How to Make My Day

Say something like this:

Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele plans an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party's principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”

Or:

Under Mr. Steele's helm, the “old” may seem inappropriate in the Grand Old Party's affectionate nickname. He said he is putting a new public relations team into place to update the party's image.

“It will be avant garde, technically,” he said. “It will come to table with things that will surprise everyone - off the hook.”

Look, I feel for Michael Steele. He fought hard to win control of a party that is aimless, rudderless, and shrinking by the day. His win, which came by defeating Katon Dawson, a former member of a whites-only golf club, had the potential for an excellent media narrative, but instead it came off hollow, like the Republicans just figured a black person was all that was necessary to start winning again. And now, with most of the media oxygen in Washington going towards the stimulus and the possible bank nationalizations, it's difficult for the guy to wedge himself into the spotlight (unless, of course, he makes stupendously stupid statements about the economy).

At the same time, however, this re-branding business is hilariously, hilariously tone-deaf. It reminds me of that Clone High episode with the Extreme Blue marketing team - I mean, what the hell does "Urban-Suburban Hip-Hop Settings" even mean? How exactly does a political party, especially one that uses terms like "Urban-Suburban Hip-Hop Settings", intend to reach these voters, and once reached, make them listen? I could go on, but there's really no point; the interview is so embarrassing that it needs no follow-up. Just read it.

The real problem, here, is that the Republican Party is facing a much larger dilemma than a lack of "hip-hop" voters. There have been various blogospheric debates over the last few months about this which I have followed with interest; despite my distaste for their policies and beliefs in general, I am typically of the mind that a strong, coherent opposition is important in American politics. The debate has broken down along several lines: some, like Erick Erickson at Red State, believe that a more technological, grass-roots operation will solve most of what ails the GOP. Others, like Ross Douthat, have argued that Republicans need to refocus themselves on domestic, working-class votes, combining economic populism with social conservatism to make the argument that conservative policies better serve these people. Others still, like Daniel Larison, are hoping for (but are realistic about) a dramatic reshaping of conservative ideology in the direction of isolationism and fiscal conservatism.

The solution, in my mind, is much closer to Douthat and Larison (there are many others in this camp, obviously). Almost every aspect of the Republic coalition has been tested in the last 8 years and failed under the scrutiny. How would putting a sideways hat on any of that nonsense make it more palatable? People aren't goldfish, and even if they don't have a specific grasp on policies they will associate, at least in the short- to medium-term, that crappy period of time in the 2000s with the GOP (this recession, too, will not be seen as a democratic recession, no matter how much Michelle Malkin wants it to be). The real fix to this situation is long-term and it will involve breaking down the current structures of influence in the Republican Party, something that Michael Steele doesn't seem particularly interested in doing.