Is Michael Steele's Position on Health Care Reform "Nuanced" or "Clear"? Answer: The New GOP Is the Old GOP.

I wrote an article in December of last year about the interview Steve Inskeep of NPR's All Things Considered conducted with Mike Duncan, the then chairman of GOP. In that article I observed the GOP was heralding Bobby Jindal and Ahn Cao as the saviors of the party because it was merely trying to repackage itself rather than to change fundamentally. When a caller called from Oregon to suggest the GOP needs to distance itself from the religious right, Duncan gave a typical talking point: "we are the party of the big tent." But everyone knew, including Mike Duncan through his silence, this was not just ignorance, but also a deep denial.

And on August 27th, a little over 9 months after the election and 7 months into the Obama administration, Inskeep conducted an interview with the new GOP chairman, Michael Steele, on the topic of health care reform. (Read the entire interview here or you can listen to the entire interview here.) The interview was precipitated by Steele's op-ed in the Washington Post on August 24th, in which he declared the "GOP Principles for Health Care" for seniors.

Steve Inskeep calls Steele out on his contradictory call for no cuts in Medicare while at the same time asserting that Medicare, like other government-run programs, needs to "run better and efficiently." How can this be consistent? How is it possible to call to protect Medicare while at the same time calling to oppose President Obama's plan for a government-run health care system? Steele answers as follows: "Well, people may like Medicare, and liking a program and having it run efficiently is sometimes two different things. . . So let's focus on fixing it." In a nutshell: Medicare is politically popular, so keep it and fix it. But government-run health care is bad like other government-run programs ("We have Amtrak. You have the Post Office"), so don't start it.

I am left scratching my head.

When pushed to defend private insurers against the government-run Medicare, Steele asserts: "And sure, there are issues in the insurance market that we can regulate a little bit better and that we can control better to maximize the benefits to the consumers." Inskeep is quick to catch Steele's inconsistency and responds, " Wait a minute, wait, wait. You would trust the government to look into that?"

Steele gets defensive and accuses Inskeep of "doing a wonderful little dance" and "trying to be cute." He insists that "the reality of this is very simple. I'm not saying the government doesn't have a role to play." What is then the role of the government?" Steele goes on, "The government does have a role to play. The government has a very limited role to play." Inskeep admits readily that he is "a little confused" by the positions Steele tates "because you're giving me a very nice nuanced position here."

Now it's Inskeep who is left scratching his head.

Steele answers with a declarative statement: "I'm being very clear." When Inskeep pushes him further Steele mounts a counter-offensive by asking Inskeep in return, "What's nuanced? What don't you understand?" And here comes the clincher: "I don't accept your premise" So far, Steele has accused Inskeep of doing a dance, being cute, and now of offering a view of Steele's contradictory, or "nuanced," position which he flatly doesn't "accept." What Steele implies here is this: he is "being very clear" and it is Inskeep who doesn't understand.

As I stated at the beginning , my December article on Mike Duncan dealt with Duncan's inability to accept the fact that the GOP needed a fundamental change. When suggested that it needed to disassociate itself from the religious right, Duncan responded with a mere declarative talking point: "we are the party of big tent." When Steele is asked if his positions perhaps needed to be explained, he responds with is another similar declarative statement: "I am being very clear." And by the way, "You are doing a wonderful little dance."

Never mind that the positions Steele takes are blatantly inconsistent. For example, the second principle: "we need to prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors." The seniors are already on Medicare, the reviled government-run health care, so it would follow from Steele's position then that the government is already standing between doctors and patients. However, Steele wants to assert at the same time that Medicare is not, but other government-run health care will. Protect Medicare, but other government-run health care is evil.

It seems to me that the GOP has not changed at all. The new Mike Duncan is the old Mike Duncan. The face and the color might have changed, but it is still the same. When pushed to clarify its position, Michael Steele as the face of the GOP answers, "you are doing a wonderful little dance." When asked to clarify the position, Steele gives the simple declarative answer as if it were self-evident, "I am being very clear." Steele may accuse Inskeep of dancing, but it is Steele who is doing the dance.

So is then Michael Steele's position on health care reform "nuanced" or "clear"? It is neither. It is circular. It is vacuous. It is nothing but talking points behind which there is no substance.

The new GOP is the old GOP all over again.

Comments

[LeftLeanWing]

Off-topic... but Yuna Shin.... I love the sound of your name.

[dapperd72]

Hats off to Steve Inskeep for holding Michael Steele's feet to the fire & exposing him for the hypocrite that he's always been. He was a sub-par Lieutenant Governor of Maryland & I'm very relieved Ben Cardin defeated him for Senator, though I voted Green that year. Steele always struck me a bona fide phony & his concurrent argument that Medicare needs refinement without the government having any role in "health care" isn't intended to make any sense. I pray along with the esteemed Congresswoman from California, Maxine Waters, that the GOP will self-immolate and render itself extinct along with Terranasaurus rex in the very foreseeable future. The party at large has no redeeming value as a patriotic or constitutional institution.

[Json]

A lot has changed in the GOP. Apparently you missed when Michael Steele proudly proclaimed "The GOP is not a tent...it's a hat!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/09/michael-steele-gop-is-a-h_n_213348.html

[Yuna Shin - Huffpost Blogger]

My point is that it doesn't matter whether the party is a tent or a hat. Behind the nomenclature it is the same old party.

[Json]

I was actually being sarcastic there, but of course you are right that changing nomenclature or slogans is a superficial change at best.

On a more serious note, I think Steele/Duncan comparison may actually be a bit unfair to Steele.
Both are trying to convince people that the GOP is inclusive and a "big tent", while the party keeps getting whiter and no real outreach is being done towards minorities. (Their vitriol towards Obama and their pointless opposition to Sotomayor is helping turn the GOP into a southern regional party)
What makes Steele's job even more difficult is that he is charged with leading a rudderless GOP and defending an clearly incoherent policy on healthcare. Duncan, on the other hand, had a national leader (Bush/Cheney) to get direction from, a reasonably unified GOP and no healthcare debate going on. His focus was primarily on trying to bring about electoral success in 2008 using the politics of fear one more time. Obviously he failed, but this had more to do with the structural­/demograph­ic problems (lack of actual big tent) within the GOP than his shortcomings as a leader.
Something will have to give soon...either the republican party will continuing claiming a big tent while their party registry shrinks and minorities flock away from them or they will actually change policies to bring people back

[illinoisan]

Who needs consistency when you have fear working for you? NPR did a great little piece this morning about the biological imperative of fear. Fear takes over the brain as a mechanism of survival.

[Jamchinadian]

Excellent Post, Ms. Shin!

[djc007x]

I heard the interview live on the radio yesterday and thought it to be a great moment in broadcasting where the NPR interviewer actually did the job of a journalist and challenged the inane Republican talking points. Listening to a liar lie and then be called on it was very refreshing! Other reporters please take note and do your jobs.