Perhaps the first competitive race for Republican National Committee Chairman since 1997—the first in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter—was destined to hit some bumps in the road. And perhaps some sharp elbows are destined to be thrown when an incumbent, two state party chairs, two former state party chairs, and a longtime state party officeholder compete for the support of 168 party insiders.
But in the months since the 2008 election, the RNC Chair race has hardly invigorated the party. Somewhere along the line, the tactics demonstrated in the contest illuminate what the GOP is good at today: back-slapping clubbiness, anonymous attacks, the occasional race-tinged controversy, and employing an operative class that is much more skilled at skewering intraparty rivals than at taking the fight to Democrats in a difficult environment.
The first paradox in this year’s RNC Chair contest is that it has attracted considerable public attention and scrutiny while being the ultimate insider’s race. The debate at the National Press Club earlier this month featured posters, buttons, and other traditional paraphernalia from a campaign for public office. The average GOP grassroots activist is likely to have a strong preference but has little or no way to actually influence the contest. South Carolina GOP chair Katon Dawson appears to be gaining quickly, even though his media profile is modest compared to those of Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, and Saul Anuzis. The ability to persuade others in private meetings behind closed doors is a useful skill, but this process means that the voting RNC members see an appeal that the average grassroots Republican doesn’t. Most of the candidates have put lots of effort into selling themselves to Republicans at large, but there’s considerable evidence that the winner is being chosen in these private meetings with members, or at least that support stems from long-established personal relationships. Couple that process with the fact that five candidates’ supporters will go home disappointed this week, and the race seems to be a formula for frustration.
A certain amount of horse-trading, log-rolling, and general deal-making is nearly inevitable in the process of picking party leaders. But in this contest, there are some signals that certain party heavyweights are trying to end the race before the voting even begins. This weekend Steele was contacted by an individual he described as “a senior Republican official,” offering him a power-sharing deal with the current Chair, Mike Duncan, who is running for reelection. (Steele says he cut off the official and told him he wasn’t interested.) The winner will need 85 of the 168 RNC members; Duncan has endorsements from 36 members and is widely expected to get 50 to 70 on the first ballot. Steele has 16 public endorsements and an undetermined number of private ones; if Steele’s backers were to sign on to Duncan’s bid, the race would be just about over.
Beyond that, there are the usual rumors and unconfirmed accusations—“this guy is promising to hire X staffers in that state in exchange for a vote,” “that guy’s allies are making big donations in exchange for backing their man,” etc. Other rumored goodies are positions on RNC subcommittees or assurances that certain states will remain in, or advance to, the front of the presidential primary schedule. Confirming any secret agreement is near-impossible, but the rumors leave lingering suspicion about whether an endorsement represents an RNC member’s genuine assessment of who would make the best leader, or simply means there’s a deal in place.
Some RNC members believe that not only are outside voices superfluous to the process, but the only potential leaders worth considering are already within their ranks. Curly Haugland, an RNC member from North Dakota, made the following argument in his endorsement of Katon Dawson: “The next Chairman of the RNC must be a member! Consider that in 2005, a seat on the New York Stock Exchange sold for $4 million. If elected membership is not important on the RNC, why don't we just put the seats up for sale? Why give our power away when we could sell it?”
Except that the purpose of the New York Stock Exchange is different from that of the Republican National Committee. A seat on the New York Stock Exchange represents both an equity interest in the exchange and a license to buy and sell securities within the exchange; the position of state party chair or national committee member is about building the party as a whole. Beyond that, it’s odd to deem “putting the seats up for sale” an absurdist notion when proven fundraising ability is often a factor when state party chairs are elected.
Beyond that, the comment expressed by Haugland (and echoed by more than a few Anuzis, Duncan, and Dawson backers) amounts to saying that while there are millions of Republicans across the country, there is no reason to look beyond the RNC’s current membership ranks to find the right leader in a difficult environment.
CONTINUED 1 2 Next >
