Last night at our Happy Hour in the nation’s capital, which included Chris Barron from GOProud as well as representatives of various libertarian think tanks inside the Beltway, many of us were speculating about the reasons Heritage had pulled out of CPAC this year. Some (and for good reason) claimed to have inside information while others offered insights based on their experience with the institution.
We all agreed that Heritage often puts out some very good studies, particularly on matters related to the federal budget, and we agreed that the current kerfuffle may well also have undermined its leading role in the conservative movement.
One libertarian scholar found it strange, noting that the foundation presents itself as a “big tent” organization and reminded us that Heritage had participated in past CPACs where the John Birch Society had signed up as a co-sponsor. Does that mean, he asked, that they agree with the Birchers?
We may never know who pushed the non-participation and why he (or she) pushed it, but one thing is clear from this mess is that Heritage has lost its standing as the conservative Beltway establishment holding together the various and diverse stands of the movement.
It’s sad.
I disagree ILC, Its neither sad nor good.
I’m not so sure about Heritage, but most of these “think tanks” are funded by the same interests that have a power grab over our government.
Until conservatives resist this (which their liberal counterparts have not) I’m not going to view CPAC in a any better light than liberal/left wing conventions or events.
Like Dan says, he’s not so sure why they are not going, maybe its best not to find out unless you want to open up a can of worms you wish you hadn’t in the first place.
It is sad, just like it is for at least one other high profile person not going. Whether or not they are part of the pathetic boycott, they will be linked and lauded by the likes of Farah.
Is it cynical of me to suspect that the whole kerfuffle made for GREAT fundraising letters on Heritage’s part?
I wouldn’t know. Have you received a fundraising letter?
The heritage foundation is an anti-gay organization well known for publishing lies and slander about gays.
What more do you need?
Please provide such evidence of lies and slander with links to Heritage publications or portals, Dooms. Thanks.
What IS known is that Dooms is a liberal racist who claims that any black person who doesn’t agree with him is “ignorant”.
Dooms is a proven racist and race-baiter whose sole goal is to stir up racist and sexual orientation-based hatred against white people and heterosexuals. Dooms represents nicely the racist core of the gay and lesbian community, as was seen when gays and lesbians like Dooms were shouting “n****r” at black people following the Proposition 8 vote.
I’m not sure what Dooms means by “slander” but here are a few things the heritage foundation as published:
The Danger in Appeasing Gay Rights Activists
Seems to me they were/are opposed to any type of recognition of gay relationships in this publication.
They also were opposed to DADT because:
I’m not sure what to make of these but to just assume that it is typical conservative babel meant to raise money and to put up a front (I am thinking that Heritage is just another front group). But then again maybe it might be slander (since they call these reports “research”) maybe it not be, but I’m not that naive to think that the Heritage Foundation et al have that much power to tell me what to think about my human sexuality, like Dooms seems to show.
This is just my own opinion. I would like to know what you, Dan, think about this? (or anybody else) Does it mean anything? Should we take it for face value?
Just wondering what gay conservative minds think about this one.
I think Heritage’s stance is perfectly logical.
As I have pointed out, the gay and lesbian community here in San Francisco are screaming that a company who fired someone for sexual harassment as confirmed by the ultra-liberal Human Rights Commission is “homophobic”. Indeed, the outcry is such that gays and lesbians in city government are already looking for ways to overturn the investigation and decision under the belief that, since it reflects negatively on a gay person’s behavior, it must be wrong.
Heritage takes the obvious tack that the gay and lesbian community refuses to discipline, punish, or otherwise curb its own behavior, thus making it clear that even sexually harassing your coworkers — something which is prohibited by law for virtually everyone — is not only endorsed and supported by said gay and lesbian community, but is being demanded as a “right” of the gay and lesbian community.
In short, a minority is demanding the right to break established law and precedent at will, in a fashion that is considered discriminatory and harmful to others, based solely on its minority status.
Why on earth should Heritage support or in any way agree with that? Indeed, the message the gay and lesbian community is sending is that, not only can you sexually harass and behave inappropriately towards someone, that gay and lesbian officers or higher-ups will immediately brand any investigation and decision against you as “homophobic” and ensure that you can keep doing it without penalty.
@ NDT,
I see what you are saying but what you say is a little bit different than what Heritage has said or “researched.”
You make as a basis for your position(s) a story about sexual harassment in the workplace. It is sad but true that many gay people have been indoctrinated by the gay media dictators who want to brainwash us into the cult of victim-hood and do the bidding of the elite so as to keep gay people busy with mundane things.
But also the discrimination is rampant within the community. I have a story of my own, in short: I had a friend who needed a job so I referred him to another friend who owned a clothing store. He went and did the interview, but was not given the job. The owner of the store told me at a bar a week later that my friend was “butt-ugly” and that is why he did not want to give him the job. Turns out he was having sex with most of his employees.
But the problem is how to approach this. Is it approachable? I try to empower gay people to be better than this and motivate them to better individuals and to stop with the superficiality.
It is in my own opinion that Heritage does not care about gay people or re-awaken them from the liberal indoctrination like I do, all they care about seems to me, is to use gay activists and gay issues to advance their conservative agenda, just like liberals use environmentalism to advance theirs. There is nothing wrong with protecting the environment but we all know that environmentalists don’t really care about protecting it, but rather control people with this new green fascism.
Heritage takes the obvious tack that the gay and lesbian community refuses to discipline, punish, or otherwise curb its own behavior, thus making it clear that even sexually harassing your coworkers — something which is prohibited by law for virtually everyone — is not only endorsed and supported by said gay and lesbian community, but is being demanded as a “right” of the gay and lesbian community.
NDT, this argument has been refuted time and again. But let’s assume you are right. Can we agree that GOProud does not hold this stance? And if we can figure that out, why can’t Heritage?
In short, a minority is demanding the right to break established law and precedent at will, in a fashion that is considered discriminatory and harmful to others, based solely on its minority status.
Why on earth should Heritage support or in any way agree with that?
Again, these purported gay persons are not attending CPAC. GOProud is. Is Heritage that intellectually lazy to not see the difference? I guess I give Heritage way more credit than you do.
I have no idea what Heritage’s reasons are, other than the ones they have professed, but I think it’s quite a stretch to claim they have lost their standing in the conservative movement. If so, I guess Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity etc are now RINO’s, because they continue to promote Heritage.
I suspect Heritage is going to come out of this with big bulging pockets, which is going to help make them a more influential group, not a lesser one.
These groups know on which side their bread is buttered, including the GOP — which is why the GOP is moving on some social issues against the advice of David Frum, David Brooks, Mitch Daniels and GOPproud.
1. They need cash. And they get lots more of it from social conservatives than they do from gay agenda proponents.
2. The GOP wants to deliver for social conservatives earlier in their term rather than later, just as any political party wants to move their more controversial agenda items sooner rather than later, hoping that if there is any disapproval, it will be forgotten by the time the next election rolls around.
Someone, and again, I forget who (perhaps it was Reason Mag.?) did a blind survey recently about sexual attitudes/practices and even in this day and age only 1% of respondents self identified as gay. Now for the sake of argument, lets say that even in this day and age half of all gays are afraid to report even on a blind survey that they are gay, that would still mean — if this was an accurate sample, that only 2% of the population is gay.
And 60-70% of THAT low number are Democrats, which means at most 0.6% of the conservative movement are conservative gays.
I’m not even going to bother looking up what percentage of conservatives identify as social conservatives because I think the point is already made, it DWARFS the conservative gay movement. And I suspect it also Dwarfs the number of Conservatives who would make their support for gay marriage or repeal of DADT a priority over other issues.
So we have a huge group that is passionate and is in many ways the financial backbone of the conservative movement on one side, and a teeny tiny group that is passionate on the other, and a bunch of people in the middle for whom gay issues is a very, very low priority.
Heritage doesn’t lose influence in that scenario.
NONE of which should be interpreted to mean that I dont support a big tent. I do. I think it’s unfortunate that Heritage and others are boycotting CPAC. Just trying to be realistic.
Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter support Heritage, and Same-sex Marriage.
Bottom line up front: the folks who work at Heritage will not be voting for President Obama, or any Progressives during this election cycle. Same goes for the American Family Association. If they want to set themselves apart from the so-called conservative GLBT community, one would think conservatives, who respect individual freedom, would permit them the freedom to keep themselves apart. Dwelling on it, obsessing over it only leads one in ever-demoralizing circles.
You say that like its a bad thing.
Again, this is supposed to be a negative?
By the way, could you please use the appropriate scare quotes around the word “progressives” since there is nothing about them that actually represents progress. kthanks.
I haven’t seen anyone suggest anything to the contrary.
That’s a very broad statement when you assert that The Heritage Foundation has undermined itself within the conservative movement when you mean to say that the homosexual/bisexual libertarians hold no sway over the decisions of The Heritage Foundation. The battle within the Republican Party exists solely amongst the federalists and the liberals (libertarians, progressives, and objectivists). For you to state otherwise is most duplicitous.
I’m sorry Dave-O, I misread and misunderstood your point. Forget I said anything 🙂
In #8 above, by JS:
None of that rises to ‘slander’ and none of those pieces written by contributors (not editors or staff) could be called outright ‘lies’ as was purported by Auntie Smegma.
Additionally, the reference to the contributor’s piece on DADT was from 1993 and in several points, was identical to arguments that gay activists used 16 years later to push for the repeal of DADT…
:-/
I don’t know why this needs to be analyzed to death. Heritage could be vague because it is politically correct to not trash gays, although this could be their main reason. In itself, it is a statement. However, no one really has to state a reason beyond they are not going. I don’t think it ruins their standing. Their standing depends on the work they do. The participation of CPAC should not be a new litmus test. And now CPAC is all about gays in the GOP. Give me a break!!!
#17 American Elephant – thank you!
There are bigger fish to fry: for example, some folks still haven’t gotten over Christine O’Donnell’s primary victory, and electoral loss. They pine for Michael Castle as if his boorish, un-Republican behavior would magically have given us a majority in the Senate – and I thought O’Donnell was the one accused of magic.
How will GOProud’s member integrate with, or work with, social and other conservatives at the city block/farm-ranch level? Or is the function of GOProud to go into each gay ghetto and carry the conservative guideon?
Who are the precinct captains? Who’re the county chairfolk? Who’s paying for all of this? **World according to DaveO: stay away from the RNC and it’s surrogates. They manage money worse than WorldCom.**
I’m more concerned on the how to make 2012 a nation-saving election, and not with whether or not socially conservative folks are going to approve of homosexuality.
I think that members of the Libertarian Right are reevaluating their priorities. The movement is becoming more decentralized. It is becoming less reliant on leadership of any kind.
I think it’s a rejection of the concept of ‘Elitism’. It’s a rejection of centralized authority. We don’t need a group of ‘special’ people to tell us what we think.
People have had two years to compare the structure of the organizations they belong to with that of their Democratic counterparts. Specifically, the notion that a ‘God-King’ (Obama) can exist, and can be all-knowing, has soured many on the idea of authority in general.
.
FYI – it appears Heritage’s stance on gay marriage (as quoted above) is the same as Barack Obama.
On the other hand, the highest ranking political figure in America who supports gay marriage is…. yep, Dick Cheney.
Bruce, isn’t Heritage’s (and Obama’s) position the same as GOProud’s?
The Heritage Foundation looks to be pandering for dollars.
Er… what? Limbaugh and Coulter support Same-Sex Marriage?
JS, regarding the Heritage piece about marriage and CUs, you wrote:
I disagree with you there — it seems to me they oppose domestic-partnership or civil-union laws because they perceive that gays intend to use those laws as stepping stones to SSM. It’s not clear to me that the Heritage Foundation writer in question would oppose same-sex DP/CU laws if there were no visible and vocal movement for establishing SSM. (To be sure, there are religious conservatives who would oppose any legal recognition of our relationships under any name or any circumstances — but I don’t know whether the Heritage dude you linked to supports this view. What I do know is that the perception of DP/CU laws as being merely a stepping-stone or backdoor to SSM can be a deal-killer for some religious conservatives who might otherwise support us on same-sex DP/CU laws, based on, e.g., libertarian convictions.)
Regarding the DADT piece — it was written in 1993. Would a Heritage author writing about DADT today still stand by the “unit cohesion” and “blood safety” arguments? (Especially the “blood safety” argument, which is really badly dated.) To be fair, argument #2, about the possibility of gay cronyism, does remain as pertinent as ever — but cronyism is not a problem uniquely resulting from homosexual attraction.
Sarah Palin won’t attend CPAC for another year. You might want to look into it since it you think it matters.
Anon, I would be curious. Palin has made herself quite available during election season. It would be interesting to hear why she would skip out on this.