FIREWORKS AT CPAC
Before I delve into the thicket of analysis as to why a sizable number of conservatives are opposed to gay marriage (and the subset of that minority that hate gays period), I wanted to address Bob Barr’s comments yesterday at the National Security panel at CPAC.
The setting was interesting.
Oh what a lovely crowd, huh? Bob Barr is booed and yelled at loudly by the crowd until the moderator, Jay Sekulow, calms them down, for daring to point out that waterboarding is torture. This is from one of the CPAC 2010 panel segments, the topic of which was, “Does Security Trump Freedom?” The panelists included Barr, Jim Gilmore, Dan Lungren and Viet Dinh. Rep. Lungren got a nice little cheer out of them for saying he was for “enhanced interrogation” as well. There’s your conservative base, folks: Torture lovers.
1. Many in the crowd were yelling support for Barr, especially the Paulbots were were all over CPAC yesterday, and libertarians who came to see their former presidential candidate. There were also many boos - especially after the former congressman condemned water boarding as torture.
2. The crowd was none too kind to Barr either after his remarks about the Patriot Act (”repeal it”), the terrorist surveillance program, and his strong criticism of Bush-era national security measures at home.
3. The discussion was remarkable. There were disagreements about many issues among the panelists. For contrast, when I attended the Netroots Convention a few years ago, I saw several panels where there was as much disagreement about issues as you might expect from the College of Cardinals about theology. Not only boring to listen to, but the lockstep mentality of the panelists was almost comical.
Readers of this site know that I side with Barr in this debate - at least on waterboarding torture. I think he has some good things to say about civil liberties overall, but I would disagree with him about some elements of the Patriot Act which have been blown wildly out of proportion by civil liberties absolutists. Oversight is the key and, while there have been notable lapses, overall I think the courts, DoJ and Congress have done a pretty good job in that regard. They can do better and we need people like Barr to hold their feet to the fire to make sure they do.
Despite what many on the left may say, these are not cut and dried issues (except those “enhanced interrogation techniques” that are clearly torture) where the left is on the side of the angels. In fact, they have tried to politicize the national security/civil liberties debate to their shame.
They shamelessly sought to score political points by railing against the Patriot Act, the TSP, and even the innocuous SWIFT terrorist money tracking program. These are not programs that are indicative of a slow slide towards authoritarianism. There is certainly room for disagreement. We know that some on the left care as much about civil liberties as they care about Joe Lieberman because now that Obama is president and has kept many of these programs intact, we hear nary a peep from most of them (Barr and Greenwald being notable exceptions).
The discussion yesterday where Barr was loudly booed for some of his views was robust, nuanced, intelligent, and so far above anything in quality that I’ve ever seen from the left on these subjects that they are not even playing in the same league. Pointing out diversity of opinion in these matters only makes liberals look like the mindless automatons on these issues that they have shown themselves to be.
What of the blow up about gays?
It happened at an event that highlighted young conservative activists across the country - many of whom started “conservative clubs” at their high schools and had to go through the usual harassment by clueless school administrators. One YAF member from California, Ryan Sorba, went up to the podium with a chip on his shoulder, and rather than tell his little two minute story about his activism, he launched a tirade against “GoProud” - a conservative gay organization - who had a booth at the conference.
It was pretty embarrassing. Sorba stood up there like the former high school star athlete he probably was and kept looking out into the audience - many of whom were booing him - and kept sneering “Bring it on!.” It was painful to watch - especially when you realized that the cheers for Sorba were, if not equal to the boos, then certainly noticeable.
That’s only half the story. Someone at the American Conservative Union who assigned booth space was either trying to sabotage the gays or is really, really dense. They placed the gay’s booth very near a table manned by representatives of the National Organization for Marriage -a group that, um, strenuously opposes gay marriage.
My guess is the former. The thinking must have been that those visiting the anti-gay marriage booth would then sidle over to GOProud’s table and harass them. Maybe they were even hoping for fisticuffs. Instead, according to this video from CNN, the two sides got along fine. There were spirited discussions as you might imagine but no unpleasantness - until yesterday.
That’s when NOM issued a press release, warning GOProud that if they supported candidates who advocated gay marriage, they would “Scozzafavaize” them. That led to this statement by one of the gay group’s representatives who wonder why the NOM people couldn’t have said the same thing to him in person since he was only 5 feet away. “Who’s are the pansies at CPAC” the GoProud fellow asked?
The bigger issue, of course, is the attitude shared by many in the Republican party and conservative movement toward gay people. Opposition to gay marriage does not make one a homophobe, although there is certainly a subset of that group who are. Since our politics has become so irrational that debating gay marriage sensibly is out of the question, supporters of the issue lazily tar all opponents, willy nilly, with that disgusting moniker.
But it is not those who oppose gay marriage because they see it as detrimental to society, or against their religious beliefs who necessarily demonstrate a nauseating intolerance for gay people. Rather it is that ever shrinking number of opponents - mostly men - who genuinely hate gay people for who they are, and who have been given a home in the conservative movement and Republican party that should concern us.
Are there gay haters who are liberal Democrats? Of this, I have no doubt. Given the amount of racism we’ve seen from “tolerant” liberals, I am completely convinced that there are homophobes in the Democratic party and progressive movement as well.
The difference is, that kind of bigotry isn’t catered to as it is in the conservative movement and GOP so anti-gay liberals generally know enough to keep their mouths shut. Ideology plays a small role in gay hating, or any kind of bigotry. People are people, and intolerance knows no political party or philosophy. To argue otherwise is to argue against human nature - nice trick if you can pull it off.
While there may be homophobes who are liberals, gay intolerance is a problem for conservatives exclusively. The left has mostly marginalized their haters - not so the right. It is tolerated under the guise of “religious freedom” for the most part, but the effect is the same; a poisonous fear and loathing of homosexuals that drags down all conservatives and adds to the right’s problems with regards to the political perception of conservatives held by the public at large.
I am not a psychologist. I don’t even play one on the internet. My personal feelings about gays is fairly tolerant - when I think about it. I’m not sure someone’s sexuality should be a major political issue, but I understand why gays would try and make it so. I support gay marriage simply because it is an inevitable consequence of changing societal values, as I stated here. Managing that change so that it occurs within the context of the popular will should be what concerns conservatives, in my opinion. No judicial shortcuts.
But through their opposition to gay marriage, conservatives supply cover for the genuine bigots who usually couch their intolerance by claiming common cause with the traditional marriage folks. Obviously a way must be found to separate those who sincerely oppose gay marriage out of conviction or faith, from the haters who want homosexuals back in the closet and sodomy laws reinstituted. I’m not sure that it’s possible, but an effort should be made nonetheless. Self-policing language and rhetoric would be a start. Defending outright bigotry by alluding to “political correctness” isn’t going to cut it. There are lines that cannot be crossed and those that do should be called out for it.
Beyond that, there are symbolic, but telling steps that can be taken to raise the profile, and integrate Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, and other gay conservative organizations into the party leadership. The establishment is terrified of gays, thinking that accepting them would bring down the wrath of evangelicals upon them. This may be true. But as Allahpundit and others have pointed out, the tide may - just may - be turning on that score:
The One’s agenda has vaulted fiscal conservatism to the top of the list of right-wing priorities; with even Darth Cheney sanguine about gay marriage, social issues simply don’t have the same bite that they used to. In fact, I’m curious to know if Ed’s gotten the same vibe at the convention that Time magazine’s getting — namely, thanks to the GOP’s tilt towards libertarianism, that the big tent is a little bigger this year than it used to be.
Small moves, Ellie. Small moves.
I believe there is a way to maintain conservative and GOP opposition to gay marriage while purging the movement and party of the bigots who do so much to harm the perception held by the average American of the right. It won’t be easy. The left, as they continuously do with regard to race, will seek to minimize, criticize, and misrepresent anything conservatives do in this regard.
But a changing society demands that we change with it. And recognizing and tolerating the 10% or so of the population who are attracted sexually to the same sex is not just the politically correct, or politically advantageous, or even the philosophically satisfying thing to do.
It is the right thing to do, and should be done because it is morally correct.
And again, here’s why I keep reading your site. I disagree with most stuff you write, but when you’re right, you’re right.
Personally, I’m ambivalent about gay marriage. I would be equally as happy with removing state sanctioned marriage for hetero couples. For me it’s a matter of equality and nothing else.
But you’re right, party be damned, it has to be dealt with, no matter where it rears its ugly head.
Comment by Russell Miller — 2/20/2010 @ 2:47 pm
While I more often than not disagree with you, your take on gay rights is dead on. Conservatism and gay rights should in no way be in opposition. Further, this issue absolutely has been decided among the young: they overwhelmingly support gay marriage.
I’m also pro-choice, but oddly to me, at least, youger persons are becoming overwhelming pro-life. Therefore, the position of the GOP and most conservatives on this issue is more attractive to voters now. Go figure.
So of the two most prominent social issues, the parties and ideologies are 1 for 1 in the long haul. The irony is rich.
Comment by obamathered — 2/20/2010 @ 3:09 pm
CBS poll from April 09:
Gay marriage: Dems: 46% Reps: 6%
Civil unions: Dems: 23 Reps: 34%
No recognition: Dems: 26% Reps: 59%
That would support your contention that Democrats have some bigots, too. Just over half as many as the GOP.
Stick with the “No legal recognition” number but by Liberal and Conservative you have: Liberals: 14% Conservatives: 52%
So liberals have roughly one quarter the bigot quotient of conservatives. Now what’s odd is the gap between 52% of conservatives and 59% of Republicans. I don’t have an explanation for that.
The frustration I have and many have with conservatives is not that they don’t eventually get it right, but that it takes them so goddamned long, they’re so determined to stay wrong, and then such liars when it’s time to finally admit they were wrong.
You’d think after being wrong, wrong, wrong on every human rights issue from women’s right to vote, to ending Jim Crow, to opening universities and clubs to Jews, to the right to organize unions, to equal pay for women, to the protection of workers, to non-discrimination in housing, to access for the disabled, to gay rights, to torture, the Right might learn just enough to pause occasionally and think, “You know, every time some human rights issue comes up we act like f—ing a–holes and crap all over a bunch of innocent people, so how about this time, on this issue, we don’t do that?”
I mean, wrong every now and then? That’s inevitable. But always wrong? Always? And always loudly, abusively, self-righteously and just plain stupidly wrong? It’s not that hard: next time a human rights issue comes up, just grab the nearest liberal and ask him what to do. You’ll save us all a lot of agita.
Comment by michael reynolds — 2/20/2010 @ 7:04 pm
Mike Reynolds…
Never of him.
Comment by Charlie Gibson — 2/20/2010 @ 7:20 pm
This is to MIchael Reynolds and others at this site. At the risk of adding a little opposite opinion here. I too occasionally read this site for diversity of opinion within the realm of today’s conservative mvt.
That said, a few things.
First, uh…..at the risk of sounding…shall we say,…differnt…you do understand that homosexuality is NOT a race, an ethnicity, nor even a culture? Right? Good.
Two, this is a fair question, one in which I hope it is taken in the spirit of diversity…
In fact, the way it is received here will demonstrate whether or not the adage “we can all agree to disagree” and “all opinions are welcome here” by the response it receives whether civil or otherwise.
Here goes:
Question: The elephant in the room, regarding this issue.
Please, name for me ONE government in human history, go as far back as you want to, (ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, Japan, ancient Aztecs, etc) Whatever civiliations great and small that you want, WHERE did any of their governments explicitly endorse and sanction same-sex marrage? Where exactly in human history is this precedented?
Answer: There is none. This means that this is unprecedented in history. In fact, truth be told, you heard next to almost nothing about this issue at all whatsoever before, say, circa 1995, 1998 or so, around there. Next to nothing whatsoever.
Four, more of an observation, regarding what some have said of overwhelming support of homosexual marriage among the young, well, while it is true that the young often indulge in many things, various behaviors (e.g. out of wedlock births is most high among the young, drug addiction, incarceration for murder, etc. AS WELL AS graduation from college, and NFL Super Bowl quarterbacks doing quite well) Point: The young engage in various things. Whether correctly or incorrectly, time does have a way of telling.
But, as to the idea that the young (ages 21-35 shall we say?) They have a strange way of showing it: Case in point. Roughly 35 states in US have passed state laws in defense of marriage.
Websters, Oxford English Dictionary, etc have thru the centuries defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Michael Reynolds….wonder why that is?
COuld it be that the civilizations of the past, like, dude, you know, knew what exactly marriage was? Partly based on pro-creation? Makes you think.
And if someone who never ever thought for a second about the issue even 10yrs ago,and if asked, would’ve said its obviously defined as man/woman contract, NOW all of a sudden, like George Orwell’s animal Farm (for quick example) we NOW all of a sudden told, that hey, the times have changed, get with it, screw 10000 yrs of human history and go with it. Just cuz. Just cuz we say so. No reason, just cuz. We wanna be married too.
Like, yeah, we have ALL the civil rights as everyone else does as AMerican Citizens before the law, we’re equal, we basically have every right as everyone else does…..BUT NOW WE WANT WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE HAD FORALL OF HISTORY, IF that means changing the definition and history and the culture and the law and everything else to suit or purposes, so be it. We say so, you have to do it or else you’re the bigot, you’re the homophobe (a made up word which we apply to those we don’t like) If you have personal qualms or ethical problems with it, screw you, you’re the problem…..not us.
I know, I know, it MUST be automatically be due to that everyone’s obviously ipso facto a bigot racist (even though gayness isnt a race or ethnicity)
Final question: For every term there is an opposite. If one calls a person a homophobe (a non existent term without any proof in historical context whatsoever) then I would have to assume that most who support this bogus idea of additional rights for a nonexistent culture, nonexistent race, (how does one “look” or “sound” gay? You can’t, especially if its a choice or behavior related, a lifestyle)
Then I have to assume that some around in today’s US are heterophobes, the opposite.
I hope that we could have a civil discussion, and agree to disagree. I hope sincerely that we dont all have to pretend to be of one political side when clearly others are not. I would hope that we use accurate stats wheen deseperately trying to make our case.
IF 35 states or close to it have passed defense of marriage, and it only takes 37 states for a constiutional ammendment, well….Also…for a minority of roughly 3-4% total in the US adult population and those Evangelicals’ numbers are close to about 16% of adult population, don’t you think its best not to continually mock degrade ridicule etc their personal beliefs? Otherwise, they may take their personal and private into the public realm of policy.
May the best side carry the day.
Thanks
Comment by jimmy — 2/20/2010 @ 7:54 pm
What of the blow up about gays?
——————————————-
Nobody answer that. It’s a loaded question.
Comment by CZ — 2/20/2010 @ 8:04 pm
“Are there gay haters who are liberal Democrats? Of this, I have no doubt. Given the amount of racism we’ve seen from ‘tolerant’ liberals, I am completely convinced that there are homophobes in the Democratic party and progressive movement as well.
. . .
The difference is, that kind of bigotry isn’t catered to as it is in the conservative movement and GOP so anti-gay liberals generally know enough to keep their mouths shut.”
This.
Of course there are racist Liberals. And Homophobic liberals. And Paranoid liberals. And all the other stripes of lazy thinking. They are in all groups.
But the GOP actively and implicitly encourages it. That’s a cancer for the movement, and the GOP can take one of three paths to dealing with it. They can aggressively and directly reject it (not their path of choice apparently). They can completely ignore it. Or, they can “what racism?” dodge the issue, making them look worse to everybody who’s not in the GOP. Sadly, it seems like the body of the party has chosen option #3. Its a stupid handicap to inflict upon yourself, especially when you’re trying to come from behind and make gains in the non-GOP population.
Comment by busboy33 — 2/21/2010 @ 12:58 am
I don’t really care about gay’s who marry, it hasn’t redefined my marriage in the least, I married a Chinese woman - I am sure in some period of our history it’d be looked down upon. Whatever. If its really about the sanctity of marriage then get rid of divorce, that really ruins homes and family and messes up kids.
I’ll never understand why it is that if Conservatives want government out of their lives, or smaller government, why not support gay rights? Why give the government one more inch to be involved and use that as a stepping stone for something else - isn’t that the usual argument for something they want the government to be hands off for? If its not for smaller government then its another reason entirely, what that us I don’t know.
Comment by Boy 0 — 2/21/2010 @ 7:35 am
Jimmy:
So, let me see if I have this straight (heh): you want to harken to the history of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, Japan, ancient Aztecs, etc as support for your anti gay marriage position?
Each of your cited authorities practiced slavery. They would have made your exact argument — in favor of slavery — by pointing to preceding governments as authority. They would have done the same for democracy more generally. Or for any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They’d have said, “Did Ur have freedom of speech? No!”
So you see the problem there? It’s the core problem of conservatism. You assume that the past is good and the future is frightening. When of course the past has been a long stream of horrors and the cases you cite their futures were quite an improvement. In western civilization we have moved by fits and starts, often involuntarily, usually inefficiently and stupidly, from less freedom to more.
To take some of your cited civilizations: in ancient Greece (and Rome) pedophilia was an open and accepted practice, as was infanticide. Nowadays? Not so much pedophilia and not so much infanticide.
Ancient Rome? Slavery. Mutilation. Political change by assassination. Imperialism. Public entertainments of appalling bloodthirstiness. Nowadays? Well, modern Italy has its problems, but they don’t set starved lions on Christians.
But it’s particularly funny that you would cite the Greeks and the Romans both of whom — particularly in their armies — openly practised the sort of man-boy relationships that are today condemned by gays as pederasty.
As for the Aztecs, good lord. Really? You’re going to cite the Aztecs as moral authorities? Why not Genghis or the Nazis while you’re at it?
If you want to appeal to history then understand history.
Comment by michael reynolds — 2/21/2010 @ 11:11 am
Some conservatives are driven by their understanding of the Bible and their religious leaders, which condemns homosexuality in several books—notably Leviticus and Romans.
Other conservatives, that happen to be atheistic in their religious outlook, are not bound by what the Bible and religious sects say, and can thus freethink their way out of the dilemma of respecting the customs and traditions of marriage versus a more open interpretation.
Still others simply wish that the whole issue would go away, disappear, and not come back.
There are also agnostic conservatives that wish to ride the tide of social change (read: the hedonistic tendencies of many to release all of the bonds of morality) regardless of the tide’s breakaway impact on fundamental Christian moral values.
Those minorities that want to sunder the conservative cause by calling the stand of Christian conservatives for Civil Unions and not gay marriage to be wrong, are themselves being intolerant of a religious and moral belief system and a tradition that is widely and deeply held in the nation; perhaps by 80-85% of the population.
I fail to see the advantage of elevating this now to a divisive, emotional, political, legislated, special kind of morality issue for conservatives, rather than leaving it to be the fundamental religious issue it most surely is and will remain to be in our society.
The long term question is: whose morality will be followed, that of the continued relaxation of moral standards, customs and traditions seemingly championed by humanists and feelgood hedonists, or of reenforcing the Christian moral standards of our society?
In all cases where this has come to a vote, Christian morality has won handily.
Comment by mannning — 2/21/2010 @ 1:34 pm
Video Cafe, a stopping point for the ages and the sages. It should be pointed out to these people in search of moral footing that leading Democrats knew about water boarding for years, virtually from the get go, just as the knew about the NSA ’spying on Americans”.
But you can’t disturb hate.
Comment by johnt — 2/21/2010 @ 1:57 pm
I’m with Boy O on this one - if gays marry, it has no effect on my marriage at all. However, in order to avoid thorny Constitutional issues that nobody in the gay marriage debate (pro or con) seems to bring up, I think that it would be wise to separate the legal contract that a marriage forms from the religious rite of marriage. What the pro-gay marriage proponents are really seeking is the right to form a union between two individuals regardless of sex. Fine. Call them civil unions. However, problems may arise if the government should find itself in the position of forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriages, or even perform gay marriages. At that point, those religious institutions’ First Amendment rights may be violated. Further, what about other service providers, such as caterers, photographers, etc., who may individually have religious conflicts with gay marriage? Would the government force them to participate in the name of non-discrimination? (I recall reading a case like that with a photographer, where the state government was attempting to force him to photograph a gay wedding despite his religious convictions.) These issues need to be addressed.
Comment by tccesq — 2/21/2010 @ 2:48 pm
The Bible is every Christian’s b-tch. They find there whatever they go looking for.
The Bible gave support to slavery, to stoning for adulters, for the right of parents to kill their children for disrespect. Telling me you found something in the Bible is a bad joke. Christians have never given a damn what was in the Bible, they’ve just used the book to validate their own pre-existing desires and prejudices.
It’s not about Christian morality, it’s bigotry, prejudice, and a sadistic desire to harm the “other.” You’re trying to dress homophobia up in the exact same outfit Christians used to justify genocide and race hatred.
Comment by michael reynolds — 2/21/2010 @ 2:53 pm
Dear me! MR is, of course, not a close reader. That statement of mine is simply a fact, not a belief. I cannot gainsay what beliefs others have. MR, you are showing your own prejudices and desires to denegrate Christians for their beliefs. Toleration is called for on both sides of this issue, but you have demonstrated conclusively that you have it not.
It is all about Christian morality, and no statement to the contrary will change it in the minds of a supermajority of the population. That was shown by the number of states whose majorities voted against SSM.
As to the attitude being driven by prejudices and desires, one might ask where such opinions originated, and why? Could it be the teachings of Christian clerics and Biblical scholars over some 3 or 4 thousand years? Could it be that Romans 1:26-28 was considered to be Paul’s New Testament advice to the sect coming from God?
You consider the Bible a joke, while most of 300 million people don’t, something like: “look at our boy there in the parade! He is the only one marching in step!” That statement alone marks you for what you are: a hater of Christians for your own reasons…
Comment by mannning — 2/22/2010 @ 10:02 am
No, it marks me as someone who occasionally reads history, and who understands something about human nature.
Comment by michael reynolds — 2/22/2010 @ 11:10 am
MR:
The glaring fact is that you hate Christians!
This you have demonstrated with your statements and your obviously biased reading of your history books, and your egregious shortfall in adequate understanding of human nature, as well as religion.
Perhaps you should read more often than occasionally; you might learn something despite your quirky, atheistic biases.
Many young people go through the stage of rejecting Christianity, but eventually realize their mistake. Apparently, you haven’t progressed that far in your journey. Perhaps you never will.
Comment by mannning — 2/22/2010 @ 12:47 pm
Michael Reynolds wrote: So you see the problem there? It’s the core problem of conservatism. You assume that the past is good and the future is frightening.
Personally I don’t see how to solve this “problem” with conservatism.
“Let’s go back to 1950/1776/1492″
NOT a winning slogan.
Rick Moran wrote: Despite what many on the left may say, these are not cut and dried issues (except those “enhanced interrogation techniques” that are clearly torture) where the left is on the side of the angels. In fact, they have tried to politicize the national security/civil liberties debate to their shame.
Yes, speaking out against EITs IS so shameful. Always gotta punch a hippie even in the middle of an admission that at CPAC the guy who spoke against water-boarding was loudly booed. So is water-boarding “cut and dried” torture or the other kind? Hard to keep up these days…
What part of this didn’t you understand?
Readers of this site know that I side with Barr in this debate - at least on waterboarding torture.
Is it the fact that there are words of more than two syllables that is giving you problems? I was not talking about opposition to torture. The issues that are not cut and dried have to do with the Patriot Act, the TSP, SWIFT, and other measures that are certainly open for debate - except on the left where hysteria has replaced reason in discussing these measures.
I have supported a strict interpretation of the anti-torture convention as well as torture as it is defined in the Geneva Convention. In other words, I agree with you. I know there is one word of more than a syllable there so I hope you understood that.
ed.
Comment by EthylEster — 2/22/2010 @ 6:04 pm
–MR
Such an illogical statement cries for comment. Any sane person understands that there is a past, a present, and a future. They know a lot about the past and can draw lessons from it. People are generally aware of the present reality they are immersed in, but are most certainly not aware of the totality of events, trends, and ideas that exist in the now. When it comes to the future, there are no certainties, only the guidelines and principles used of the present and past to help project and plan for the next period of life, whether it be a day/week/month/year/decade or whatever.
I see conservatism and conservatives themselves as actively and busily trying to plan, organize, integrate, measure and construct a future based upon well-known, reliable and unchanging principles that ensure a worthwhile life for everyone in our nation. Not in some silly fear or fright state, but in a very, very realistic, rational and positive state of mind.
Perhaps this statement of MR reflects more his own fright of the future, and his own fate…
Comment by mannning — 2/22/2010 @ 10:30 pm