I respect the rights of libertarians and their liberal views on social issues but it cannot change the fact that much of what they hold to in such areas as marriage, sex, and drugs, is fundamentally more anarchist than liberal–”let everyman doe what’s right in his own eyes”l. They would destroy the bedrock of civilization if given there druthers–the family as accepted throughout the course of human history. It never ceases to amaze me how some who would advocate changing that have the hubris to actually believe they are smarter and wiser than every person who has preceeded them in the course of humanity. On this issue, they are sadly far to close to the democrat party. Your piece was well thought out and reasonable. Thanks.

I agree 100%. In the discussion yesterday I mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement and I think most people thought it was a joke. I am glad you nailed the issue. I also agree fully with the conservative right of disassociation. GOProud and others construct a false choice between supporting them or being a called a liberal and shown the door. Their attack on Jim Demint is a good example. I have no interest in supporting an organization with my attendance or funding if they do not represent the type of event I would like to attend.

Thanks, Leon. I must say I was confused by RedState’s (Melissa’s) post.
I for one, do not want to see CPAC ruined by infiltration by some who agree with one or two ideas, but disagree with the underlying foundational principles..

I missed that part.

If that’s really what she said, then yeah, that’s pretty dumb.

in this post, and ignoring the fact that, as a movement, conservatism is both dynamic and has benefited from idea exchange with libertarians, neo-conservatives (the real animal, not the fevered anti-semitic caricatures painted by the left), and other groups on the American right. Much of what we call conservatism today would be unrecognizable to a conservative of the 30s, or a Bourbon Democrat of the 19th century: much of this is thanks to fellow travelers who had the courage to confront conservatives of their time when they were wrong, and who didn’t simply sit meekly while conservatives charted a course solely due to what transpired in the past. Indeed, the example that you’ve given (obscenity laws) is one that conservatives today are fiercely divided on today due in part to such influences; yours truly stands firmly against obscenity laws, and I’d wager that a goodly chunk of the conservative movement would be right there beside me. If you’re saying that the case against having obscenity laws can only be liberal, as you allude to above, then you’re unnecessarily making a lot of liberals out of conservatives.

What if, as Russell Kirk suggested a number of times, Bill Buckley, Frank Meyer, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan had cut their ties to libertarianism and ignored their arguments? Would we have a conservatism as supportive of the voluntary military, homeschooling, and reduction of government in the economic sphere as we currently do? Probably not. How about if we had ignored the reformed Trotskyites and Democrats (“neo-cons”, if you’ll allow) and their ideas on national defense? Without the Jeane Kirkpatricks of the world, would we have had as firm a defense as we did during the Cold War? The truth is that estranging ourselves from fellow travelers in favor of a circle jerk based on an idea that has never been — static conservatism — is to repeat the mistakes made by groups such as the Libertarian Party. I am not saying that CPAC’s inclusion of libertarians and neo-cons will be as productive as the examples given above, but surely, it would be more productive than casting those groups out and making CPAC a monolith that real-life conservatism has never, and could never, be.

It is as clear to me as anything: America is under attack from within by a well-organized far-Left with global aspirations, and their agenda requires the erosion and destruction of the United States, currently underway.

It is not a question of which factions of conservatism must allow their agenda to be back-burnered as these factions jockey for supremacy within the conservative movement as a whole. It is a question of priorities, for us all.

Let’s face it: If America falls to the Socialist threat, and the grip of statism tightens to the degree that the Leftists are aiming for, these issues we bicker over become academic.

We don’t have the luxury of bickering amongst ourselves over whose vision of conservatism gets to be “true” conservatism. We need to have one goal, and one goal only: saving the United States of America from the ash-heap of history. The Left is tearing chunks of flesh from Lady Liberty and feeding the fire as we sit and bicker over Soc-Con/Paleo-Con/Libertarian-Con agenda items.

If we lose America, we lose the ability to have a voice for those issues we care so deeply about. Can’t people see this? We need to save America first, or not only will arguing over who should attend CPAC be irrelevant, but CPAC itself will be as well.

UNITE. NOW. America cannot afford this petty division.

If GOProud wants to advance its agenda to a conservative group, shouldn’t they be required to present evidence of its merits? Why must we always be required to point out the evils of abortion? Why do anti-life supporters rarely have to defend their position, much less present real evidence of how good abortion is for the women, babies and men involved?

If the leaders of the Republican Party would play offense a little more often, we conservatives might not get so tired of playing defense so much of the time. Of course, they are learning that the new game in town is substituting players, and with the precinct projects happening, a new group of coaches are on the way.

Thank you for the rejoinder.

I think the idea of “banning libertarians” from CPAC was a strawman of the worst kind though we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that libertarians are conservatives or anything more than allies of convenience on a few issues.

As you point out, libertarianism — as now being exhibited in the writings of several former Cato alumns — is much closer to modern liberalism than it is to conservatism.

CPAC is the last place on earth where conservatives should have to debate conservatism.

Between classical liberals, social conservatives and libertarians here. But we should not forget that it is not one of a contrived nature, where a few leaders of these various groups get together in the smoky backroom and decide to do things together out of strength in numbers based on vague similarities. Instead, we coalesce together as a natural conseuqnce of the things we have in common, opposition to what I think is one of the most pressing and perilous issues of our day: loss of the Republic and personal liberty to a socialistic, monolith of tyranny. Given that, it would be nice if we could agree to disagree over the differences we have that do not have a matierial impact upon principle that unites us, and respect the rights of each to determine their own course as suits them.

That said, I do hold some sympathy for Melissa’s intent regarding attendance at CPAC, although I disagree that poking the more conservative side of the coalition with a stick is the way to get them to capitulate. The problem is not with either side, or the principles which they hold, it is a problem with the organization of CPAC itself that neglects to focus on fostering of the common cause by entertaining issues that divide rather than unite, issues that likely have no place on the floor until the threat of socialist totalitarianism taking over the United States has abated.

So, for what it is worth, this is my two cents. Please stop with the shots across the bow of the various ideologies represented within our coalition, and save the ammo for the real threat.

I’ve read that agenda over and over trying to figure out these labels and controversies, and why any self-described conservative would feel “uncomfortable” there. I just don’t see it, and those that do are operating on the margins.

Conservativism is not static. It is not even an ideology. There is plenty of room for debate. People on conservative blogs and websites dont agree about much and are constantly debating, so why would an open confernence be any different unless conservative is a synonym for unthinking and unquestioning automaton.

Ever see two churches on opposite sides of a road, directly opposite each other, and identical in every way, except they are reverse images of each other? I have. I used to drive by them every day. Of course what happened was a split within the original church, and the splinter group built the second church as a thumb their nose gesture.

I start with this because every organization I have ever joined, political, religious, gun club, motorcycle club, train club, music or art society, whatever, eventually came to a point where two factions became irreconcilably opposed, and either two groups were formed by the antagonists, or the disaffected just drifted away.

Sometimes groups can change so slowly over time no one notices and memberships alter over generations. The Republican Party used to be liberal once. Then the Democratic Party became so progressive conservative Democrats, like Ronald Reagan, left it to become Republicans. There isn’t room here to even summarize how William Buckley and Ronald Reagan, and so many others, gave voice to conservatives within the Republican Party, and slowly led it to conservatism. Many, so called, “Rockefeller Republicans,” were not pleased and remain so.

Reagan was once a Democrat but famously said he left it when the party abandoned what he believed in. I haven’t been so consistent. As I once used to be Catholic, then agnostic, then atheist (Thanks, progressive public schools.), back to agnostic (Thanks, Steve.) and now I am Baptist (Thank God.). I once used to be liberal, then socialist, and now conservative. The changes occurred simultaneously. As I couldn’t justify my atheism, I found I couldn’t justify my progressivism.

Reagan’s pragmatism, that led him to work with whoever could help him accomplish his goals, made him successful. But he never became unprincipled, and didn’t change his fundamental beliefs, even as he worked with those who did not share them to accomplish his goals. He got as much of what he wanted to do done as was possible with whom there was to work with, and it is considerable.

I believe if CPAC is being moved to support specific progressive causes, and if it cannot be saved from this direction, then it will be time to move on from it. Look at what happened to the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Library Association, and so many others. Once solidly anti-progressive, they are now reliable advocates of every progressive cause. Within them, every dissenting voice is cut off.

What does CPAC become if it supports a certain number of progressive causes? How many is too many? It makes sense to discuss what is Conservative, but Conservative isn’t Libertarian, or Progressive. The main tactic of progressives is to bring up us up to boil so slowly we don’t recognize we’ve been cooked until too late. I’m really sorry about the frog in pan metaphor, but it fits. And their strategy has worked, so far.

Conservatives need to own the definition of Conservatism and not allow it to become Libertarian-lite, Progressive-lite, or whatever other movement that dilutes it and robs it of its meaning, strength and purpose. But, like Reagan, conservatives need to work with willing and available allies on a cause-by-cause basis, if we are to be successful.

The Conservative Political Action Conference should be a place that can rally around Conservatism…..not have to defend it.

When I first read yesterday’s post, the thing I was most upset about was the label “True Conservative.” There is no such a thing as that because conservatism is NOT an ideology — it is a broad swatch of political theories which self-identify as more or less in allingment with each other. Conservatism is ever-shifting, and it’s end would surely be when there is a definitive definition to it. I fear the “purist” wars are well under way already.

Today’s post refuting yesterday’s post is equally all-over-the-board and engages in “intra-alliance” battles. First it takes a swipe at Norquist, which I think is a veiled swipe at conservatives who are reluctant to commit the U.S. to empire, nation-building or a Wilsonian mission to “make the world safe for democracy.” Then the post does a dance around the term “neocon,” as if the term was invented only after 9/11 as a negative term (Hint: Browse Commentary from the 70s and 80s for the development of neoconservatism). Then the post wanders into the marriage debate and generally inaccurately describes libertarian views on marriage. (Hint: libertarians generally do not believe the state should be involved in marriage at all — whether same-sex or hetero). And then the post concludes with….well, I don’t really know what it concludes with.

For the record, I consider myself a conservative and always have — though my thinking has shifted over 25 years. I have drifted from Burkean conservative to libertarian to an I-don’t-know-what to a paleoconservative — but I have always considered myself a conservative. I’m generally comfortable with my views strongly distrusting the state, strict interpretation of the federal constitution, skeptical of foreign wars, and strong support of local communities. There are things I believe in which a majority of conservatives like always support (e.g., social security reform) and there are things I believe in which many conservatives might not (e.g., I oppose the death penalty). I don’t consider myself a libertarian because I do not believe the state is evil per se. And I don’t consider myself a “hawk” because I think the business of the U.S. is to protect it’s borders, not to topple every tinpot dictator roaming the world. But I do consider myself in the alliance of conservatives.

I read this post first before the post it is refuting, they are both quite interesting and revealing. The label “True Conservative” and the insinuation that people who don’t want to go to CPAC have an “Obligation” to go. Simply does not sit well nor does it hold the water of value. I believe in reading different views, etc., but I also believe in avoiding those that are over the top.

I expect we could factionalize Conservatism into so many little groups that differ over small and large policy issies that we become irrelavent, culturally and politically. Then, progressives win.

Doesn’t anyone remember where the modern American Conservative movement got its start?

There is this, from 1955:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223549/our-mission-statement/william-f-buckley-jr (just cut and paste)

The policy statements are near the bottom under, “Among our convictions:”

And this,

The Sharon Statement

Adopted in conference at Sharon, Connecticut, on 11 September 1960.

In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths. We, as young conservatives, believe:

That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

That the genius of the Constitution- the division of powers- is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;

That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and

That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?

In a sense, modern American Conservatism started with these two declarations of principles. So, conservatism has principles that are not libertarian or progressive, though at times certain libertarian goals and conservative goals overlap. A movement without principle is, at best ineffective, and at worst just help its principled opponents accomplish their goals.

Here are some links to the GOProud website about non-conservative positions they support.

1. The repeal of DADT by the lame-duck Democratic controlled Congress.

http://www.goproud.org/goproud-praises-senate-vote-on-don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-repeal/

2. Letter to Congress urging the suppression of social conservative issues.

http://www.goproud.org/tea-party-leaders-release-letter-urging-house-and-senate-gop-to-avoid-social-issues/

3. The condemnation of the Family Research Council and an attempt to brand them as liberal.

http://www.goproud.org/frc-and-the-liberal-gun-grabbers/

4. The attack upon Liberty University and other social conservative organizations after the 2010 CPAC.

http://biggovernment.com/bparks/2010/02/26/conversation-with-goproud/

5. I am now unable to find the press release against Jim Demint. I posted it in an earlier forum but GOProud does not list it anymore. They have also removed references to their support for the repeal of DADT and Same-Sex Marriage from their early legislative agenda.

It seems to me that the entire debate over “same sex marriage” is a straw man. If same sex couples truly wanted equal rights, they could have them any time they wanted under civil unions as most Americans polled support “same sex unions”. There are many long standing assumptions involved with traditional marriage that could never be assumed under “same sex marriage” and therein lies the main differences that make “same sex marriage” impossible to obtain equal rights since one group would be, in the traditional sense, always not equal under the traditional assumptions of a marriage. An example would be the assumption that in a traditional marriage between a man and a woman getting a divorce involving children of the female, the woman gets the children by default and must be proven unfit for the Judge to rule otherwise; this would rarely if ever be the case in a “same sex marriage” divorce. In laws involving “same sex unions”, these differences could be defined so that no such assumptions would occur. Since the differences can never be resolved between traditional marriage and same sex marriage; but, the rights desired for same sex couples can easily be resolved by same sex unions laws, one must question just what the “same sex marriage” proponents really want. I suggest what the “same sex marriage” proponents really want is to keep stirring the pot of discontent until it boils over and equal rights are the last thing on their minds–just another “straw man” in the Lefts’ eternal struggle to destroy American society. CPAC should not promote such nonsense by promoting in any way the continuation of such deception by the Left in America and GOProud should be equally opposed to such nonsense.

Spanking should be rare, few and far between, used too often and it looses all effectiveness. The willingness to use the spanking as a means to get your point across is half the battle. What you do after the spanking is the rest of the battle.
This battle was waged perfectly.

Taking a very brief moment to “Spank” the contributor was important, it needed to be done. Taking the lions share of the time to elaborate on why the spanking had to occur was hopefully not only beneficial to the one receiving the light-handed, written swat but, was a great learning experience for those affected by the actions requiring the discipline.

It shows great restraint and grace when a person has the opportunity and, quite frankly the understandable desire to really let a person have it and instead, uses their platform to educate not denigrate.
Well done Leon, well done.

**I am, by know means, insinuating that anyone was or should have been physically slapped, hit, spanked, marked-up, grappled with, knocked around, scratched, bit, tangled, torn, tipped, pulled, shaken, or stirred.**

when I read the Clothier front page diary yesterday, my heart dropped, and my stomach wound up in a knot. My only thought was that now the conservatives are expected to once again give up more, and compromise with those that do not support much in the way of conservative principles. How far are we willing to go to gain more votes, when Obama will only steal the 2012 election, much like he stole the 2008 election. If anyone thinks that 2008 was bad, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Our greatest hope is in gaining the largest majorities we can in the Congress, and then impeaching his ass.

but what if conservatives want to go to a conference for a few days where this sort of activity is not required in order for them to participate? Can they not decide that they would rather go somewhere else, such as the Values Voters Conference, without it being implied that they are cowards or bigots?

No one that I am aware of is threatening anyone else not to go or organizing a boycott; merely, people and organizations are withdrawing as they are made more and more uncomfortable.

In doing so, they are exercising basic freedom of association principles and encouraging the free market for conference attendance to take notice of their actions. I would have assumed that these would indeed be principles upon which conservatives and libertarians could agree. Apparently, there are a few things that I don’t understand about libertarians as well.

One would think our libertarian friends would celebrate our right to vote with our feet in CHOOSING not to attend CPAC….One would think they would be cheering our right to exercise our freedom of association and our right to not associate with an organization that is becoming increasingly hostile to those of us who believe in the traditions and standards of conduct that have made Western Civilization the dominant force in the world for several millennium…

Yet that doesn’t appear to be the case does it?

Rather than embracing their own preachings that we should all live and let live…That all should be empowered and celebrated for exorcising our freedoms and liberties….they’ve embarked on a campaign of smear, name calling and vitriolic rhetorical attack that is worthy of the worst of the elements on the left with which we all do battle…

Shame on them all!

I think all can agree that GoProud espouses conservative principles when it suits them and when it does not, they throw it out the window. This is what offends me the most about this organization. They are hypocrites, plain and simple.

As for libertarians, I think libertarians are so all over the map that sometimes it is easy to paint them with a broad brush. Some have the kooky ideas and some have good ones. Some border on anarchy and completely disregard the role of morality in society, and some do not. I think there is a little bit of libertarian in every conservative, but thankfully the conservative portion of us keeps us from going over the edge .

With regards to CPAC, thank you for pointing out the ridiculous notion that people should attend to “evangelize” other conservatives. What a laugh! That is not what is is for. Besides, is CPAC the end all be all out there among conservatives? I don’t think so. I think the Tea Party is doing just fine for itself without the elite CPAC behind them, thank you very much. Besides, I do not want to be affiliated with anyone who actually invites radical Islamists to the table. Good grief!

You said everything I wanted to say, and brilliantly.

I didn’t have time to read the entire comment thread on Melissa’s post yesterday, but the one that did stand out the most for me — the one that I thought was the most convincing rejoinder on the thread — was along these lines:

There are indeed three legs on the conservative stool, and by necessity various individuals, having limited time and energy, will focus on the one or two that they are most passionate about.

But to be forced to include as a “conservative” anyone who not only doesn’t care about one particular leg, but is actively opposing it, is to shoot ourselves in the foot.

If it feels good, DO IT!

Libertarians pay lip service to “The necessary and proper role of Government” enumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution but I’m not sure they think about much beyond that.

half dozen of the other

—”assigned to cover conservatives like they were Gorillas in the Mist”.

Classic… Hey questions, Does Redstate hold stories in “Que” If one is hot like this thread?

Where is the line drawn as to where “spirited debate” turns into “fist fight in the parking lot?”

And finally what in the H-O- Double Hockey Sticks does (NT) n/t nt NT (n/t) (N/T) mean? LOL, I find it unlikely that it means “no thanks” as I have seen used no where near that in context… Anyone?

Hopefully this can clear up some misconceptions. Conservatives are NOT necessarily for small or limited government. They are for government enforcing conservative values, and do not mind if the government spends money doing it. You may agree or disagree with that, but it is what it is. The Tea Party, in comparison, is opposed to ALL government overspending.

Not on the front page, but it’s possible that a diary can receive enough ‘recommends’ to stay on top of the recommended diary list for days. If you’ve commented on a front page article, or one of the diaries, you can find it in your profile.

NT means ‘no text’ in the comment body. Everything was said in the comment title.

Neo Cons by saying they have x,y, and z attributes. But then you go even further with her false claims of libertarians by adding more of your own.

Everyone here other than a troll or two is a conservative. I call myself a libertarian-conservative because so many are stretching the bounds of the term conservative I mine as well be clear about my positions. I believe my positions are rooted in the positions of the Founders. I believe my positions fit best with those of the resurgent, winning conservatism that started with Goldwater and culminated in Reagan’s two victories. That same conservatism was warped by statists like Bush, Frist, Kyl, and Cornyn and put our entire movement at risk.

The libertarian-conservatives, the winning conservatives are surging again. It is normal for others, with other views to chafe at this fact.

Do I think small government is always better? Yes I do. Do I think government should regulate obscenity? Well, government is not political, it is an entity used by politicians. What a conservative with his hands on that power might consider to be obscenity will be much different than what a liberal would consider obscenity. The controllers of the government Leviathan we have today think Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are obscenities.

I place my faith in God, I believe man’s natural state is freedom. I don’t place my faith in the government leviathan. And I am a conservative! If someone doesn’t like that, tough.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133472250/groups-skip-conservative-gathering-over-gay-sponsor

Here is the link that some requested.

http://www.goproud.org/jim-demint-trying-his-best-to-make-alvin-greene-look-sane/

do whatever I like at all times that motivates the libertarian side of me.

I don’t trust the government with the power to legislate morality beyond the basics. I don’t desire the freedom to live a libertine lifestyle, nor live without morality or conscience, and reducing the libertarian philosophy to that is flat out ignorant (with that said, I’m not defending all who claim to be libertarians who DO act in that way, they’re on their own).

Politicians can NOT be trusted. Bureaucrats can not be expected to be enlightened. Thus… the idea that the government could be the great morality arbiter the way some ‘socons’ desire, is a pipe dream..

And as I said above, if we allow the precedent that Government dictates religion or is entitled to interfere in this realm, then we Christians actually expose ourselves to a future where a Sharia complaint US could become a reality if the course of history brings us that way.

We are to be left alone until we harm someone else.

Keep the Government restricted and honor our Constitution, thanks… Anyone who doesn’t understand that is not a Constitutional Conservative… and in fact part of the problem.

that has pulled governments into the concept of marriage.

There is not much in the public interest in the details of people getting married but there can be a great deal of public interest in the disposition of property and children upon a divorce.

Just my opinion, but I strongly suspect that the anger at various groups is at least partially cover from the growing disgust and discomfort at the way David Keene and the ACU do business.

In 2009 he was busted for soliciting $3.4 million from Fed-Ex to support their policy battle with UPS (and when they didn’t pay up, he then came out against them in their battle with UPS). And this past year it was reported that Keene’s ex-wife appears to have embezzled over $100K. (These scandals have all been covered before.)

Given that general sleaziness, when questions about GOProud and Muslims for America were raised, groups saw it as reason to finally cut bait (and not pay the thousands of dollars it costs to participate).

I’m not saying there aren’t sincere objections to the participation of these groups, but they may have been the final straw, rather than the sole reason for groups like Heritage to cut ties now.