Redstate

By Ben Domenech Posted in Special Events — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Two years ago, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and Gov. Bob Ehrlich defeated the last rising Democratic star before Barack Obama – Kathleen Kennedy Townshend. Some folks thought KKT’s ascendant political career would lead her to the White House - but we have the Ehrlich-Steele team to thank for her early defeat. It didn’t take very long, though, for conservatives to recognize that these giant-killers had something more significant to do than just beat a rising liberal. Lt. Gov. Steele has become a rising star in his own right; this profile by NR’s John J. Miller tells the first part of the story, and Steele’s interview with RedState tells the rest. Read on.

RS: In your convention speech, you gave a very moving account of your mother and her principles – if ever there was an example of conservative family values, it’s surely her. Yet you also said she remained a lifelong Democrat. Why aren’t people like Maebell Turner Republicans?

Steele: My mom grew up in a different era. She was of a generation that was persuaded by FDR and his message of prosperity, of pulling together in World War II, to become solid Democrats for a lifetime. And she and her generation identified with that. Now, like every African-American family, we also have GOP roots. So I look at that, I look at my mom, and I understand our deep heritage in both parties. Now, I look at the post-FDR generation – what I’ll call the civil rights generation, from ’56-’80 – and I see a [Republican] party that moved away from some of the principles and people that sustained it before. We lost our chance – we moved away from the politics, the emotion, and the passion of the civil rights struggle. And we did that because our party made a choice in the Goldwater era, 1964, to take a different path.

Now I am, and you are, of the post-civil rights generation. And we’ve got to reconnect with the people we lost in the preceding era. How do we recapture those people? How do we make them receptive to that relationship? We do it through values. My mother instilled in me certain values that link back to the core values of our Republican Party: pulling yourself up … helping others, but not so much that they lose their self-reliance. I am proud to be part of a unique legacy – a product of both parties.

What do I want to do [to bring these people back to the GOP]? I want to bring out the essential radicalism of our party. I want to bring back the radical side of Republicanism. Think about what our party is and the role it’s played. Freeing the slaves was a radical act. The XIII, XIV and XV Amendments were radical acts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Republicans made the difference passing, was a radical act. Today, I’m looking forward to being radical again. People believe and trust in these ideas.

RS: But do they believe in us?

Steele: They don’t have to – they believe in what we stand for. So do believe in us, and some don’t. But we can reach them. Let me tell you about myself – I had to learn about the party before I came into it. I looked around, and I didn’t see many people who looked like me. So I needed a hook – something to draw me in. There had to be something. You know what it was? Ronald Reagan in 1976. I listened to his ideas – I listened to him speak – and I knew that this was the same set of ideals and values that my mother imparted to me growing up. Family … America … the potential of every person … that resonated. And they can resonate in others today. So I don’t worry about who believes in us now. We can reach them.

RS: In your remarks, you also noted a that a “majority of Republicans in the United States Senate fought off the segregationist Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” The recall of the GOP’s proud history of civil rights is always a worthy exercise. My question is, since 1964, with the advent of the Southern Strategy and the changes we’ve seen in both parties – are the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act the same Republicans in the party today?

Steele: Yeah, I think they are still here. I think those Republicans that fought that fight are still here. They’re just fighting a different battle. In the civil rights generation, the fight was to get to the lunch counter. Now it’s about owning the lunch counter. We may wear a different coat and tie today, but we’re still here.

RS: By birth and upbringing, you are a Marylander through and through. Maryland is an interesting state from a Republican perspective, since it was in many ways a lost cause for the state party until you and Governor Ehrlich won in 2002. In traditionally Democratic states and cities where Republicans have won in the past decade, we have two basic models: you have a place like Minnesota, where the state truly is becoming more conservative and hence Republican; and you have a place like New York City or California, in which Republicans win statewide only while abandoning many of the core conservative principles – mostly on life – which presumably define the party. Which model does Maryland follow?

Steele: I am a Marylander by birth, Washingtonian by everything else. I was born at Andrews AFB, raised in DC, so I’m actually a native Washingtonian. I like to tell people that I spent the first three days of my life in Prince George’s County, and then the next 27-30 years in Washington, DC.

I will reformulate your question this way: It’s not a wueestion of they’re not really Republicans – they are – they’re just a different kind. We are at our core – and I want to be very clear – a very conservative party, thank God. What makes us unique in political history is that we are a party that has been able to evolve – to have different appendages that adapt at vsrious times in various parts of the country in various ways. So you can have a NYC, 8 mil people, 8:1 Dems, elect a GOP mayor. Because that GOP at his core, may on certain issues, have some conservative principles that people ID with at a base level. On the social issues it’s a different story.

In Maryland, up intil the 2002 election, we had Connie Morella and Roseo Bartlett representing the Republican Party. You could not have two more different people representing the Republican Party in Maryland. Each of them on the House floor, calling themselves good Republicans – and that’s what makes us, I think, more attractive to the American people. And makes them feel more comfortable, ultimately, with being with us. Because it’s not a question, ultimately, of “If I’m a Republican I’ve got to believe lockstep in these things….I’ve got to follow ever letter and word of the platform” – no. There are certain core values of whether you’re Connie Morella or Roscoe Bartlett you’re gonna believe in, you’re gonna ID with. Those are the things I tried to ID in my speech: these are the things that I believe in, and this is the core of who we are. And the rest of it is kind of filler, you know, you put on a different suit and jacket every day – it doesn’t change who you are.

RS: I have a tough time figuring out which of those core values Connie Morella would ever talk about or believe in.

Steele: Remember, Connie Morella was a Republican from Montgomery County. I’ve had long conversations with Connie, and believe me, she may not tick off on every letter of those principles, but she wraps around on quite a few of them. And that’s enough for me as a Republicam. It really is. Because I’m secure enough to know what our party believes in as a whole, and where we are as a whole. And at the end of the day, if Connie is gonna have her voting record skewed to the left, that’s fine, that’s okay – she’s representing her people. Roscoe Bartlett couldn’t represent her district. Connie couldn’t represent his. But they both represent Republicans. That’s how I look at it. Maybe that’s a rationalization – may be you can argue the nuances of it. But I don’t want to see Republicans beat each other up on something as slender as that. At the core, we’re still Republicans…..there are different varieties of Republicans. There were no pro-life Democrats at the DNC – does that mean there are no pro-life Democrats?

RS: There are 40 pro-life Dems in the House.

Steele: So what’s the point, then? Our party is not afraid to say we’ve got pro-choice Republicans, we’ve got Log Cabin Republicans, we’ve got all kinds, and that’s a beautiful thing. But that doesn’t change fundamentally who we are – we can look America in the eye and say that we have the same principles that Ronald Reagan had in 1980. We have the same principles that Abraham Lincoln had in 1860. And that’s enough for me, as an African-American Catholic Republican from Maryland – I have enough issues, I don’t need to worry about Republicans to my left and Republicans to my right – I’ve got the Dems in front of me, and that’s my target. Because they are undermining every single thing we stand for and believe in. They are cutting to the core of our social agenda, and a whole host of other issues – that’s the battle of engagement. It’s not you, Connie – it’s not you, Roscoe – it’s Sarbanes, Mikulski, and all the Dem leadership saying, “Don’t worry, government will take care of you. Don’t worry, we’ll tell you how good you can be. Don’t worry, we’ll take care of the education of your child.”

RS: Your speech was one of the most compelling we’ve seen at the convention so far – I don’t mind saying that if the networks had carried it, it might have been a breakout moment for you as a national figure. National Review’s John J. Miller even quipped, “Michael Steele is a terrible thing to waste.” Do you have further ambitions within and beyond Maryland? On that note, we know that in either 2004 or 2008 we’re going to have a contest for the post-Bush leadership of the Republican party. Who’s on the bench?

Steele: Good question. My focus is on Gov Ehrlich’s reelection in 2006. Do I look at the gubernatorial race in 2010? You better believe I do. It’s a real opportunity, and we need to continue the legacy. As for 2008, that’s going to be a fun campaign. I do believe that George W. Bush is going to shake hands with a Republican successor in January 2009. I believe that. But who that’s gonna be? Giuliani is well positioned right now. Pataki introduces himself to the nation tonight. He’s going to come out swinging tonight. What does that tell you? You’re going to have, potentially, two Northeastern, pro-choice Republicans contending in 2008. Our conservative base is going to have to look at that. It’s going to be an interesting dynamic, and it goes back to what I was telling you about the nature of our party. See how quickly we can grow and deal with that.