« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Infiltrators

By: JadedByPolitics (Diary)  |  January 8th, 2011 at 10:23 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I was trying to reconcile within myself what exactly has occurred in the past month and a half in the Movement of Conservatism. The schism seems to have occurred via the supposed victimization of gays within the Movement. Two months ago everyone was on the same page about what needed to happen for America, we needed to wrench the gavel out of the hands of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. We all worked very hard together to make that happen. What happened immediately following the election on November second was a concerted effort to silence Social Conservatives A Leave Me Alone Ethos Is Libertarian, Not Conservatism. The groups calling for this Fiscal Conservatism only push were Libertarian TEA Parties and GOProud. Those groups are a smaller part of the Conservative Movement then Social Conservatives Of Course There is Major Crossover.

– They are mostly social conservatives, not libertarians on social issues. Nearly two-thirds (63%) say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and less than 1-in-5 (18%) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

You see what I can not reconcile is that immediately after an election of which the goal was to restore America to greatness, some would immediately try to undercut a majority of the voting Conservatives. GOProud did not stop pushing for DADT repeal, it was their social issue and they fought on behalf of it. In the same way Social Conservatives should never stop fighting for those social issues that they are passionate about. If the goals of the two groups should be on opposite sides well that is just very American. That CPAC blow up is a perfect example of the two not agreeing on the same social issue’s. CPAC organizers decided that financially they would benefit more with GOPROUD and without Social Conservative Organizations including Heritage Foundation Freedom To Associate Or Not. Their conference their call. Heritage and other Socially Conservative organizations ought to compete with CPAC for their customers and no doubt in the future will. The beauty of that is as Conservatives we will get to decide where we choose to spend our money.

Here is the thing that is ticking me off, Social Conservatives are being painted as bigots by others in the Movement. When those words are uttered or are intimated by someone within your sphere they can never be taken back. What we have is a slew of Libertarians and or Liberal posers who are attempting to rip the Movement apart with their victimization of GOProud CPAC Is Also Promoting Legalization of Marijuana & The ACLU?. We will either continue to work together to rid the Country of Congresspeople who spend us, our children and our grandchildren into oblivion or we won’t, but I refuse to engage in the petty concerns of a bunch of closet liberals to help them to tear down this Movement. We are all grownups and we all can make financial decisions for ourselves and when Heritage and the other Social groups have a conference I will attend it as well as CPAC. There is a big tent in the Republican Party but there is no room for liberals and you will know them by their victimhood, do not let them determine the fate of the Conservative Movement that is ascending. I am certainly not making it up that there are liberals/progressives infiltrating the Movement They Are JFK Democrats, Nothing More, Make Them Go Back To Their Party. The bottom line is that we can work with these people to take America back to its limited government design however we will not be silenced on the issues that matter to us. We will not allow them to dictate the future of the Republican Party when they can just as well go back to their Party of origin and reclaim it from the progressives who have hijacked it!

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • acat

    I don’t think the schism is entirely external. I think some parts of it have been deliberately caused or hyped by both sides to advance positions that there is legitimate disagreement on.

    GOProud, for example, clearly aren’t going to stop arguing for repeal of DADT. It’s not their reason for being, but it is a key point – the main key point – where they disagree with the Social Conservatives.

    Social Conservatives, on the other paw, aren’t going to stop arguing that gays should be invisible. There should be no need for DADT if they’d just stay in the closet. I’ve seen something along those lines posted here on Red State, by the way.

    Since this is obviously an irreconcilable difference, it’s going to come to a head from time to time. GOProud cast their argument as one of discrimination; the Social Conservative objections are generally religion-based.

    Since this is a non-election-year, it’s a good year for both groups to raise their banners and charge into rhetorical battle – neither can damage a conservative presidential candidate at this point but both groups can use this to try to raise more money from their respective supporters.

    In short, I think it’s a bit of right-wing kabuki, with long-term significance only if it prevents us from coming together in 2011.

    Mew

    • JadedByPolitics

      create chaos that cannot be mended by 2012, if it is not stopped. The Social Conservatives absolutely have a Religious objection to gay marriage and should NOT be maligned for it, just because it is some how “kewl” to be in with the gay group.

      • acat

        Seriously .. I don’t accept your argument from religion. I respect your right to make it, and I respect your right to believe what you believe.

        The counterpoint is that, while there are certain actions that are acceptable in society overall – right to congregate with like-minded people, right to exclude those who are different from some events, right to discriminate in who you rent to (if you do it right…) – the issue for me is whether this is something that needs government involvement….

        Mew

        • Jack_Savage

          The Bible is utterly and completely clear on what constitutes a marriage – is that what you are talking about, or some other point when you say “I don’t accept your argument from religion”?

          • acat
          • acat

            Let me clarify.

            I respect your right to your interpretation of your holy book.

            I reject your request to use the government to implement that portion of your holy book for those who do not accept its’ validity.

            In short, if y’all want to discriminate on your own time in your own lives, that’s your choice, but I decline to participate in using the government to do it for y’all…

            I further question why y’all are putting religious principle before conservative principle (anti-gay before small-government, to be precise) and yet insisting (and this is a general y’all, not specifically you, Jack) that I’m the one being anti-conservative.

            Mew

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            Putting aside whether one supports gay marriage, which is not what I want to get into here, I would posit that there are rational arguments for opposing gay marriage that do not rely on an intepretation of a holy book. These would be the bricks of my analogy – and subject to challenge of course in the public forum, along with pro-gay marriage arguments.

            Religious grounds for opposing gay marriage are mortar.

            In erecting a political argument in opposition to gay marriage it should be quite permissible to use mortar to strengthen one’s collection of bricks. Reliance on mortar alone though would be problematic for the reasons you adduce above.

            (And note that gay marriage proponents often do utilize religion – including appeals to holy books – to buttress their arguments as well, different arguments and quotations of course, but still invoking religion.)

            In brief, if the construction material is only mortar, that’s a problem. But to forbid the use of mortar to cement bricks together is also wrong. That applies to both sides of the issue.

          • YnotNOW

            As Archbishop Timothy Dolan put it, “people of any faith or no faith at all can recognize that when the law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it legally binds a mother and a father to each other and their children, reinforcing the foundational cell of human society.” Thus, “the law of marriage is not about imposing the religion of anyone, but about protecting the common good of everyone.”

            Some defense of traditional marriage stated better than I ever could:

            http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155 Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., What is Marriage? (December 8, 2010). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010.
            “The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment.” from www.breakpoint.org

          • gumpy

            why cannot I make a post?

          • gumpy

            Read Madisons eloquent letter to Edward Livingston regarding the seperation of church & state. Madison was present at the arguments and actually penned the Constitution. . .I would think he would have a pretty good idea of what was intended.

            If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, by all means, do not participate in it. Or, as Jesus put it, “go yeah and sin no more”.

            But we have freedom of religion in this country: it has served us very well. When you seek to impose your religious beliefs upon government you must be ready for the day when you will be in the minority and subject to the religious decrees of others.

        • voicefromthevoid

          DADT is necessary so that service people confined for a long time in a secluded locations or ships or you name don’t have to worry about sexual assaults or advances. They presumably have enough to worry about as it is.

          Gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed in order not to give gays the right of adoption with subsequent indoctrination of children not only in acceptability and superiority of homosexualism but in a necessity to try that lifestyle by all means and costs.

        • gumpy

          We have freedom of religion in this country: it has served us well. If your holy book tells you something is wrong, by all means, don’t so it. But refrain from asserting your religious beliefs on the religious beliefs of others, or one day you may find yourself in the minority and subject to their religious beliefs.

          The seperation of church & state is vital as expressed so eloquently by Madison in his letter to Edward Livingston (available FREE on the web).

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        that are intent on running social conservatives into silence are a not unsubstantial number of that group. But the extremists are puny in both groups. In short, there is no schism, but there are a large number of media type moderates that do some damage in the media and on websites like Redstate.

        But the fact is that social conservatives are loyal to the party and the movement on all fronts, economic, social and in foreign and defense policy.

        And they are not, in any sense trying to purge the party. A few kook groups do. One group so far?

        The exception proves the rule.

        The economy has bound the movement and it will remain so bound for a long time…until its fixed!

        • gumpy

          The economy is BOOMING! The stock market has risen fourty per cent in the last few years. For two consecutive quarters, corporate profits have hit new highs. Sit back & enjoy the ride.

    • redneck_hippie

      That is an interesting point. We are experiencing an influx of people new to politics and people new to the ideas of conservatism and the R party. On that point, I regret an atmosphere of exclusionism if it exists or arises.

      From my perspective, conservatism is such a natural, healthy and attractive philosophy/belief, that as our movement grows, it is inevitable that diversity of opinion on certain policies will continue to exist.

      Of course, the party plank is best suited to maintain the unity required. Religion/morality is the glue in our society. This continues to be a majority view, and I want our planks to reflect that importance.

      To me, it is encouraging that the capital L libertarians are increasingly realizing they agree with us on most of the things that matter to them. As for liberals (not Reagan democrats), well they have always been a minority and nothing that CPAC does will ever change that.

      I do sometimes get a bit concerned, but it is not the tea party that concerns me. I become concerned about factions and their history of destruction. That we must fight against.

      • Jack_Savage

        I remarked to a friend the other day that arguing about gay marriage right now is like worrying about the color of the drapes when the house is on fire.

        We do the things we agree on first. If GOProud insists on bringing the gay marriage up time and time and time and time again, then they need to find someplace else to go. They already have an answer to their question, they just don’t like it.

        • aesthete

          I would also say that such is the case with the vast majority of social policies: we’ll have more than enough time to disagree on social policy after we’ve resolved our problems with sovereign debt (and hopefully some of the problems that we have with the scope of government, as well).

          • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

            Unfortunately, the schism over social issues popped up in the last election and cost Ken Buck the senate seat. Both sides were at fault.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            to define marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. Fred Thompson so persuaded me to go 10th amendment on this and abortion.

            But we must welcome those that still favor the Reagan position on life that are still pushing the amendment on that and on marriage.

        • acat

          Rubber vs. Road is another story….

          We’re a center-right country, yet we’re ruled by liberals. Why? Because the Conservative Movement is easily fractioned.. and the left know where the fault lines are….

          That said, there’s a lot of heat and not much light around this issue .. and it has the potential to be a very large distraction…

          Mew

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    What I hear Jaded saying here is that when two parts of the Conservative movement have a sharp disagreement, we’re big enough to thrash it out in the court of (Conservative) public opinion (this is called free speech) rather than one side telling the other to shut up (the liberal tactic).

    In other words, let’s act like Conservatives – remember that the Constitutional Convention evoked fundamental differences of opinion and sharp debates that finally crafted out Constitution. If they had instead tried to avoid these debates in favor of each side trying to shout down the other or coerce the other side into submission, we would have had a war between the states right away and through that division once again become a European colony (or colonies).

    Let us learn from history.

    • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon
    • redneck_hippie

      history. I’m re-reading another history of the French Revolution, and that is what triggered what I said above about avoiding destructive factions.

      The result of splintering our non-statist coalition will, at best, delay our counter revolutionary return to the founding.

      And, most of all, I agree with you that public opinion is the forum for this.

    • JadedByPolitics

      will not.

      • acat

        Specifically, how much we can shift from the courts over to the culture, where it belongs.

        Mew

        • JadedByPolitics

          UNTIL we get more Conservatives elected to overwhelm the Courts with Conservatives. It is the left who has utilized the Courts to take away the culture from Social Conservatives until all they are left with is the Congress to plead to. There is NO gay marriage Amendment in the United States of America that was voted on by the people only the black robed members of our Country.

          • acat

            Why does this become an issue for government?

            I’ve asked this several times … what is the reason at this time for government to be involved in marriage?

            Some sort of “pre-partnership” document would cover most of the non-religious (i.e. taxes, inheritances, ownership of properties, etc.) places where government uses the term marriage … and allow the Church to state its’ arguments about what is marriage and what it isn’t….

            I’ve yet to hear a solid, non-religious based argument for why letting government arbitrate away this essential keystone of our society is a Good Thing … but that’s what y’all seem to be arguing for….

            Mew

          • JadedByPolitics

            THE PEOPLE say through their representatives and unfortunately they have NOT had a say because of black robed judges. What do you not understand about that? :using sign language:

          • acat

            Although I do have friends who are….

            The People shall have their say, Jaded … and I’d encourage you to get ready to argue this in society since I think government is going to let you down…. (at least, that’s what polling trends suggest at this time)

            My point is that this doesn’t have to shatter the Conservative Movement .. but it also easily could .. especially if we can’t find some common ground to agree upon.

            My concern in this appears to mirror yours, just from the other side of the wedge…

            Mew

          • JadedByPolitics

            which is why nothing I would say would satisfy you. Which is why I try to ignore you because one could end up with a 300+ comment explosion and come right back to the beginning of where they started. So in saying that, you believe what you believe I believe what I believe and the two shall obviously never meet.

            I personally btw don’t use the Religious reasons for no gay marriage I use the natural reason you know, its NOT natural, children are born to men and women not two men and not two women and as Jack says, marriage between one man and one woman promotes a stable society,. If gays can marry, then anyone can marry anyone or however many, or whatever, because “modern” man has now opened the door to a adult Disney world where anything goes.

          • acat

            since I’m not really sure who you’re arguing with…

            I’m asking you to defend your choice of having this argument in the arena of government instead of in the arena of culture, where it can actually be won.

            All that can be accomplished in the arena of government is not losing…. and coming back the next day, or next election, or next supreme court nomination and fighting it all over again.

            It just seems to me that y’all are wasting resources you could be using to win the argument once and for all by trying to avoid seeing that the status quo – government as a good partner in preserving society – has already changed.

            Mew

          • JadedByPolitics

            in the arena of the culture, in case you didn’t pay attention or just chose to ignore the actual writing that when gay marriage has been placed before THE PEOPLE it has been rejected. It is YOU who has to sharpen your argument and not use the government to push an agenda and that can actually be won in the arena of culture, now isn’t it!

          • acat

            And, given your statements, I don’t think you believe this issue is dead either.

            And this is still dodging the question of why you believe government is the right arena to fight it in.

            Mew

          • JadedByPolitics

            government is not the right place to fight it but you and liberals have given us no choice but to do so because lefty judges have taken it away from the people. The final votes were counted in 31 States and they were all NO. I don’t think the government should be in marriage at all, it should be in the Church where it is an oath before God and they should have the choice to marry whomever they choose but that is not the REAL WORLD we live in now is it!

          • acat

            “government is not the right place to fight it”.

            Thank you for answering the question. Finally, something we agree upon.

            Because I don’t think it’s the right place to fight it either.

            Marriage is a sacrament of the church, not a check-box on a government form.

            My challenge to you is to think of what the world would look like if there were no government check-box. This does not mean gays could marry – it means that liberal gays could no longer shriek and point at government.

            In short, the argument moves to the arena we agree it should be in – society at large….

            Mew

          • Jack_Savage

            The fact is that government has thrown in with traditional marriage, even in a very mild sense, and that makes it the battlefield.

          • acat

            They already exist, they’re legal boilerplate for the most part, and they can cover taxes and inheritance (death of a partner) as well as divorce (dissolving of partnership) very well. They’re also not “marriages”.

            As for tax benefits, those should go to people raising children. If an absentee-daddy can suddenly claim a deduction if he moves in with the mother, that’s beneficial to society, no?

            Health care type benefits, which is I *think* what you meant, should be at the employers’ discretion – and an easier battle than if government gets involved…. Although .. if Obamacare succeeds it’ll be a moot point, eh?

            I would argue that the church should, as a stipulation of marriage, require an additional contract requiring the couple to attend a pre-marriage class, seek counseling in the event of disagreement, and attempt arbitration prior to dissolving the partnership.

            This may reverse the statistic that marriages in the church fail at about the same rate as marriages outside the church… it would certainly give the church a better way to put some additional coercive pressure on those who are abusing their marriages… examples including spousal abuse, extramarital sex, child abuse, etc.

            The fact that government got involved in marriage as a way to stop civil wars when the king died – divine right of succession – does not justify governments’ continued involvement.

            Mew

          • gumpy

            Those judges are schooled in the law and legal precedent. This involves a large body of exhisting laws. Every judge must interpret what has gone before and interpret the new laws with regard to the old. That is simple reality.

            Many, many seemingly conservative judges have turned out to be not so “conservative” after all. That is because a reading of and interpretation of law is simply that and invokes no left-right personal biases. . .that is, if it is done correctly.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            Still not sure when it will come out, but much revolves around the definition of marriage. Not an easy path to trace out, though.

          • acat

            Marriage is such a fundamental building block of society .. with so many additional layers of varying importance stacked on top of it.. that any change will cause some very powerful tremors….

            Mew

          • Jack_Savage

            Government should promote the traditional version of marriage in order to help promote a stable society.

          • acat

            Government can act to change society – it certainly has managed to destroy the definition of marriage in the urban centers – but .. generally, society is changed by cultural actors, not government ones. Role models matter more in spreading values than laws.

            In short, just having government promote “traditional values” is about as noticeable in society overall as a fart in a hurricane ….

            Mew

          • Jack_Savage

            That the breakdown of the nuclear family has little or nothing to do with increases in violence, crime, out of wedlock births, etc?

          • acat

            I would argue that the breakdown of the nuclear family has *everything* to do with increases in violent crime, non-violent crime, child neglect, drug abuse, and – by definition – out of wedlock births.

            I would further argue that it is the fault of government, in supplanting the rightful role of the head of household as provider to the family, that has caused this breakdown.

            This proves, to me, that government is not a good partner to the church in deciding who should and who should not be married.

            So, I have to wonder why you’re looking to government instead of to the proper role of the church in the culture to fix the problem.

            Mew

          • Jack_Savage

            The question then comes down to this – is it better for the government to be overtly hostile to the institutions you claim have a stabilizing impact on society, or not?

          • acat

            My question is whether it is better to have a government that is hostile, or one that is neutral.

            In short, if marriage is defined by the church, and government is giving out some sort of simplified partnership for tax purposes, inheritance purposes, division of partnership assets purposes, etc. .. i.e. most of the points where government injects itself into marriage then government is effectively neutral.

            As compared to the current situation, this seems to me to be a win… and a double-win because it frees resources (donations, candidate litmus tests, etc.) to do battle in the arena of society – to present a competing cultural norm much more loudly and on all cylinders.

            Mew

          • Jack_Savage

            If only government were neutral, that would be the optimal position. I think that is what I (and perhaps Jaded) are arguing for – a pullback from openly hostile.

            I have reviewed the transcript of this discussion, and note that I have not written the words “bot” or “RINO”, so I will call it a example of therapeutic success.

          • acat

            caused you to use either term, but .. no, you have been polite and courteous. A definite success.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            divide us.

  • bobmontgomery

    ….as Jaded points out, is powerful, Like the race card, and the civil rights card. The environment card. There are a whole lot of straw men, red herrings and false alarms at play here. The liberals are masters at this. How do you think they got control of the bureaucracies? The media? Academia? Huge, huge inroads in mainstream churches?
    So when one uses the same playbook as the liberals, what kind of response does one expect? And further, when the argument is made that a social conservatism that wants to maintain a socio-political order order that is the best system and methodology ever adopted for the furtherance of universal liberty is somehow a plea for ‘big’ or tyrannical governance, it is false. It is false in the same way that those advocating for law enforcement and border control are called anti-Hispanic bigots. It is false in the same way that those wanting to use God-given natural resources and man-developed technology to better the human condition are labelled Earth-Haters. It is false in the same way that my father, who once knocked me half-way across the room, would be labelled today a child-abuser. There are reasons for things.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    my kudos to you on this.

  • ssshannon1026

    …rather than embracing them. Libertarians are not the allies of conservatives. They are not constitutionalists. They are not for small government. They are not our friends. They are, in fact, nothing more than social progressives who adopted a capitalistic rather than a socialistic economic model. Talk to any true Libertarian about social issues and you will find yourself talking to a social progressive – complaining about the ‘religious right’ trying to control society, etc. They are rejected by the left for their conservative economics, so they try to use conservativsm to obfuscate their true intent. If anything they are more dangerous than the socialists are. We should reject them absolutely.

    • JadedByPolitics

      what I am saying is, do not let them control the planks of the Party. The fiscal issues’ can be quite enough to get the vote for Republicans from Libertarians, however the other two legs of the stool will not be silenced by that one leg, because if as Mitch Daniels suggested we go with that one legged stool (envision that) it will fall over. Reagan and his three legged stool analogy worked in the 80s and holds true today. I submit any change to that damn stool ends up with 18% (number of liberals) of the Country running the rest of us, not smart numbers crunching is it?

      • ssshannon1026

        that it is better to lose as conservatives than win by becoming something else. And becoming something else is all Libertarains bring to the table. Let them fight their own battles without trying turn us into unwilling allies. We don’t need libertarians for anything except numbers. Yet the demands they make are indistinquishable from simply siding with social progressives. Conservatism will ultimately win. Fiscally and socially, it is the only workable political philsophy avialable. The more damage the left causes to society, the more massive the ultimate conserative victory will be. Patience is the key, not diluting the principles.

  • edwyrd

    you guys are starting to become addictive. i had a life, but noo, i started surfing redstate! “doooahh!” as homer would say

    • JadedByPolitics

      Once addicted to Redstate, your life now belongs to them :)

  • beltwaylvr

    CPAC is now completely run by non-conservatives who pretend to be conservatives but undermine them at every turn. This post mentions the “leave us alone” mentality, and who wrote that book, “Leave Us Alone?” Yep, a one Grover Norquist. He is also on the board of ACU/CPAC and on the board of GOProud. When will the day come when REAL conservative leaders stand up to this goon/phony and call him out for the corrupt, non-conservative that he is?

    And then of course, CPAC also has this not-so-tiny problem:
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gop_moderate_muslim_or_not_6KV9VBkSqzkHBqaOxRzMUK

    and the recent $ scandal where CPAC/ACU leaders embezzeled $400,000
    http://bigpeace.com/fgaffney/2011/01/04/a-time-to-choose-for-the-conservative-movement/

    and the most troubling…
    http://bigpeace.com/dreaboi/2011/01/10/american-conservative-union-board-member-we-are-prepared-to-give-our-lives-for-the-cause-of-islam/

    When will ALL the conservative leaders stand up and stop tolerating this?

    • JadedByPolitics

      You know that Michelle Malkin has been on Grover Norquist for a good many years due to his influence which has been increasing as his thinking has been moving “progressively” away from Conservatism. I hope that you take your links and do a diary fleshing out here on Redstate what you have seen, learned and what WE in the Conservative grassroots ought to know about Mr. Norquist.