Michael Steele And The Politics Of Contrarianism

In his book, Right Now: A 12-Step Program For Defeating The Obama Agenda, released yesterday, RNC chairman Michael Steele attacks President Barack Obama, writing that "after less than a year of his presidency, it's already become clear that certain policies don't increase our strength, international respect, or security."  Steele notes President Obama's campaign promise of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and calls the decision misguided.  He writes that for Republicans, keeping the facility open is "common sense."

As Ben Armbruster over at Think Progress points out though, a day after the release of his book, Steele appeared on NBC's Today Show to criticize the administration for not having closed Guantanamo Bay within the timeframe originally proposed by President Obama.

Steele: What it is, is looking at the approach the administration has taken from its very first moments coming in talking about, you know, closing down Gitmo with no strategy or plan to do that and here we are a year later and Gitmo is still a part of the mix.

The difference between the Michael Steele of Monday and the Michael Steele of Tuesday is abundantly clear.  But contradictory rhetoric is what the Republican Party has become during the past decade, and increasingly so since the inauguration of President Obama.  The point is not to have an alternate policy proposal, but rather, to criticize every policy proposed by their political opponents. 

If the Democrats propose closing the facility, Republicans, including Sen. Saxby Chambliss, will argue that the administration will be forced to free "terrorists in to Illinois." Alternatively, if the administration decides that it will approach the situation with caution to ensure that the best available policy is implemented; Republicans, including Steele, will attack President Obama for dithering.  The point is simply to be contrarian.  That is the best they can do.

The strategy is best epitomized by Sen. Chuck Grassley, who told reporters that "the only way to get a bipartisan agreement is to defeat a Democratic proposal."  In today's Republican Party, nuance and analysis are meaningless when you have a platform that is based on strict and reactionary orthodoxy.