat tails.
What makes you think the "black community" (aside from Steele) shares a "liberal agenda"? I assume you're not speaking of strictly economic issues. Who's more socially conservative (anti-gay) than the "black community"?
The major difference I see between Steele and Palin is that Palin was selected to make McCain more electable--a short-run attempt to defeat his democratic opponent. Steele was selected to make the Republican party seem more (racially) progressive than it is. If their trick works this time, and they actually recruit more conservative African-Americans, they will probably end up weakening the right-wing of the party and diluting its anti-minority stance.
Remember when Colin Powell, as a major figure in the Bush administration, went off message by supporting real sex education and the use of contraceptives? Not to say that Steele will do that--I just think that more minorities in the Republican party will force it to re-examine issues that disproporitonately affect minorities. We've always said that the GOP has a white upper class male perspective problem. How long can you install "token" minorities with white-upper class-male sympathetic perspectives? My guess is not forever.
I, like you, am skeptical of any real good Steele himself can do (then again, party chairs don't matter as much as real candidates, so I'm don't see how his selection can be a bad thing either.) But his symbolic value might just bring the national discussion on race a little more sensibly toward the center.
I agree that it's good he's been chosen for whatever reason because the more the GOP tries to appear multi-cultural, the more the racists feel alienated. (During the election, I was really tempted to ask the head of Republicans Abroad Berlin if he thought his party could win if all the racists stayed home and didn't vote.)
What matters more to me is what political stance Steele takes. Every member of every minority has the right to hold whatever political opinions they wish, but there's something particularly reprehensible to me about the Reagan conservatives ostentatiously showcasing the few minorities they have to further their anti-social, anti-affirmative action, anti-regulation agenda. If Steele takes that Social Darwinist stance so common to his party, he'll say, "I'm rich and successful, so minorities should quit whining and asking the government to help them." And then I'll know the GOP principally chose him to advance that "Everyone-has-the-same-chance-of-becoming-a-billionaire-if-they-work-hard-enough-now-let's-kick-more-people-off-welfare" tripe.