I know it will be hard, but for a moment try to ignore the fact that former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is an African-American.
I know that, as we stand in the light of the political sunburst that is President Barack Obama, this will be hard. But try.
Now, think about the issues facing the imploded Republican Party. In the past few elections the GOP has struggled to find a way to please the giant hunk of its ballot-box base that consists of culturally conservative Christians, both Catholic and evangelical. There is no way forward to national victories without those votes.
At the same time, everyone knows that the swing vote that matters the most in American politics is centrist Roman Catholics, especially in the Midwest and parts of the Northeast. As the omnipresent John Green of the Pew Forum told some Oxford Centre students last summer, there are times when it seems that American politics has boiled down to Catholics in Ohio who go to Mass once a month instead of once a week. Remember that complex grid of Catholic voters? Click here for a crash course.
Which brings us to the local coverage of Steele’s election as — all together now — the first African-American chair of the Republican Party. I was stunned, when I read through the Baltimore Sun coverage, that the emphasis was totally on his race. Social issues are included, of course, but here is how that is covered, linked to discussions of whether Steele is too “moderate” for please the GOP right:
Steele was a co-founder of the Republican Leadership Council, a group headed by former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. Even though he opposes abortion, and quit the group last spring, Steele was attacked by social conservatives for his association with Whitman, a prominent supporter of abortion rights.
Now, I am sure that, when push comes to shove, Steele will be viewed by the press exactly as he is portrayed here — a solid anti-abortion conservative. There is some chance, after all, that Steele may actually hold rather strong views on right-to-life issues — the while spectrum of them — due to his religious background.
Oh, and what might that be? His website notes:
Born in 1958 at Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George’s County, Maryland, Steele was raised in Washington, DC. He spent three years as a seminarian in the Order of St. Augustine in preparation for the priesthood, but, ultimately, chose a career in law instead. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1991.
The fact that Steele is a former seminarian is quite well known here in Maryland, where two statewide campaigns have filled out most of the corners of his biography. While race is crucial, right now, editors at the Sun also have to know that, in the current political climate, crossover Catholic voters are of equal or even greater importance to the GOP leadership. Skipping that part of Steele’s history leaves a giant gap.
Of course, race is the lede in the New York Times, as it should be in the current news climate. But where is his standing as a Catholic, a former seminarian? (cue: crickets chirping on a still night)
It’s a big ditto over at the Los Angeles Times, where once again we read:
(Steele) had been criticized during his bid for the chairmanship as too moderate, with some raising questions about his ties to a Republican group that backed candidates who supported abortion rights. Steele ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006 as a staunch opponent of abortion.
I am not, let me stress, saying that the racial issue is not important. I am saying that it is very, very strange — when everyone knows the importance of centrist Catholics in American politics — to offer no information on the religious element in the story of the new leader of the Republican Party.
 | Posted at 4:49 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (15) |
January 31, 2009, at 6:34 pm
[…] notes with justified puzzlement that major newspapers led with the race issue and ignored the fact that Steele is a former seminarian. Tmatt […]
January 31, 2009, at 7:01 pm
I think it is unfair for some conservative Republicans to immediately brand Lt. Gov. Steele a “Big Tent Republican” (in a perjorative way). I know of no “Big Tenter” who is as pro-life as he is. The media apparently doesn’t want to give any play to anyone who will help conservatives or Republicans. This is part of how their blind liberalism has corrupted the so-called news media. Egad! a pro-life, Black Catholic Republican leader. That doesn’t fit the approved story line. …
January 31, 2009, at 9:12 pm
FYI, might want to listen to my exclusive interview with Michael Steele and comment. Thanks. JL.
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1205
And forget, please, “conservatism,” please. It will not “save” us because it has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant.
January 31, 2009, at 9:27 pm
Editing comments in an attempt to keep us focused on the PRESS coverage of Steele and his faith.
Trying.
January 31, 2009, at 10:17 pm
Mr. Steele is first and foremost a great man; he is also an African American & a Catholic. This stress on Race and Religion is counter to our forefathers directives; it serves only to be divisive; As a Catholic conservative I am more concerned with a person’s (in Political venues) stance as Conservative. One who is really Conservative has as one of their beliefs that all deserve the right to be born—-there are many who do Adopt. I applaud any Mother / Father who make this choice. One’s belief in the sanctity of life will choose options that support an individual’s rights & responsibilities. Congratulations to Mr. Steele as he attempts to bring the GOP back to it’s True Roots.
January 31, 2009, at 10:51 pm
So, let me get this striaght. When discussing a new Russian Patriarch, the media erred by discussing the man’s views in political terms. He’s a religious figure, after all, not a political one. But here, the media erred by not pointing out this political figure’s religious views. Could they not also claim that, hey, he’s a political figure, so we’re focusing on the politics.
Of course, that’s unsatisfactory because typically a person’s political and religious views are inextricably interwoven. But isn’t that a reason to focus on the political views of religious figures? I understand that your main beef with the coverage of the Patriarch was the media’s putting his views in opaque terms such as “modern,” etc. But still, if we have to discuss the religious views of politicians to pass the GR test, shouldn’t we be allowed to delve into the political stances of religious figures?
January 31, 2009, at 11:21 pm
It seems like his religion is also newsworthy in a “man bites dog” sense.
If an African-American male is AME or National Baptist Convention affiliated, that’s pretty ordinary if not stereotypical (other than the fallout of adult men from church).
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-appendix3.pdf
I’m guessing that a smaller fraction of black Americans are Catholic. How many? That would be an interesting statistic.
Incidentally, the Irish national TV broadcaster thought his religion was worth mentioning in the 3rd graf
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0131/steelem.html
February 1, 2009, at 10:49 am
Jay, can’t answer your question but see here for how many Black Catholics there are—altough the information is abut 10 years old now:
http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Feb2001/feature1.asp
“While as many as three million African-Americans are Catholic, they make up only about three percent of all U.S. Catholics, according to the CARA Catholic Poll 2000. And while there are more than 1,000 parishes that are predominantly African-American, most of the other 18,000 U.S. Catholic parishes are predominantly white.”
February 1, 2009, at 1:03 pm
From the horse’s mouth:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/backgrounders/african_american.shtml
The number is 3 million, which is actually about 4.5% of 67 million Catholics in the U.S., and about 1% of the U.S. population.
As to Mr. Steele -
Catholic credentials are most useful when pro-choice candidates wants the world to know what good Catholics they really are. Post John Kerry, sweaty Catholics (aka “Raving Papists”) are most likely to roll their eyes at a recitation of Catholic upbringing (school, altar service, Mass attendance, etc) and how they carry a rosary at all time (useful in a vampire attack, you know).
As to Mr. Steele -
I grant that it’s odd for 3 major newspaper to say nothing about his Faith, but from a strategic standpoint, I’m rather glad they didn’t make a thing of it. We would then read a spate of stories on how the Catholic Church is bent on taking over the government; that gets tiresome.
I wonder, though, if what you call “centrist” Catholics, and others call “cafeteria Catholics”, would give the man a hearing based on his religion. My impression is that they vote on economics more than life issues, noting here that on economic issues, Democrats are often closer to Catholic social teaching than Republicans.
February 1, 2009, at 1:13 pm
Hoosier;
Apples and oranges.
It is perfectly fine to write about the political content and implications of the new patriarch’s work and doctrinal stands. I praised the New York Times for doing precisely that.
What I knocked was trying to describe his beliefs in political language that simply does not fit.
As for Steele, I was saying that it made no political sense to ignore his faith, especially since it is such a large part of his political and personal story.
Methinks you need to read my post more carefully.
February 1, 2009, at 4:08 pm
I suspect the reason why the Steele’s faith is left out lies in the premise of his campaign: to move the Party beyond its present state. For better or worse, the culture wars are seen as a dead end for GOP politics. And if Reuters is any indication, Steele was not running on his cultural war creds, but his party-building ones.
In that environment, the racial status is far more important to understanding why he was selected. As note on the Caucus, yesterday, the emphasis is on Steele’s improbable rise (sound familiar?).
From a quick survey of blogs, it’s also clear that the Catholic identity is more important to religious conservatives than it is to the rest of the chattering class (after 200 or so, I found cites to FiveThirtyEight, CNN, and the Caucus). This lack of engagement on the Left may also explain the missing mention — being Catholic doesn’t especially add anything (unless he really, really wants to raise up the issue of opposition to the death penalty, something he thankfully, also stands for).
February 1, 2009, at 7:33 pm
Still deleting political pot shots.
Please stay on the subject of the post — the media coverage of Steele, not your views of him and his party.
February 2, 2009, at 11:18 am
I suspect the reason why the Steele’s faith is left out lies in the premise of his campaign: to move the Party beyond its present state. For better or worse, the culture wars are seen as a dead end for GOP politics.
Even if that were true as a matter of GOP strategy, should that affect the MSM coverage of Mr. Steele? His Roman Catholic identity formed who he is today, whether or not campaign managers and party officials choose to highlight it.
February 2, 2009, at 6:23 pm
[…] coverage of Steele and his new job; the latter is mostly missing, as Terry Mattingly of GetReligion points out. Why do identity politics matter for a party that says it disdains them? Because while Steele is […]
February 3, 2009, at 12:00 pm
I think Steele’s Catholicism is politically interesting. I recall the GOP primaries in which Romney’s religion presented a barrier to some folks voting for him. I don’t think that Catholics had the same problem. Catholics are not as “God and country” as are some segments of conservative evangelicals. The one thought I had was that if a part of the base is so limited as to what kind of person—ethnically, religiously, culturally—for whom they’d vote, then the country will only see greater cultural “diversity” from pols with left-of-center views and policies. I have found that pretty frustrating b/c it seals the reputation of the GOP as being for white Christians only.
Steele’s important to show that, not only can blacks be right of center, but Catholics can be too. We need to see more pro-life Catholics—there is a dearth of them in public office. Catholics, even those who are social conservatives, do have some interest in some “economic justice” policies that might more likely be pursued by the Dem party, so that might make some segments of the GOP base anxious.
Also, note that non-white Catholics won as Republicans in the South recently, Bobby Jindal in LA, and an Asian (Vietnamese) Catholic, Anh Cao, won a Congressional race, also in Louisiana. The rise of Steele is also the rise of non-white Catholics in the public square. These men are articulate, smart and espouse principles that people of any race or religion can share. That’s really what the party needs to show. It would be good to see if the press covers this aspect of Steele’s leadership.