Via Reader that Gay Conservative, we find the Heritage Foundation making explicit what many (including yours truly) believed was implicit in its decision not to participate in this year’s CPAC:
The move, however, has been seen that way by insiders and outsiders, and Heritage — a pillar of the conservative movement — shifted its public stance in a Times article up this evening:
“GOProud was one element in the decision,” said James Weidman, a foundation spokesman.
Heritage, which isn’t primarily identified with opposition to gay rights or with social issues more generally, is the biggest surprise among the CPAC boycotters, and making its move public deepens the rift on the right.
First of all, I’m not sure this deepens any rift. What it really does is expose the me-tooism* of Heritage’s leadership. It seems the leaders of this conservative foundation (as opposed to many (if not most) of the scholars and policy expects who work there as well as those who contribute to their studies and other publications) are eager to curry favor with social conservatives. This may well be a fundraising strategy, a means to distinguish Heritage from the many conservative groups who are participating in the confab.
Whatever the case, this move does not look good for Heritage. Their ever-changing explanations show an organization struggling to appease social conservatives without distancing themselves from more mainstream elements in the Leave Us Alone Coalition. They might better be served by taking part while pointing out that participation in CPAC doesn’t indicate agreement with all the other participants and leave it at that.
Instead, these changing explanations betray a certain insecurity. Perhaps, they realize that in the new media market, their prominence as a large right-of-center think tank alone no longer secures their role a guiding force in the conservative movement as it once was.
This does show that while most groups on the right have become increasingly welcoming of openly gay conservatives and libertarians, there still remain some pockets of intolerance on the right.
*CLARIFICATION: By “me-tooism,” I’m referring to Heritage’s eagerness to join the handful of boycotting groups.
UPDATE: I recently spoke with a DC-based friend who used to work at Heritage; he called the foundation very “donor driven.” I wonder then if perhaps one big donor complained about its participation so the leadership decided to withdraw to appease him. But, then, he wanted the foundation to make clear that it wasn’t participating because of GOProud, so they dispatched a spokesman to say as much.
Fundraising is the key issue. From your post about HRC, to the clamoring and bell ringing from FRC, FOTF, NOM. . .etc etc etc. Organizations that rely on funding from donors are scrathcing their heads every morning as to how they are going to make their payrolls. Just like Joe S at HRC, the lead folk at Heritage, FRC, NOM, CWA, blah blah blah and every other non-profit are going to be scrambling for funds and scrapping with other folk to get the mighty $
B. Daniel, you keep outing yourself. Or putting your foot in your mouth. I caught that little slip of yours implying that social conservatives aren’t mainstream in the “Leave Us Alone Coalition” (aka the conservative movement).
Just come right out and admit it, B. Daniel. You despise social conservatives. You betray that sentiment over and over again with your constant whining about “mainstream” politicians or groups throwing bones to social conservatives, appeasing social conservatives, or currying favor with those pesky social conservatives. You may get your wish and see social conservatives marginalized into impotence in the conservative movement, but it won’t be the halleluyah moment you think it will be.
With social conservatives neutralized, conservatism will become just another conduit for social liberalism with all its big government solutions to all the social/moral deterioration it heralds as freedom. But I guess that’s the price you’re willing to pay to have your sexuality given what you and many other gays so desperately crave: the Golden Ticket of official state approval.
I hope the approval will be worth the price.
and Seane-Anna. . .you have outed yourself:
In my city the Jewish community is small and schools are never closed for any of Judaism’s holidays. I used to work at a day care center set up in a school. We had a few Jewish kids in our program and I noticed that they were all absent one day. It was Yom Kippur. The school didn’t close for the holiday but the Jewish kids were given an excused absent to observe the day at home. This arrangement worked for everyone. The Jewish minority was tolerated and respectfully accomodated without the Christian majority having to disown or redefine its identity or values. This is how I think it should be for gays.
Nice of you to ‘have noticed the missing children. . .’
I like the Heritage Foundation, but on the GOPround issue with CPAC, they look more like they are desperately pandering to a certain base they think with give them money.
A lot of conservatives don’t think gay people should make a high-profile issue of their identity, and they believe that engaging in homosexual acts is sinful. I don’t think it’s that hard to explain. They have a root disagreement with conservative gays like those who run this blog. And they regret the acceptance of gay conservatives as a form of pandering in hopes of reaping gay dollars (precisely the accusation by gay conservatives against Heritage). It is not a question of classification (gay conservatives, the mainstream, libertarians, etc.), more an individual choice that sometimes reaches the scope of an organization deciding to say, “no.” It’s probably healthy for people to be up-front about their views instead of hiding behind politically correct facades.
I am not attending CPAC because the cost and tenor of the whole conference indicates to me that its attendees are going to be disproportionately rich and famous. It would be great for them to scale down the expenses, choose more accessible venues, and offer low entrance fees so the masses could enjoy the conference. The class dimension matters more to me than anything regarding gays. Sometimes “access” to events is not a sign of progress for a group like gays. You can probably achieve a lot more by staying home and organizing other events to connect with people who are less privileged but have traditional values.
Rusty, you’re funny, but I’ll give you a pass because I didn’t make myself entirely clear and that’s my bad.
When I said I noticed the missing kids I meant that it took me a little while to realize that, among the absences we had that day, were all our Jewish kids. That’s when I realized that the day in question was a Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur to be exact. That’s what I meant, so I don’t see how I outed myself on anything, Rusty. But I should’ve known that the liberal types here would (purposely?) misunderstand my point.
When I gave the example of the Jewish kids being given an excused absence for Yom Kippur, my point wasn’t about religion, that was just the example I used. My point was about tolerance. I feel that, in the name of tolerance, gay activists are demanding that the straight majority change its moral beliefs to accomodate their sexuality. I brought up the Jewish children at my day care to show that a minority can have tolerance and accomodation without the majority having to change its values or beliefs. And then I said that would work for gays.
Gays can have tolerance and accomodation without the straight majority having to change its beliefs or values in a fundamental way, like changing the definition of marriage. There’s such a thing as a tyranny of the majority, but there’s also such a thing as a tyranny of the minority. Forcing a majority to disown, change, or redefine its morals, values, beliefs, traditions, culture, etc., in order to accomodate a minority is a tyranny of the minority. The minority has rights but the majority does, too.
Tolerance may not always be ideal; it may not always give all sides everything they want. But neither is it discriminatory, oppressive, or dehumanizing. But then I’m a social conservative so I can’t possibly understand this tolerance thing, right?
No, Seane-Anna, I don’t despise social conservatives. If they’re willing to work alongside an openly gay man to reduce the size and scope of government, I’m willing to work alongside them.
I want them to be free to live their lives as they choose just as I want to be free to choose my own destiny. The state should leave them free to interpret Scriptures as they see fit and to live their lives and raise their families according to that interpretation.
and launching off what our esteemed co-moderator said, I think figuring out who mistrusted who first is like a chicken or the egg equation. But for the longest time, I let myself believe the arguments that all social (and religious) conservatives were determined every waking moment to find ways to actively prevent me from living my own life.
Just as the gay activist establishment should not be expending energy trying to restrict religious freedom, the answer to preserving rights of Christians of all views on the contentious social issues is NOT to codify into our nation’s laws specific restrictions on a segment of the population and using a predominantly scriptural rationale to justify it. We’ve seen what happens when other religions are allowed to dictate a nation’s laws.
I like your point Seane-Anna about mere tolerance possibly bringing each faction as close as humanly possible to a best of both worlds situation. While I won’t speak for the leaders of the main organizations like HRC, GLAAD, et al., I can say for myself and most of my friends, whether they are partnered or not or with or without children; we basically just want to ensure they can live their lives and struggle to make a living without having to worry about threats from meddlers, whether they be the Maggie Gallaghers and Brian Browns of NOM or politicians in positions of power who could directly impact our lives. With these fears I can see how some would feel the only solution is push back and push down on anyone loudly proclaiming their faith, and it’s an unfortunate by-product of what should be a more constructive debate. Maybe there are similar fears at your end to.
Does anyone know whether Heritage is going to be present at the Values Voter Summit? (I mean, present as an organization, with a booth and a banner that says “Heritage Foundation”.)
It seems to me that snubbing CPAC while attending VVS would definitely amount to a “we don’t want to consort with gays” message, but if HF abstains from both events, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
The key element of the equation is not social conservatism, but federalism. The majority of the population wants a return to federalism and adherence to the Constitution of the United States, neither of which adamantly supported by libertarians or progressives.
I should think that if Heritage were the homophobic bigots we’re supposed to believe they are, there should be a definitive declaration somewhere. I mean, a one-sentence quote in the NYT doesn’t exactly get it, does it?
PopArt, why do you imply that advocating for traditional marriage is threatening? What have groups like NOM or Focus on the Family done to threaten gays? And how are they “meddling”?
Are they indoctrinating public school kids with their traditionalist views, and doing it behind their parents’ backs? Are they crafting laws that make opposing their views a hate crime? Are they working around the clock to create a social climate that condemns their opponents as rabid bigots? PopArt, we both know that it’s gays, or at least gay activists, who are doing these things. It’s gays who are doing the “meddling” and “threatening”. And yes, that’s caused some fear and mistrust of gays among (some) social conservatives. It appears things will stay that way because gay activists have no intention of stopping their aggressive agitation. And that’s too bad.
“No, Seane-Anna, I don’t despise social conservatives. If they’re willing to work alongside an openly gay man to reduce the size and scope of government, I’m willing to work alongside them.
I want them to be free to live their lives as they choose just as I want to be free to choose my own destiny. The state should leave them free to interpret Scriptures as they see fit and to live their lives and raise their families according to that interpretation.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt”
Oh.
I mean, a one-sentence quote in the NYT doesn’t exactly get it, does it?
It depends on the sentence. Yeah, I think Heritage has made themselves quite clear they are homophobes.
SeaneAnna – I was trying to convey WHY many of us who are gay PERCEIVE the advocates for traditional marriage as threatening. I really thought I also conveyed that I absolutely understand why many reasonable Christians and social conservatives may feel threatened by some of the methods of the gay activists. Maybe a reference to another faith will help.
I hope you will agree that hosts of Islamists groups and leaders have made it clear they would love nothing more than to not only enforce their specific faith on their own countries but send their members out to all the other countries especially the United States and introduce Sharia Law. We already have a couple states mounting preemptive lawsuits to prevent Sharia Law from getting footholds. I’m sure you agree what a malignant evil that is yet it is being touted as a practice of Muslims’ traditional values. While these kind of Islam practices are by far the biggest threat (mainly because so many authorities give them a pass for fear of being labeled un-PC), those in the Christian faiths who advocate violence and direct interference with gay taxpaying families are at least being called out more often. But as far as I’m concerned, no religion is immune from followers feeling justified in throwing aside this country’s principles of freedom and liberty for all albeit “under God” in order to enforce specific religious practices on the entire populace. There are still too many voices advocating this for me to feel safe.
And I won’t deny that some of the activist groups you mention as well as those that advocate for other Liberal causes are indeed doing some indoctrination at schools but there are just so many cases of panty waste school authorities not providing a safe environment for all students. This is not indoctrination but basic responsibility of adults interceding when they need to and justifying the property taxes I pay. Many of these abused students and parents have to fight back with lawsuits and activism. I’ve met one, Jamie Nabozny and got to know him as an engaging but shy guy who just wanted to plan his life and career and fall in love and never dreamed and prayed to grow up to be an activist. It is important to realize that some of “activist conglomerate” consists of these regular and brave people, acknowledging that there are others who have glommed on who want to make some noxious “social changes” and feel justified in abrogating the rights of those of us who feel a connection with a Higher Power/God and want to practice that faith.
Seane-Anna, you apparently don’t know what we as gay conservatives believe. I’m a lesbian; I don’t agree with hate-crimes laws. They never should have been enacted. I don’t agree with teachers who feel it necessary to bring their personal lives into their classrooms, such as the kindergarten teacher who made her students sign GLSEN pledge cards or the jr. high teacher who took her students to her lesbian wedding. All of that is wrong. School isn’t for teaching social justice – social justice is not supported by the Constitution.
I don’t believe in abortion on demand. I don’t agree with the majority of gay activists being so liberal that they side with illegal immigrants and the Palestinians.
Now, as to the questions about why we out ourselves – did it ever occur to you that it’s less about gay pride and more about showing the world that not all gay people are brainless, spineless liberals? We’re not trying to force our sexual orientation on anybody here, we just want to show that there’s a number of us who actually do think for ourselves.
As for marriage, that is a conversation that can be had once we’ve gotten past what’s going on now. Believe me, we all need each other. America is in danger of going the way of the dinosaur because of liberalism and we’re sitting here pissing and moaning about socially conservative values? Really? Let’s stop griping about what our differences are and do what needs to be done to get the Big O out of office – THEN we can hash out the rest of the details. We don’t want to tell you how to live your lives any more than we want you telling us how to live ours.
I’m sorry PopArt, but I have a VERY hard time seeing advocating for traditional marriage as threatening. Exactly how is it threatening to gays for marriage to remain the heterosexual institution it’s always been? And how is limiting state recognition to traditional marriage imposing religious teaching on all citizens? PopArt, gay marriage has been voted down in some of the bluest, most non-religious states in the Union. Therefore, the we-gotta-stop-theocracy! argument for gay marriage is just liberals exploiting the anti-Christian sentiment they’ve been fomenting for a generation.
I’m glad you see a problem with gays (and other liberals) indoctrinating kids in school, PopArt, but then you fall back on the bullying excuse for it. No, PopArt, it’s not necessary to teach kids that gay is ok in order to stop bullying. For one thing, a lot, maybe most, victims of bullying are NOT gay. I heard on the news last year that the number one reason for being bullied is obesity, not a kid’s real or perceived sexuality. So, teaching kids that gay is ok won’t stop bullying. Teaching kids that bullying is WRONG no matter what differences they have with other kids, and will NOT be tolerated is what will stop bullying. Punishing the bulliers with punishments that fit the crime is what will stop bullying. Let parents decide what, whether, and when to teach their kids about homosexuality. Using bullying and the victims of bullying to push a political agenda is disgraceful and gay conservatives should oppose that. (PopArt, I’m NOT saying you’re using victims of bullying to push an agenda. I’m saying the indoctrinating liberal gays are.)
Mel, thank you for informing me on what you believe. I truly want to believe that most gay conservatives are like you, and O did believe that before I started reading this blog, ironically. But since I’ve been here I’m starting to feel more and more like gay conservatives want to be conservative on everything except their libido. When it comes to their sexuality many parrot all the social liberal talking points, even trading in anti-religious, and specifically anti-Christian, sentiment. You encourage me not to distrust gay conservatives, Mel, but I’ll admit that’s getting harder and harder to do.
Seane Anna – I’ll just add that the only statistics I have to go on is my own anecdotal experience. While I witnessed some bullying because of obesity or general wierdness, what I experienced for years was a one-two punch of religious condemnation and peer bullying which was focused on being perceived as a “f—in faggot”. And this was during years of futile attempts to convince myself I wasn’t this awful thing that I was taunted about being. I have met dozens upon dozens of others who experienced the same gay-centric bullying. TRUST ME SEANE-ANNA when I say that you can be assured that being perceived as gay remains a dominant factor in the bullying and the argument from some that bullying can be dealt with without having to address any questions of sexual orientation ring hollow. That state of perpetual fear is something I refuse to return to and others who have debated you on this forum probably have similar motivations. At times combating that fear requires a reiteration of something along the lines of “we’re here, we’re queer, etc.” chant even if it is in not so many words. Considering the urgency in fighting the obscene things the Obama Administration is doing to this country, it is imperative I push back that fear as much as possible… and the same goes for any conservatives who still have fear of what gay conservatives would bring to the so-called table.