Alex Blaze

The gays scare more conservatives: Heritage Foundation pulls out of CPAC

Filed By Alex Blaze | January 07, 2011 2:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: conservatism, CPAC, GOProud, Heritage Foundation, libertarianism

The Heritage Foundation has pulled out of the CPAC (I'm not even conservative and it's hard ann-coulter-goproud.pngto imagine a conference establishing itself as the center of American movement conservatism without them):

"We believe in the traditional definition of the family," Gonzalez explained. "We believe in defending the family against any threats that come against it. We're not for gay marriage. We don't think institutions that have existed for millennia can be done away with at the drop of a hat."

Gonzalez emphasized that the "three pillars" of conservatism, economic liberty, national defense and social conservatism, are "indivisible."

Smaller orgs like the Media Research Center, Vision for America, and Patriot Depot have also dropped out since I last posted about the orgs leaving the CPAC because the homocons are attending. A CPAC board person said that the boycott means that they'll probably consider forcing GOProud out:

A member of the CPAC board of directors put the revolt in perspective.

"This is a huge blow to CPAC," said Floyd Brown, president of the Western Journalism Center and founder of Citizens United. "It shows the CPAC leadership needs to do a full evaluation of their decision to allow this homosexual group to be a participating organization."

They probably will, since, at the end of the day, GOProud isn't going to be winning elections for the Republican Party any time soon.

But this discussion has gotten conservatives to hone in that talking point about national security, libertarianism, and social conservatism all being important "allies," as if they were unrelated in the first place. Conservatism when it comes to national security and law enforcement becomes necessary when libertarianism ravages an economy and a populace doesn't have much left, and social conservatism is a cultural outgrowth of authoritarianism, the same authoritarian impulse required to get people who aren't rich to think that having an aristocracy is a great thing.

That gay people can also buy into that mindset isn't unbelievable. And that's exactly the problem here: no matter how much these folks say they oppose "the gay agenda" and "radical homosexual activism" instead of LGBT people themselves, it's really about the people. Consider:

"Homosexuals can get involved in the conservative movement any way they want, but to come in and push an agenda that's contrary to biblical values, traditional values and rational moral values, that's another thing," said Gary DeMar, president of American Vision and Vision for America. "We wouldn't exclude adulterers from participating, but if there were a group of adulterers who said 'we want adulterers' rights,' we're going to say no."

Yes, that's a very common line. But what, exactly, is the agenda that GOProud has that's contrary to conservatism? Other than DADT repeal, which is pretty much over, they don't advocate any of the stock gay agenda items. Marriage, employment protections, hate crimes legislation, partnership recognition, parental rights, medical autonomy, funding for HIV/AIDS... those aren't things that they actually advocate about over at GOProud.

The issue is that they're gay. At least that much is clear now.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I'm always suprised by the existence of gay republican groups. Or feminist republicans. Or anything else that experiences a contradiction value. Literally, conservatism refers to an ideology that seeks to prevent change in society. Therefore I never understand why groups who want to promote society change get on their bandwagon.

I think this is a good thing in a lot of ways. The sooner (and harder) the Republican Party "cracks down" on groups like GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, the sooner conservative-leaning members of the LGBTI community will be forced to realize that there's no place for civil rights in a Republican world. Because the Republican Party doesn't stand for actual fiscal conservationism or small government; it is the party of social conservative bigots and rapacious big business interests.

While I agree with you Desiree, that still only moves about 50 more votes for Democrats nationwide.

What it may do, however, is just provide one more good example to everyone else, especially any center-right leaning Republicans (all 50 of those that are left) of how extreme their party has become.

I left the Republican party when the Plantation owners, Pope and Baptists took over.

I read elsewhere that the HF wasn't going for financial reasons rather than GOProud's attendance.

Anyway, despite how ridiculous and misguided GOProud is, I think their overall effect on conservatism could be positive in the long run. The person quoted in the article said sympathy with religious right ideology (a.k.a. "social conservatism") is "indivisible" from conservatism, but in their own clumsy way, GOProud is challenging the notion that being conservative necessarily requires one to be prejudiced against GLBT people.

The religious right was brought on board with the conservative movement as "useful idiots" to begin with, a way for the GOP to persuade middle class whites to embrace and vote for an economic agenda generally at odds with their own best interests.

Brad Bailey | January 7, 2011 5:59 PM

Powerful and continuing nationalism.

Disdain for the recognition of human rights.

Supremacy of the military.

Disdain for intellectuals and the arts.

Obsession with national security.

Religion and government are intertwined.

Corporate power is protected.

Labor power is suppressed.

Obsession with crime and punishment.

Rampant cronyism and corruption.

Do any of these things sound familiar?

They are all identifying characteristics of fascist regimes. They were all spelled out in the Laurence Britt article, "Fascism, Anyone?," published in the Free Inquiry in spring of 2003.

Britt made a comparative study of five known fascist regimes in the past, and these were the characteristics they all shared.

If socialism and communism are the supposed end results of liberalism, then fascism is the end result of conservatism.

Don't look now, people, but we haven't been a government of, by and for the people in a long time. Those who control the money control the government. And they ain't us.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | January 8, 2011 2:44 AM

I suspect that few of CNNs estimated 1,310,893 GLBT votes for McCain were not paycheck votes; there just aren't that many gazillionaires among us.

There are however lots of racists, lots of pro-war rightwingers, lots of cult fanatics and huge numbers of people legitimately angry at Obama and the Democrats betrayals who foolishly and pointlessly voted for their twins in Republican party.

A general trend that will frame the growth, or lack of it, of both Democrat and Republican LGBT votes is exemplified by the increasing numbers of people in favor of DADT repeal (77 percent ), some slight movement for same sex marriage (Gallup - 53% of Americans oppose marriage equality and 44% support it) and the key question ENDA (90% support).

Democrats will continue to give lip service to promoting our agenda and Republicans will continue to oppose it. GOProud and Log Cabin are inconsequential in the Republican Party and have no chance of beating the bigots who own it. The same is true of the futile role of Stonewall Democrats in that Party where open bigots like Obama, Kaine and Daughtry call the shots.

Both parties and their GLBT cheerleaders will become more isolated as a result. And so will their cheerleaders. And that's a very good thing. Their losses are the movements gains.

Jonathan Willard | January 8, 2011 11:00 AM

Despite the stirring rhetoric, this point of view is essentially self-deluding and self-defeating. Without engagement with a powerful political party through which to accomplish our goals, "the movement" becomes merely a vehicle through which we maintain a self-righteous sense of ideological purity, bark at the moon while enhancing our own sense of self-importance, and essentially spin our wheels. Given the meager choices, the Democratic Party, however imperfect, however many times it's betrayed us, is our only option.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | January 8, 2011 3:43 PM

"self-deluding and self-defeating..." That's onlyh a factor if we follow your option of never fighting and never succeeding.

The Democrats and Republicans are powerful when it comes to tax breaks for the rich, betraying everyone but Wall Street and murdering children in muslim countries. Otherwise fergaboudit.

The Democrat and Republican parties are a political closet and those who remain in them imitate an abused spouse coming back for more.

Is this considered "love the sinner?"