Conf. Call W/Chairman Steele: Thoughts and Fears

I was on the RNC conferance call on Monday, where the Chairman spoke for about 35 minutes and took a few questions. This was supposed to be a call to gin up exitment about the new RNC and motivate the grassroots leaders and supporters. I have been thinking about that call in relation to many of the diaries I have been reading here. Parts of the call were simply underwhelming, and other parts have the potential to be downright scary.

Specifically, considering the call in relation to diaries about the awful Request for Proposal (RFP) that the RNC has put out there to build their website. (Sorry I can’t find the diaries anymore).

Also in conjunction with the multitude of diaries regarding the need for the RNC to assert basic conservative principles, such as here.

and also in a tangential relationship to the diary comparing Obama’s agenda to the Communist Party USA’s platform, here.

Finnally, in conjunction with diaries decrying Mr. Steele’s inability to articulate much of anything, and his gaffe’s,  apparently one today stating he thinks abortion is a woman’s choice, here.

The first point is that Chairman Steele was very aggressive in his demands that all the grassroots organizations needed to get up to speed on technology ASAP, and he was really a little condesending in his tone, as if the RNC was light years ahead of all the hick grassroots organizations and we all needed to catch up like yesterday. Now, I cannot fault him too much for this and this pitch was probably warranted. Furthermore, I know zip about these things. But, hearing the absolute ridicule of the RFP that has occured here on RS as well as at least one other conservative site, I was unable to take the chairman seriously and his message was completly undercut by the apparent incompetence of the RNC’s RFP. 

Next, in regard to the basic need to assert conservative principles, It was almost as if I was listening to a redstate charicature of the RNC. First, I did not detect a single conservative principle that was actually discussed, other than perhaps a very passing mention. Second, the most time spent discussing principles, was simply to say that we are not for the democrats principles. He highlighted three or four things that we are not for – socialized medicine, etc. It was like a cruel mimic of the critique that the Republicans have no ideas of their own. Now I relate this to the diary about Obama and the Communist party for one tangential point. That diary inspired me to review the history of Russian communism a bit, and a couple things struck me as I did that. First, are the similarities between Lenin and Obama. Some examples being Lenin’s original plans to modernize Russia with improved infrastructure, his empowerment of the Unions, and his plan for national healthcare. But, these interesting facts are not really central to this post. 

The really significant point was from the Wikipedia article on the White Russians who opposed the Communist Bolsheviks, and of course lost their battle and their country for a little over 60 years until Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Pope John Paul II got together and defeated Communist rule of Russai and the Soviet Union. 

The article blames the White Russians loss on three flaws of the same nature. First, they were not centrally organized as an army, but rather many generals or leaders were fighting their own little wars. Second, they were not unified as to even basic ideology, other than that they opposed the Reds. Some were Monarchists, some were for a Republic, and there were varities inbetween. Third, the fact that the White’s did get some support from other countries was used against them in the propoganda wars and they were portrayed as the tools of foreign interests. In essence, the White’s lost becuase they had no leader and they no philosophy or ideology of thier own, which opened them up to propaganda attacks. One wonders for instance, what would have happened if the White’s had been organized enough to convince labor of the true fate that awaited them under Lenin’s rule? 

Now I suggest that the Republican Party looks an awful lot like the White Russians at this time, and the RNC does not seem inclined to correct the problems. I maintain that this may not be Chairman Steele’s fault, and I pray for him, and I sincerely hope he gets out of this rut. But my fear is that the powers that be are delusional about the party, and are so politicized that they cannot see the forest for the trees. This fear suggests that they will fail to commit to any philosphy of conservatism for fear of losing the “moderate” voter, all the while failing to see that commiting to a philosopy of conservatism and then defending that philosophy vigorously is the best and only way to win over the “moderate” voter. That fear suggests to me that integrity in Washington has become so unimportant and so easily sacrificed, that those in Politics fail to see that simply having integrity will win elections.

It might very well be up to us to articulate and defend conservatism, demand it from our leaders, and mobilize the grassroots in an effective organized way.

Finnaly, there is the statement from Chairman Steele that could be mildy positive, but could be very scary. As I said, very little was discussed about actual policy or ideals. But one thing was mentioned, and my recollection of the quote was this:

On social issues, we are not going to focus directly on social issues, but we are going to integrate our social philosophy into other areas, such as …, and … and the environment.

Now there is a possible positive spin on this because it is easy to see that the party has done a horrible job defending its social issues positions in recent years. For goodness sake, McCain waited until the last debate to finnally even mention the fact that Obama was the most radical pro-obortion candidate we have ever seen. One knows that a little bit of ingenuity could produce a very strong tie to being pro-life and being ethical and being pro-abortion and being unethical. When no one trusts Washington, it should be argued that you shouldn’t expect integrity from someone who is willing to throw innocent babies under the bus, and that kind of integration of social issues would be a welcome sight.

However, by the mention of the environment specifically (I was so focused on environment, I cannot recall the other issues he mentioned), my fear tells me that the RNC is not only going to continue to push the scam of global warming on us, but that they are going to use the same moral relativist argument that the Democrats have used to make global warming a moral issue. The roots of this argument stem from the social justice movement which in turn has its roots in marxist thought. Government responsibility to feed the poor, save the planet, equalize incomes – all in the name of morality. The pervasivness of this insideous argument is why so many evangelicals and Catholics voted for Obama. They have been convinved that promoting the government’s duty to save the planet is a higher calling than saving the lives of innocent babies slaughtered in the womb. They fail to recognize that there is zero redemptive value to stealing people’s money and spending it in ways that you see morally fit.

If this is the direction of the RNC we are lost no matter who wins. If this is the direction of the RNC, we must do all of the work, and we must hi-jack the organization of conservatives either for or against our party. Reagan had a coalition of Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, old school Liberals, independents, and even a good percentage of Democrats. He did not build this coalition detached from any principles. In my estimation, his rise and success was based on some very articulate principles known as the Sharon Statement. The Young Americans For Freedom’s 1960 statement is as valid now as it was then. They may need tweaked, they may need some minor updating to account for the loss of an objective media, and the change of threat from an external communist superpower, to an internal communist superpower. But they would be a good place to start re-building the movement on. If we have to.