As some of you may know, a number of social conservative organizations on the fringes of the conservative movement are boycotting CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) next month because of the participation of our friends from GOProud. In addition to the social conservative organizations, the Heritage Foundation has also announced that it won’t participate. I will have further thoughts on that in a subsequent post.
For now, I’ll just say I believe it’s a cynical move on Heritage’s part which, in the long run, could make the think tank’s leadership seem opportunistic. They do seem to be pandering to social conservatives on this one even if they haven’t said as much in their public statements.
Jennifer Rubin reports today that one potential Republican presidential contender is boycotting the boycotters:
Senator John Thune (R.-S.D.) has much the same dilemma as Tim Pawlenty: He’s a fine conservative but not well-known and not instantaneously a stand-out in the crowded primary field. But he is, it seems, going to make a go of the 2012 presidential race. He has announced he is now appearing at the Conservative Political Action Conference gathering next month.
This is a rebuke, of course, to the boycotters.
Doesn’t seem the boycott is having much impact outside the fringes of the conservative movement and among those seeking to score political points with social conservatives.
Heritage has sort of achieved the worst of both worlds. They pander to social conservatives but refuse to say why, or to stand openly with social conservatives on this. Thus, they alienate both sides in the intra-conservative debate over GOProud.
And…Pawlenty told Began Fischer that he would bring back FAST
Oops. . If elected as LOTUS
Damn. Instead of FAST, should have been DADT
Loser Of these United States, rusty? 😉
I think these boycots will get the smaller groups shut out. GOProud is an organization to ‘infiltrate’ the ‘Gay borg’ and should be encouraged. Small government conservatives should celebrate our common goals, not fret over choice of bedmates.
Can we break down the label “social conservative” into its basic parts? I rather doubt it.
Many black liberals accuse “social conservatives” of favoring racial segregation.
Liberals blame “social conservatives” with xenophobia when they object to illegal aliens.
Some gays who comment here tie “social conservatives” to homophobia.
For many, “social conservative” and “Christian fundamentalist” are interchangeable terms.
When I am asked a question in a forum and the term “social conservatism” is used, I always ask the person posing the question to define the term. I then answer the particulars according to the definition.
Every reader here could easily take an informal poll of what “social conservatism” includes of a wide cross section of people. I doubt anyone could easily distill the answers.
Given the ratio of hard-core Christian cons to you guys, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize who the “fringe” actually is.
Showing up isn’t necessarily boycotting the boycotters – especially if you’re trying to position the fundies as the minority, it’s showing up. If he makes a statement opposing the anti-gays that’s different.
Heliotrope,
I don’t think ‘Social Conservative’ has an easy qualifier. I mean I identify myself as one, as, I assume, would Seane-Anna, but we have different lines to draw. I’m a 1950’s kind of guy, but also understand that I don’t have the right to enforce my values on anyone. The negative connotation of ‘so-con’ is someone who would do what the liberals would, just in a different direction.
Damn Smart phones. THX TL.
Heliotrope, fairly said. Can’t speak for Dan’s post, but in my own comment, I just didn’t know what to call the GOProud opponents. I went with the ‘libertarian conservatives vs. social conservatives’ type of distinction that I have seen in some of the rhetoric on both sides. Partly, I thought I was being nice to GOProud opponents by using a term they’d accept. What term would you use for them?
Eh. Who wants to hang out with Heritage or the Concerned Women for America anyway?
Then again, why do I care who goes to CPAC? A conservative going to CPAC is like Martin Luther going to Rome on a pilgrimage — you get to the holy city and realize it’s corrupt and then have a crisis of faith and became a rebel. I’m avoiding the apostasy pre-emptively by not going to CPAC at all.
Does anyone know whether the the Heritage Foundation has had any significant presence at the Values Voter Summit in past years?
#5, The_Livewire. Family Research Council worries about LGBT political candidates infiltrating the American political system “sub rosa” because the dress and haircuts fool others. FRC are social conservatives. So what are GoProud if they infiltate the “Gay Borg”? Perhaps I need to attend more Trekkie Conventions when they come to my town!
What bothers me about Jennifer Rubin’s Right Turn is no one has the right to take social conservative’s money, but she makes it seem like the boycott makes no sense and everyone should just go with the flow. I disagree. Everyone’s finances are limited. The social conservatives can give their money directly to the candidates that share their point of view. I am already doing this because I don’t trust the RNC with Michael Steel in charge of distributing my funds to support the Tea Party candidates. I’d rather spend my money on who I prefer and trust.
Conservatives are not necessarily about social conservatives, but you’ll need them anyways to win the presidency. Any percentage gain (2,3,or 5%) helps in this era of close elections.
Oh good lord. I can’t keep track of all these idiotic sub-divisions of conservatism.
Please specify how you come up with this silly conclusion that objection of GOProud’s presence at CPAC is only confined to the “fringes.” Since it is mainstream conservatism that finds unacceptability of homosexuality to be acceptable rhetoric.
Under that logic one can assume that conservatives, much like the liberals, are saying and doing things in order to “score political points.” Stated differently, are conservatives nothing but a bunch of patsies that would and say anything for a couple of votes here in there. I thought conservatives were “sincere” or then again YOU must be making assumptions about the conservative movement in order to justify YOUR involvement in it.
That is, of course, wishful thinking.
Silly conclusion, JS? What experience do you have with the right?
Do you see a mass exodus of groups from CPAC or just a small trickle?
Bah, let CPAC have their conference with those suffering from cranial-rectal inversion (CWA, FRC, etc) on the outside looking in.
Heritage does do some good work, but the way they are constantly begging for money has made me drop them this year. I am neither surprised nor disappointed by them on this issue.
Didn’t Gabe Malor report that most of these groups haven’t been to CPAC in years?
If it’s just a publicity stunt, then I guess it’s a successful one – we’re all talking about it.
Best wishes,
-MFS
lisa, you and me both. I get annoyed at the fundraising packets I receive from Heritage on a nearly daily basis. And I’ve never given them a dime. I prefer to support Cato.
This is the quintessential big fish in a little pond mindset. These organisations purport to be part of the movement but they are just really concerned about their own fundraising. Let them jack off in their own dark corners. Don’t let the door hit you…
This is no more than making a clear distinction between the federalists and the liberals (libertarians, progressives, and objectivists) within the Republican Party.
Really? I only get something maybe every other month. You must have donated before or maybe it’s because you’re in CA and I’m in FL.
TGC,
Maybe it’s that PHD that’s getting him the attention 🙂
Yeah, I just heard about Heritage boycotting CPAC because of GOproud. I’m not familiar with GOproud. I just went to their website and it seems like a mainstream conservative group who happens to be gay. Nothing too extreme to me. What am I missing?
Dan, I’m sorry that some of CPAC’s intellectual and political allies aren’t cooperating in a civil, big tent fashion like the GOP continues to do.
CPAC attendees tend to be a lot more socially conservative than natl GOP functions and I’ve known lots of GOP leaders who wouldn’t attend a CPAC function if it included a free lunch and nice parting gifts. To some of them, CPAC is just a touch away from a Bircher meeting with fresh white sheets.
What I think the tempest-in-a-teapot boycott is doing is giving fodder to the liberal and Left gays to again point out how being a conservative and gay –or GOP and gay– are in eternal conflict and self-defeating.
Of course, many of those same people then make a career out of outing gay GOPers living discrete lives… so, go figure?
I’m glad you guys are “in” and part of the event. It’s important for the Party, for gays and for the conservative movement –all three of which should be about the politics of addition, not division.
Next year the boycotting soc-conners will come around –they have to or they’ll be the ones on the margin in 2012.
Jzaik @ 27: You’re not missing ANYTHING. You’ve summed up GOProud beautifully….AND succinctly. Nice work!
So you are saying that just because there is no “mass exodus” that all of a sudden that means that conservatives do now find homosexuality acceptable? If that is the case please provide the evidence, saying that there is no “mass exodus” doesn’t mean anything.
I love the way you avoid my questioning like a slippery eel, though. YOU are the one making the claim that GOProud and homosexuality in general is now acceptable in the conservative movement, AGAIN provide the evidence.
Well that depends who is doing the conflict, in this case it is the so-cons and other cons who have issues with homosexuality that are making the noise.
The issue is not whether homosexuality is compatible with conservatism, but whether conservatives themselves find common ground with homosexuals at all, that is still a question that has not been answered. A few peeps here and there, but nothing profound. So the claims that are made by the bloggers of this site (regarding this issue) naturally fall under the microscope of skepticism.
Haven’t you heard of the “big tent?” Its a new fad that republicans are raving about. But in the end it is the so-cons (the ones who impose their version of morality) that call the shots in the party, and libertarians like myself end up biting the dust or of course starting our own party (which is hated by the republicans who drove us out).
JS, you define socons as “the ones who impose their version of morality” on others, yet you are majorly bent out of shape because homosexuality isn’t acceptable to everyone in society. But why do you have a beef with people who don’t accept homosexuality if you really believe that morality shouldn’t be imposed on people? Expecting or demanding people to accept, endorse, embrace, applaud, etc. homosexuality is a MORAL demand or expectation. JS, if you really believe it’s wrong for people to impose their version of morality on others, then why do you have a MORAL litmus test, i.e. acceptance of homosexuality, as the means to determine others’ worthiness?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ave1NMK134&feature=player_embedded#!
Just checked out Vince’s link and Reince Priebus, newly elected chairman of the RNC, believes in traditional marriage. OHMIGOD!!!!!
STONE THE HATER!!! GET THAT FRINGE, PERVERTED, DERANGED, VILE, EMOTIONALLY-INFANTILE, STATIST, RIGHT-WING SOCIALIST NUT!!!
And after you conservative gays get through with Priebus, leave some of him for the polygamists to rake over the coals. After all, Priebus said that marriage was ONE man with ONE woman. The loser! How intolerant and anti-diversity can one man be?
Polygamy is a religious-based choice.
Homosexuality is genetic.
There’s a difference.
Guilty White Male, you’re missing the point. So what if homosexuality is alledgely genetic, we’re not talking about genetics, we’re talking about the definition, the meaning of marriage and what type(s) of marriage society should officially recognize.
Gays are CONSTANLY screaming that it’s BIGOTRY to believe in traditional marriage to the exclusion of their same-sex partnerings. But belief in traditional one man/one woman marriage is exclusive of other forms of “marriage” besides gay “marriage”. If it’s bigotry to be exclusive of gay “marriage” then, to be consistent, it’s also bigotry to be exclusive of plural “marriage”, which gays can practice the same as straights, if truth be told; so the issue of genetics is irrelevant.
And one question, Gulity White Male. What if it’s proven that pedophilia is genetic? Will you still adhere to your “genetics makes right” philosophy then?
Seane-Anna, you may be right that genetics is irrelevant to the argument. So, it comes down to rational argument. Do we simply adhere to a “tradition,” simply because someone wrote that God said that homosexuality was naughty over 2000 years ago? Many other naughty things that were (mis)attributed to were found to be idiotic by rational thinking people and have been rightfully discarded.
Rational thinking people today do not see any thing wrong with two consenting, non-related adults having a relationship, regardless of the sexes involved, and also see the value of recognizing stable relationships. We also see the value of delaying many rights and responibilities for children, and decided that 18 is a reasonable age for legal adulthood. So pedophilia is in a completely different category than homosexuality. For what it’s worth, I don’t think persons under 18 should be having sex, and as such, I believe that the minimum marriage age in any state should be 18.
Should be “(mis)attributed to God” in the first paragraph above.
Sean Anna is showing where her mind is where she can’t speak about homosexuality without bringing up pedophilia.
Pat is the voice of reason.
Hey Sean-Anna, to answer your inane question, guess what? I don’t support pedophilia, never will.
But it just goes to show where your mind is.
Me thinks you doth protest too much.
Just an observation.
Guilty White Male, nice try trying to avoid the issue by levelling personal attacks on me, but it won’t work. My mind is on the issue of gay inconsistency and hypocrisy, and I’m sure you know that’s what I was talking about.
Gays and their straight supporters always bring up the genetics issue, basically claiming that if gays are born that way then it’s inherently unjust to brand their sexuality immoral and to prevent its open expression (I’m guessing that’s the “rational thinking” Pat alluded to). Gays throw this argument around like it’s ironclad, a surefire hammer blow against traditionalist belief. So, if “genetics make right” works with homosexuality, why doesn’t it work with pedophilia, or any other non-gay sexual aberrancy? Just because gays say it doesn’t? Sorry, that’s not good enough.
The truth is, we are already further down the road to sexual “freedom” than most people care to admit. We have school boards voting to give contraceptives to 5th graders, clearly implying a belief that children that young can consent to sex. We have a professor at Canada’s York University proclaiming that children have the same sexual rights as adults. We have Hollywood, which so strongly supports gay marriage, rallying around child rapist Roman Polanski after his arrest last year. We have TLC’s pro-polygamy reality show “Sister Wives”, and we have Switzerland considering legalizing incest. NONE of that would be happening except for the eradicating of traditional values, which gays and their straight, liberal allies have vigorously pursued to ensure the legitimization of homosexuality. So, Guilty White Male, Pat, and others, look at what your anti-traditionalism is bringing us. Brave New World is on its way. I hope you enjoy it.
Constantly associating pedophilia with homosexuality. It’s false, disingenuous and misguided. You support such thinking by perpetuating it. Just makes one wonder. That’s all.
Sorry if you take it personally. I just find it odd. I’m sure I would have found it odd 200+ years ago when our founding fathers considered slaves 3/5th’s of a person.
Jeffrey Dahmer was probably “born that way.” He was a serial killer who had an obscene, confounding fascination with the post-mortem biology of his countless victims, some of which were children. So, no, it makes no sense to make arguments to justify behaviors that are innately evil and a risk to civil society.
Two people of the same gender who are consenting adults who choose to spend their life together and possibly raise a family (because they were born that way) is not the same thing. That you find such a thing abhorrent and associate it with things that are truly abhorrent is astounding. Please excuse me for taking personal offense.
But, if you want to go on mixing pedophilia and incest with homosexuality. Go ahead. But, stop wondering why Gay Inc. acts the way they do. Who wouldn’t with people around like you with your mindsets blaming them for why this world is going to Hell in a hand-basket.
Seane-Anna, I don’t think I said anywhere in my post above that genetics justifies anything. Even if sexual attraction towards children is genetic, I would still be vehemently against pedophilia. And while homosexuality is most likely genetic and definitely not a choice, that is not the reason why I, and most rational thinking people, have determined that homosexuality is not the big thing you make it to be.
As bad as things appear to be today, and yes, there are plenty of messed up things going on, I’ll take living in the 21st Century any day over living in the 13th Century or even the 18th Century, hands down. During these previous times, we had the traditions that you glorify and espouse. It was religion that had all the influence in the laws, and how people were supposed to live. But freedom and basic human rights were also scarce. Perhaps you long for those days. Most of us don’t.
Perhaps “my” “antitraditionalism” led to some of the things you mention (which, by the way, I oppose). But it also led to a lot of positive things, things that you and I enjoy, and take for granted, such as freedom. And as a woman, you enjoy the benefits of being worthy a human being as a man, something you could not do even as recent as 100 years ago. Perhaps all this stuff all started because women were granted equal citizenship. If you feel that way, at least you have the freedom to limit yourself as an inferior being, and try to get other women to think like you. Or you can move to a country that values women as much as they value homosexuals and dirt.
Wow, Guilty White Male! Playing the race card AND injecting serial murder into a debate on sexuality. You really are pulling out all the liberals tricks, aren’t you?
I believe that you are smarter than you’re letting on and that you understand full well what I’m talking about here. You know that I’m not confusing pedophilia, incest, etc. with homosexuality. You know I’m highlighting the inconsistency, double standards, and hypocrisy that gays rely on to advance their agenda.
Here’s the deal, GWM. In order to advance the normalizing of homosexuality, gays and their straight allies have vigorously and virulently attacked the authority and validity of the traditional, Bible-based moral ethos that guided America and the rest of Western civilization for millennia. You’ve torn down that moral edifice and erected in it’s place an ethic of moral relativism summed up in the “creed” of, “Don’t impose YOUR values on ME!”. Have gays and their straight supporters not done this, Guilty White Male?
The problem is that homosexuality wasn’t the only aberrant sexual behavior/lifestyle deemed immoral by the old moral order. There were others, too. And once you destroy the old moral order you remove the barrier to the normalizing of those other sexualities. That’s what gays and liberal straights are in politically motivated denial about. By its very nature moral relativism has no boundaries, so the idea that it applies only to gays is arbitrary and unsustainable. And that fact, I think, is one of the primary motivations for social conservatives, like myself, opposing gay marriage and the general normalization of homosexuality. We know that it won’t stop with homosexuality, and the examples I gave in my previous comment proves that.
Guilty White Male, if there are no transcendent moral values, as moral relativists claim, then everything, at least everything sexual, is “right” and deserving of tolerance, if not full blown endorsement. GWM, you can continue your political denial but that won’t stop the march toward ever more sexual “freedom”. Gays and liberal straights have destroyed the only bulwark against that. Thank you very much.
“There were others, too. And once you destroy the old moral order you remove the barrier to the normalizing of those other sexualities”
Divorce was once considered morally abhorrent. That became pretty normalized. But, I don’t hear about SoCons taking to the streets to protest.
But, I don’t expect you to actually understand your “moral relativism,” either.
“You know that I’m not confusing pedophilia, incest, etc. with homosexuality”
I guess you fooled me. You are not making any associations between homosexuality and abhorrent behaviors such as incest and pedophilia at all. Excuse me for being so dense. The next time you bring it up, I’ll try not to make that mistake again.
Pat, my comment at #45 applies to you, too.
And your view that freedom was a product of destroying tradition values and putting religion in its place is hardly the “rational thinking” you assume it is. Traditional values domintated Western civilization not only in the 13th or 18th centuries but also in the first half of the 20th, including the 1940’s when America was engaged in the titanic struggle against fascism. In 1940’s America homosexuality was nearly universally viewed as horribly immoral. Does that mean then, Pat, that you believe American soldiers in WWII fought and died for only a phantom freedom? You have to believe that to stay true to your view that freedom didn’t exist in the world until traditional values were eradicated. But then, consistency never has been gays’ and liberal straights’ stong point.
GWM at #46, socons may not “take to the streets” to oppose divorce but they have spoken and continue to speak out against it, preach against it, and counsel against it. Can they do a better job of opposing divorce and lessening its frequency? Of course they can, but to claim that social conservatives have done nothing against the divorce epidemic is simply dishonest.
Sean-Anna, Do you realize that this country was created while slavery was legal and acceptable? But, that wasn’t a traditional value. Right?
Consistency doesn’t even figure into your thought-process.
“Can they do a better job of opposing divorce and lessening its frequency?”
Read: divorce was once morally abhorrent.
Read: If it was so morally abhorrent, there would be people trying to get laws on the books against it.
Read: You are moral-relativist.
Seane-Anna, freedom was a result of putting traditional and religious values in perspective. It was clear that it was inconsistent with freedom. As you may know, there isn’t one religion that exists in the world. I assume that you wouldn’t want to be subject to the traditions of Hinduism or Islam. And I also assume that you really don’t want to go back to the traditions of Christianity of the 13th Century.
I don’t agree with your world view of what happened during World War II, and the conclusions you came from it. What I am saying is that, throughout the past 2000 years or so, we haven’t relied solely on religious texts on what is right or wrong. And despite what you are saying, you haven’t either. Because you haven’t explained your hypocrisy as to why you enjoy the rights of being a woman, and why you believe that elimination of the tradition of slavery is a good thing.
Seane-Anna, let’s cut through the chase a little bit. Let’s say, for sake of argument (even if you assume what follows is impossible), that homosexuality was mainstreamed, same-sex marriage became legal, but yet the other things you decry decreased or eliminated. Would you still be opposed to same-sex marriage? To mainstreaming homosexuality? Or are you opposed to homosexuality just for sake of opposing it?
GWM, still playing the race card, I see. But to answer your question no, slavery isn’t a traditional value, but nice try. When America was established slavery was already being opposed by many good people, some Christian, some not. The Constitution’s infamous 3/5 of a person clause, for instance, was an effort by slavery opponents to limit slavery by limiting the federal power of the larger slave states. By the 19th century the abolitionist movement was almost totally dominated by Christians, many of whom you’d disdainfully consign to the “Religious Right” if they were alive today. You see, GWM, many of the Christians who oppposed slavery also opposed abortion which was socially acceptable and widely practiced, if technically illegal, in much of 19th century America.
But getting back to slavery. If I remember my history lessons right, slavery supporters, North and South, didn’t defend the institution as a traditional value, but on the racist belief that Blacks were inherently inferior and fit only to be slaves to Whites. But even if slavery supporters had defended slavery as a traditional value, that wouldn’t necessarily make it one. The Judeo-Christian ethic has often existed along side anti-Judeo-Christian practices. As I mentioned above, abortion was widely practiced in much of 19th century America but that doesn’t mean it conformed to the letter and/or spirit of the Bible-based moral ethic that most people at least tried to live by back then. In fact, it was abortion’s violation of that ethic that prompted 19th century Christians to start the first pro-life movement.
So, Guilty White Male (and Pat), traditional values have often been in conflict with practices that violated them, and they probably always will be. But just because things like slavery or abortion were practiced at times when the Bible-based, moral ethic dominated society doesn’t automatically mean that those practices were condoned by that ethic. Understand?
“Seane-Anna, let’s cut through the chase a little bit. Let’s say, for sake of argument (even if you assume what follows is impossible), that homosexuality was mainstreamed, same-sex marriage became legal, but yet the other things you decry decreased or eliminated. Would you still be opposed to same-sex marriage? To mainstreaming homosexuality? Or are you opposed to homosexuality just for sake of opposing it?”
Yes, Pat, I would still oppose the mainstreaming of homosexuality even if none of the other things happened (but they’re already happening). And yes, my opposition to mainstreaming or normalizing homosexuality is religiously-based, but so is my opposition to any effort to mainstream or normalize pedophilia or incest. I assume you don’t mind my religiously-based opposition to incest and pedophilia but find my religiously-based opposition to homosexuality problematic, and I’d like to ask why. Before you answer, consider this.
Virtually all our laws against sexual acts, from prostitution to adultery (yes, that’s still technically illegal in some states), to homosexuality are religiously-based, so if you’re going to oppose laws against homosexuality generallly or gay marriage in particular on the grounds that they violate the Establishment clause, then wouldn’t you have to oppose all those other sex-restricting laws? If the state has no business enforcing religioius prohibitions against homosexuality, adultery, or prostitution, what business does it have enforcing religious prohibitions against other sexual behaviors? Chew on that while I go to my niece’s birthday party and I’ll get back to ya later.
“But just because things like slavery or abortion were practiced at times when the Bible-based, moral ethic dominated society doesn’t automatically mean that those practices were condoned by that ethic.”
So, edicts on slavery didn’t exist in the Bible.
Got it.
Seane-Anna, put simply, I don’t mind any laws having some religious basis. But we have fortunately evolved from laws being solely religiously based. We’ve thrown out unnecessary laws, like insisting that one can’t eat a cheeseburger or crab legs, while leaving it to individuals to decide for themselves. Same is happening with homosexuality. More and more people, including conservatives, and even some social conservatives, are realizing that homosexuality should not be a crime and is not a sin. However, those who do not wish to engage in such behavior are still free not to, even those with a homosexual orientation.
Opposition to pedophilia may be partially Bible based. I really don’t know what the Bible says about it. I have heard that some of the passages in which homosexuality is condemned, were really meant to condemn pedophilia. Whether or not that’s the case, almost all believe that pedophilia is wrong, because it involves an adult and a non-adult. The main argument is what the age of consent should be, and I already expressed my opinion about that.
Things are not always black and white. Just because I disagree with the Bible on some things doesn’t mean I have to disagree with it on everything.
I assume you don’t mind my religiously-based opposition to incest and pedophilia but find my religiously-based opposition to homosexuality problematic, and I’d like to ask why.
Besides this post, I’ve answered this question many times before.
Yes, Pat, I would still oppose the mainstreaming of homosexuality even if none of the other things happened (but they’re already happening). And yes, my opposition to mainstreaming or normalizing homosexuality is religiously-based
There we have it. You have admitted that your belief system is narrowly based. That no further thought on your part is required or desired. One belief about God I’ve always had. He gave us brains. I don’t believe He wanted us to waste them on such narrow thinking. But I understand you believe otherwise. And I believe in your freedom to do so. However, it’s all the clearer that there is no need to debate any more just as some of the other posters, mostly conservative, have suggested. I hope you enjoyed your niece’s birthday party. I got to see my nieces and nephew yesterday myself.