tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post4494305480528091014..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: RNC Chair Vote, A Great Stan Jones Story (and a bit of history)Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-25674219582971524582011-01-14T18:23:28.205-06:002011-01-14T18:23:28.205-06:00Oh, and I'd disagree that people that are bad ...Oh, and I'd disagree that people that are bad at it get shoved off the stage.<br /><br />News producers are not all partisan hacks. But they are distinctively biased in favor of "making news" and Steele's foot in mouth disease, I think, got him more bookings than it lost him.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73007980134147015762011-01-14T18:21:25.676-06:002011-01-14T18:21:25.676-06:00Jon,
Where I'd disagree is that the resources...Jon,<br /><br />Where I'd disagree is that the resources are not transferred through institutions without some friction. So, when the money had to go around the RNC, that likely reduced participation from some who would normally have given to the RNC, but don't know this new guy on the phone. It also can turn off some donors, who don't want their money being wasted on either corporate jets or lesbian bondage, and they might sit on their hands.<br /><br />In essence, this can tie back into party building, in that people's connections to "the party" weaken and they may end up connecting to individual politicians, ideologies, or spending their time gardening instead.<br /><br />I also wonder, though, if "the chairs don't matter" argument encompasses train wrecks like Steele. At some point, don't the just plain awful optics matter?Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-76365388104264116942011-01-14T16:43:03.426-06:002011-01-14T16:43:03.426-06:00Anon,
Let me answer generally...I'd say: part...Anon,<br /><br />Let me answer generally...I'd say: party-builders can be important. Whether they do it from formal party organizations or by building new ad-hoc organizations, or by strengthening party networks in other ways? Not apt to be as important. Or, perhaps, important, but not in predictable ways, or maybe important but not to the kinds of concerns that have anything to do with short-term electoral politics. At least, in my opinion.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-40909335795440786622011-01-14T16:14:26.892-06:002011-01-14T16:14:26.892-06:00Do you think the RNC chair has an impact that can ...Do you think the RNC chair has an impact that can be seen over the long run? I am thinking of some of the party building (or lack thereof) illustrated in Daniel Galvin's Presidential Party Building and Philip Klinkner's The Losing Parties. Certainly, some Republicans have argued that they could have picked up additional seats in 2010 if not for Michael Steele's incompetence. That specific example could just be empty rhetoric, but I think the broader point is that RNC/DNC chairs have an important role to play in politics and party building (though not policy, which is what most people care about).<br /><br />So while I think most Americans have better things to do than pay attention to who chairs the RNC, I think it does have substantive importance for the relative strength of the political parties (especially in the long run), which has real consequences for citizens as relative party strength yields different policies. Maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but it seems to me that you are downplaying the importance of RNC/DNC chair role too much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com