Gingrich, Steele, and the RNC Chairmanship

I don't mind which of them gets it as long as one of them does. I think either of them would do a terrific job, and I take great comfort in the fact that even in the depths of the valley, we have such fine choices.

I recently proposed that the GOP needs to regroup, that it would help to have a person or an issue to serve as a focal point to regroup around (Bab5 fans will understand: we need a Dukhat), that Gingrich was the natural candidate for that position, and that he should step up. But I had in mind the substance of leadership, not its trappings and baubles; if the RNC Chairman position is a good platform for the intellectual leadership of the movement, I like Newt in that role. My worry, however, that the additional administrative responsibilities would distract him from his preeminent mission as a prophet: thinking, writing, and proclaiming the gospel as an itinerant conservative spokesman. Just as David Wagner and I were happy that Scalia was passed over for Chief Justice, I could be happy if Gingrich was passed over for RNC Chair in favor of Steele. Steele is no second choice, either. Like Newt, he has proven to be an effective organizer and a strong communicator, "a true conservative, able to articulate this ideology in a way that allows voters to identify with it and to embrace it as a political ideology for the future" -- exactly what the position needs.

So we will be well-served if either of them get the position. The only bad outcome here would be for these two talented gentlement to get into a fractious fight over this; that's exactly what I want us to avoid. (That, and David Brooks' idea, repeated today, that we should follow the lead of Britain's Tory party; hard to overstate what a mistake that would be, and John Hawkins shreds Brooks' theory here.) They should get together and reach an arrangement privately; we can benefit from either of them, but what's best for the party is both of them working together in ways that compliment their respective strengths. That may well mean Steele chairing the RNC as the organizer, Newt focusing on American Solutions as the ideas man, and Palin hovering in the background as the soul of the party and standard bearer in waiting. The smartest aphorism in politics is attributed to Truman: it's amazing what you can get done when you don't care who gets the credit. Politicians resist that advice, but truly, this is a time for the party to unite for the good of the country.

The upshot is that I support either of them. The most important point, as the WaTi reports, is that the RNC "needs a leader who can formulate a counter-agenda to President-elect Barack Obama's administration and articulate it on the national stage," and either or both of these guys fits the bill.

Added: Well! Newt is out; Steele is in, and "is in talks with Newt Gingrich to win the former House speaker's endorsement."

And: Jon Henke:

We are at an inflection point for the Right; a moment in history when the Republican Party is undefined and listless, capable of being either renewed or captured. The opportunity to mobilize around new leadership is the opportunity to re-take the Republican Party from the entrenched, atrophied Republican establishment.

....

... [T]he RNC Chair covers a wide variety of roles - from fundraising to operational management to communication; strategy and tactics - and it's not at all apparent that any of the candidates could possibly excel at every role. Some are interesting, but others seem like minor functionaries looking to be elevated to a bigger fiefdom.

That may be fine when the RNC Chair is just a support role to the Republican President or Congressional leadership. But the RNC Chair will be in a unique position of Party and movement leadership in years ahead. The Party will need both the tacticion and the strategist. And the most important role of the RNC Chair may well be that of visionary leader.

Post facto:
Steele-y! (1/30/09)