The new Republican Chairman, Michael Steele

Our politics are not about what we often claim. We often claim that our political differences are fundamental, logically consistent, moral, and policy-related. This is rarely so. More often, political differences are based not in logic, but in ideology; not in morality but in culture; not in fundamental differences but in geographic ones; and concern leaders and symbols more than policy and principle. We know this to be the case because a person’s position on gun control strongly predicts their position on abortion. This shouldn’t be so because these two political positions are unrelated morally, logically, fundamentally, and bureaucratically. The prominent political psychologist John Jost has raised an interesting logical absurdity:

We now take it for granted in the United States that political conservatives tend to be for law and order but not gun control, against welfare but generous to corporations, protective of cultural traditions but antagonistic toward contemporary art and music, and wary of government but eager to weaken the separation of church and state. They are committed to freedom and individualism but perennially opposed to extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities, especially gay men and lesbians and others who blur traditional boundaries. There is no obvious political thread that runs through these diverse positions (or through their liberal counterparts) and no logical principle that renders them all consistent.

This absurdity sadly makes sense. Symbols and leaders determine our politics in a way that logic does not. We elect political leaders based not always on qualifications, policy positions, or moral fiber, but on symbolism, ideology, and culture. The choice of Sarah Palin was a clear response to Hillary Clinton’s historic bid for the presidency and Palin’s rocky road to failure is evidence of the Republican Party’s understanding of political symbolism as well as their willingness to look past a stunning lack of cognitive ability and intellectual curiosity. Fellow politicians and civics nerds of their respective parties rally around their party leaders as long as the leaders “belong” to a similar culture. In short, culture is a social adhesive in a way that logic is not.

So it should come as no surprise to find that the candidates for the RNC chairmanship were asked at the debate not what their positions were on gun control––a policy question––but rather “how many guns [they owned]”––a culture question. Equally telling were the myriad references to the foremost Republican icon, Ronald Reagan. (Embarrassingly, every candidate endorsed his Dear Leader proudly, unanimously, and without hesitation when asked, “Who was your favorite Republican president?”)

There are a few political realities worth mentioning. The first is that women and minorities are incredibly overrepresented by the Democratic Party and vastly underrepresented by the Republican Party. The second is that the most recognized symbols in the Democratic Party are now a black man with an Arabic middle name and a woman. The third is that the Republican Party is in trouble. On Wednesday every single House Republican voted against the stimulus bill and it still passed in a 244-188 blowout! This satisfied the Republicans’ core constituency, but as Nate Silver of 538.com wryly pointed out, “I’m just not sure what message this sends to the other 78% of the country.” The Republicans are in need of a new (and perhaps electable) symbol.

Given the political import of symbols, what are we to make of the election of Michael Steele, a black man, as RNC Chairman? Will he become an icon of the new, reformed Republican Party? Steele is qualified for the position in a way that Sarah Palin never could have been; however, he had some interesting competition. Among them was Katon Dawson, the South Carolina chairman of the GOP, who had to give up his membership at a whites-only country club before running for the RNC chairmanship. Also among them was Chip Saltsman, the candidate who distributed the now infamous “Barack the Magic Negro” holiday disc with his campaign materials.

The definition of a “magical negro” is ironic given the demographics of the Republican Party. According to Wikipedia, a “magical negro” is a stock black character who uses special insight or special powers to help a group of white characters get out of trouble (e.g., “Nigger Jim,” “Bagger Vance,” “Morpheus” in The Matrix).
Rather than waiting for Republican culture and ideology to attract women and minorities and allow them to emerge naturally as party leaders (a statistically unlikely occurrence), Republican leaders have culled potential performers from their ranks and selected them for their iconic and symbolic value instead––fast tracking the process.

I sincerely hope my cynicism is misguided, but the soft bigotry of political iconography has never been so apparent or so mouthwateringly ironic. Michael Steele is going to need more than special powers or insight to bring his party out from under the dark shadow of Bush. The situation is dire. To be any old ‘magical negro’ will not suffice, so the Republican Party has rightly appointed him deus ex machina.