Michael Steele: Token or Progress?

Michael Steele has been elected as the chair of the RNC. The question of whether he is a token or not is probably laughable considering the history of conservatives and their strategic use of people of color to further their agenda that rarely benefits the needs of people of color. But I have to say, I agree with Ta-Nehisi Coates, that while it is obvious that similar to Sarah Palin, Micheal Steele is a symbol, I can’t really complain that they chose a black man to be the head of the RNC. It is as though, they want the joke to be on liberals, but the joke is kind of on them. As in they are playing into our agenda a little bit and they might just be becoming more progressive. I have no problem with conservatives alienating their white supremacist constituents and at least begin to move the right back towards the center.
But let me not get too optimistic. Calling someone a token is generally problematic. It assumes that this person, whether it be a woman, a person of color, a queer person or another member of a historically disenfranchised community, didn’t work to get to where they are and they are probably not qualified, but instead they function as a symbol. I think given the history of the right-wing in strategically recruiting people of color to be spokespeople for them makes it difficult to think that they actually believe in the advancement of people of color and/or other disenfranchised communities. And by believe in, I don’t mean, just a thought or a prayer, but creating, endorsing and passing legislation that will change the lived realities of disenfranchised communities.
So it is a bittersweet nomination as the right gears up to build back after the election that destroyed any belief Americans had that right-wingers are not total racists. Unfortunately, the way that racism functions in this country, people of color are not always put in leadership positions to help their people, but to make white people feel better about their racism. We are entering a very interesting time, where our leaders may be diverse and representative, but disenfranchised communities are still disenfranchised. Will the majority now be marginalized? After all, he may be black, but he is pro-life and against gay marriage, not to mention a supporter of other conservative measures. Not that I was expecting his views to be any different, just restating the obvious.