Will Chairman Steele Embrace the Ron Paul Revolution?

Matt Varvaro's picture
By Matt Vavaro at 5:55PM

It will be interesting to examine Michael Steele's treatment of the Ron Paul revolutionaries as he attempts to rebuild the GOP. Mr. Steele, Maryland’s former Lieutenant Governor and the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, said this about the role that he hopes Ron Paul supporters will play in shaping the future of the Republican Party:

Ron Paul certainly brought a whole new generation of voters and I think it’s important going forward that we recognize the strengths and the attributes of these individuals who are out there actively building the party and building a movement – a consensus, if you will, on certain issues. So we can’t look that in the eye and say, "No, we don’t want that." We need to find ways – creative ways – to work with their candidates that are running, to work with Ron Paul himself as a member of the United States Congress, and tap into those synergies where we are on the same page and can move forward together. Will there be disagreements? Probably. But that’s part of this process of building and branding and moving forward. We cannot look at folks and say, "Well, you don’t check off my litmus test of choices and therefore, I don’t want any part of you." I think at this stage for this party, everyone who can help us should be brought into the room to help us.

This certainly sounds encouraging, but whether or not Mr. Steele is truly committed to this goal remains to be seen. If the Republican Party wishes to regain its credibility and win back seats in Congress, it must convince voters that it once again is a credible voice for limited government and free markets. Getting the Ron Paul movement involved would be a good start. Not only have Ron Paul supporters demonstrated their effectiveness in fundraising and grassroots organization, but they would also help return the Republican Party to the principles that, particularly during the past decade, it has all but abandoned. The benefits of such a strategy seem obvious and would help to remove the party from political life support; after all, as Dr. Paul accurately stated, “Freedom is popular.” We should wish Chairman Steele success in his new job and hope that he takes advantage of the golden opportunity that awaits him and the Republican Party should he decide to follow through on this endeavor.

Posted in:
I wouldn't be holding my breath for Steele or any other Republican to change their ways any time soon. I've never thought Steele was a bad guy or anything but he has always been a GOP party hack. I would suggest people look up on Youtube the Fox News post-debate coverage of the 2007 South Carolina debate and the infamous run-in between Rudy Guiliani and Dr. Paul to see what Steele thought of Ron Paul at the time. I do believe Steele and other Republicans will pander to something they see as a large potential pool of voters but I don't see any sign that they are actually going to try and embrace any real ideas and principles. I could be wrong though.
's picture
Whether the Republican Party will tap into the resources of the rEVOLution may be a moot point if the rEVOLution can't accept the Republican party. For example, if the Republicans preach limited government (to an extent), free markets and lower (no) taxes will we accept their push for marriage laws? (which ever libertarian realizes marriage is not a government created title but one of religion which should be left alone -- entirely different topic). My point being, we'd love for them to accept all of our views of Austrian Economics, sound money, peaceful foreign relations, etc. but there is no way they are going to give up their military spending, their pork barrel and other issues which are completely against our beliefs.
's picture
My thought is that the ideology of the "left-right" false dichotomy has completely hamstrung both parties. Even if there were a 90% shift to Libertarian philosophy, the party leaders and playmakers would still turn their noses up at change. The reason is because they are ALREADY in power... as much as they might complain to the contrary. There is a hegemony of 2 parties in this country, and until the system changes to allow an unbiased (non-partisan) voting system, those two parties will crowd out all dissent. It happened with the Junius and Julius families in republican Rome, so the precedent of long protracted political dichotomies is already established. All that we're needing now is a charismatic leader to promise everything to everyone and be given the keys of the kingdom to pursue any rapacious policy he wishes. Wait...
's picture
Maybe I'm just cynical, but what I hear when I read the above snippet is, "We (the GOP) need to take advantage of their (Jeffersonian, Ron Paul, paleocons, Constitutional, whatever Repubs), political energy and numbers, and turn them into GOP'ers." I do not hear, "The GOP has lost it's way and needs to be repaired." Forgive my ignorance, but do we - the Constitutional Republicans - have any room for compromise in our belief system? I personally don't believe that the GOP will see the folly of their ways and come around to our way of thinking. We will not be able to work with the GOP - we have be strong enough to take over leadership positions and right the listing ship. -Trent Abrams, Kansas City
's picture
To Jason and Trent’s point, I think that there is some room for political compromise and I believe that Ron Paul supporters can get enthusiastic about a candidate who may not necessarily agree with them on every issue. Take, for example, Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina. While he may not advocate a return to the gold standard or the privatization of marriage, he – unlike Bush or McCain – has consistently proven to be a strong proponent of limited government conservatism. As Michael Steele indicated in that quote, a flawed strategy would be to refuse to work with anyone with whom you are not aligned on every single matter. The key is to find people who you can work with in order to ensure that the party does not nominate another McCain. Even if he is not your absolute ideal, electing leaders like Sanford would surely be a far cry from the status quo. If we can help to move our party and our country in this direction, we certainly should.
Matt Varvaro's picture
As a member of SCSU YAL I would like to say that I believe that Michael Steele was the best candidate. He has always said even when campaigning for senate that he wants to work with libertarians on principles of limited government and sound money. GOP should be a big tent party, I see no reason why Ron Paul and McCain cant work on some things they agree on like Govt Spending. Ron Paul's voice has been silenced by the last chairman, having Steele there will give us a chance to bring our ideas to the front of the GOP agenda and the timing for this could not be more perfect.
's picture
Mark Sanford is an awesome Governor. The reason nothing has been stated by him regarding sound money or privatization of marriage is because his state (where I used to reside and plan to go back to at some point) has no power to control such things. He has not said he is against the Gold standard nor has he said that Marriage is a Federal/ State issue, I do not believe he has expressed his opinion on the Foreign Policy the United States has. What I do know is he continuously stands up to the Feds by not accepting the REAL ID and writing a letter to Congress asking why his state (who is balancing their budget and making cuts because of lack of "revenues") has to bailout other states who are not as fiscally responsible. Mark Sanford will be a big name in the coming years of true conservatism, but I do not believe he is ready to come out an admit or deny his approval of Ron Paul. In South Carolina, that would ruin his political career (trust me, most there are pro-war cooks who despise Ron Paul because he doesn't want to spread Christian beliefs through force). Overall, this Steele character must not silence the voice of Ron Paul even if this means merely allowing him to speak at events and not rejecting his followers. It will be interesting, but too bad he did not mention the GOP has lost its way and is ready to steer back to the limited government, fiscal responsibility it used to advocate.
's picture
I see them using us till there in control of the house or senate and then dumping us off. But then again, I could be wrong.
's picture
I dont think there has to be major concessions. I mean the Christrian right and limited pwoer of the federal government could easily work out if the Christrian right would wake up and realize if issues like abortion and gay marriage, which are their number one issues were elft up to the states there cause would be much furthered. Ron Paul is vehemently pro life, but he has stated that the federal government has no business getting involved in the issue either way and that it should be left to the sttaes as advised in the constitution. If the Christrian right would realize that if the issue of abortion was left up to the states they would have much more control over it, and they wouldnt have to be so angry when people like Obama get lected cause he woulkd have no authority of changing abortion laws because its not the Federal Governments place to regulate state matters. I mean when President King George W Bish got elected all the pro lifers were so happy, and now that President Comrade Obama is in office the pro life movement is upset. If the issues was left to the states which is a Constitutional/Libertarian Idea the Pro Life movement would be better off. SO I think you can adress the social issues with a Constitutional/Libertarian principles and still satisy the beliefs of the Christrian right and promote limited Federal Government.
's picture
I apologize my grammar is all messed up typed that in a hurry.
's picture
The point we are missing is that unless we have the 'proper' people in place to win the Congressional (house) and Senate seats in upcoming elections (Peter Schiff 2010?) , a Ron Paul presidency would be severely limited due to the fact that progressive, socialist democrats and the remaining war/fear mongering neoconservatives would fight tooth and nail to stop the "real change" that a Ron Paul presidency would 'attempt' to bring. The same theory would apply if it were Steele or Sanford as President. In other words, we need more RP like people in the house and Senate, otherwise, it could turn out to be a ineffective stalemate. The 'progressive' democrats are already forming their minions to stave off any criticism of Obama. Look for their group to become more boisterous as Obama gets further into his first term.
's picture

Too bad he isn't as passionate about upholding 2nd amendment rights.

The amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting yet he says: "What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that ..."

We can not continue to equivocate on the Constitution and expect to beat the Democrats.

for  more info please visit:

http://thegloriousworldcup.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/
http://reggiocollab.org/index.php?title=Main_Page/

's picture

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.