Improving Steele's Youth Outreach
Three weeks ago today, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele addressed a packed house at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum as part of the Harvard Kennedy School leadership series. His performance in the Q & A portion of the event was impressive, as he showed the crowd why he has the reputation for being a frank, tell-it-like-it-is provocateur. But his prepared remarks were less consequential; it was difficult to understand why he would use this opportunity to offer a broad view of the political landscape rather than attempt to tackle the ‘elephant’ in the room – that a Republican leader had a captive audience of mostly young Democrats.
Steele told a rousing story about debating Al Sharpton at an African-American church in Detroit during the 2004 election cycle. He indicated that, while most left the church with their opinion unchanged, they appreciated his vociferous and unapologetic defense of his principles. Unfortunately, Steele failed to heed the lessons of this story in his remarks.
While the speech may have served as an effective installment in the Harvard Kennedy School leadership series, Steele missed an important opportunity. Kennedy students deserved to hear a passionate appeal from the head of this country’s Republican party. They desperately needed the sales pitch. They needed to have their own biases challenged. They ought to have been told that, under Steele’s leadership, the party was changing and that they were being actively courted in the wake of the empty promises made by President Change.
Yes, such an attempt was likely to be futile – but it did not even appear that Steele was seeking converts. Instead, he seemed resigned to the fact that those in the audience had their minds made up. In the spirit of not offering criticism without proposing an alternative, here is an excerpt of the speech he should have given:
One of the most dangerous facets of our current political environment is the prevalence of these litmus tests. Do you believe that there ought to be specific, make-or-break criteria that determine your support for an individual? Do you think that such a test should be applied to nominees for the Supreme Court, to candidates for public office, or to applicants seeking private sector jobs?
I would assume that your answer would be no. I would assume that, as Harvard students, you would tend to approach the world in a more nuanced way. You would prefer to take a holistic approach, to weigh potential merits and pitfalls of specific traits, and make a final determination after such a process. To do otherwise, to generalize, would not be prudent.
So, then, if we agree that litmus tests are undesirable and even un-American, allow me to pose a question: what litmus tests have you applied to the Republican Party that have precluded you from seriously examining the party as a home? What litmus test did you impose on me tonight before I even began speaking that convinced yourself to oppose me regardless of what I had to say?
I’ll bet that many of you here have been identifying as Democrats simply by default after imposing some sort of litmus test on the Republican Party. Possibly because of a particular social issue, because of the difficulties of a particular war, or, dare I say, because it’s fashionable right now to be for change, however ambiguous it may be.
So I want to introduce you tonight to some of my friends. I want you to meet Mark Kirk and Mike Castle, both of whom will be elected as U.S. Senators in November, while representing so-called ‘blue states.’ And yes, both are – like new Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, former Governor Tom Ridge, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and countless other Republicans before them – pro-choice and loyal, life-long Republicans.
But your party lacks ethnic diversity, you might say next. Well, I represent a party this evening that has selected an African-American, a White-American, a Hispanic-American, and a Jewish-American as its last four Chairmen. I urge you to contrast this with the DNC Chairmen of the past decade.
I also want to introduce you to Edward Brooke. In 1966, Senator Brooke became the first African-American elected to the United States Senate since Reconstruction. Brooke represented this great state, Massachusetts, for twelve distinguished years in the senate. And yes, Senator Edward Brooke was a Republican.
As David Frum recently pointed out, the GOP endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment in every one of its party platforms from 1940 through 1976. It was Richard Nixon that founded the EPA and signed more environmental legislation than any other president in U.S. history.
So I urge you, for the first time, to take a serious look at us. Please, turn to your classmates and friends who are Republicans and ask them why they are members of the GOP. I guarantee you that the answers you get back will be as diverse as this institution that I am privileged to speak at today. But I can also attest that there are common goals that unite all of us.
We are for free trade and free markets coupled with common-sense regulation. We are for fiscal responsibility and for the government and individuals living within their means. We are for protecting this country through a strong national defense. We are for trusting the power of the individual entrepreneur over the power of a government bureaucrat. We are for state and local government control wherever possible. We are for government getting off the backs of individuals.
I am leading the party of Abraham Lincoln back to its roots, where conservatives, moderates, and liberals feel welcome in the party. Yes, in recent years the party has strayed from many of these ideals, and I will be the first to admit that. But what made us great once before will make us great once again. Political parties are not static institutions. They shift to reflect the views and wants of its members, of the people. So, please, come join us and help shape our direction, help us install a better future for America, come be a part of our movement. Thank You.
Originally published in the Harvard Citizen.