« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Conservatism And Identity Politics

The politics of grievance–it’s a liberal sport. The triumph of identity over character–it’s the liberal playbook. The power of P.C.–it’s how liberals limit speech, confine arguments and guilt people into silence.

I hate it all.

That President Obama talked about civility and then had Al Sharpton, notorious race hustler and false accuser and defamer into the people’s house, the White House, to watch the Super Bowl with his family tells me everything anyone could want to know about whether the President is serious about a “new tone”. As usual, the President speaks smooth words, but his forked tongue is belied by his actions.

Black. The Reverand Al Sharpton is black. And he has a big mouth. And he, along with many liberals are about one thing: power. His race is simply a vehicle to access power. And on the left, it works.

Whether it’s race or gender or sexual orientation or economic class or age, liberals will use differences to divide and conquer.

The last two years have been a testament to class warfare, racial division, instilling fear in the aged and just generally sowing strife.

So, I am wary when I see what could be construed as identity politics on the right.

The Republican party picked some candidates for all the wrong reasons. Dee Dee Scozzafava comes to mind. Her only redeeming quality seemed to be that she was a woman and the NY-GOP was reacting to the shunning of earlier, more conservative female candidates in other parts of the state. And then there were women like Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Linda McMahon who had the benefit of being woman and the color green. They were bad candidates picked for bad reasons. Then again, it wasn’t just women. Charlie Crist was the go-to guy for a while.

Being Republican means supporting conservative values. It means valuing ideas over identity. It means that all men and women are equal…and should have equal opportunity.

The left paints the right as racist, sexist, bigoted, stupid, homophobes. The right paints the left as un-American because the left sees through the lens of identity over comity.

To fight the false perceptions foisted on Americans by the left, new groups have sprung up on the right. I’ve mentioned a couple of my favorites before: Smart Girl Politics, Raging Elephants (Leading America’s Second Emancipation), and The Conservative Alliance (La Alianza Conservadora). Here’s part of the mission statement of Temo Munez’s group:

Our Conservative Alliance is a national coalition of state and local organizations throughout the country whose goal is to reinvigorate the traditional conservative values and ideals that made our country a “shining city on a hill” in the words of Ronald Reagan, and to communicate those same values and ideals simply and effectively to all Americans across ethnic and demographic boundaries.

When Temo and his band of volunteers helped clean up devastated neighborhoods post-hurricanes in Houston, people would ask who he represented and he’d say,”I’m a Republican! Thank them!”

These groups triumph conservative values and seek to influence the community by framing conservative values in a way that is understood and makes sense. There are obvious differences among Americans based on our diverse backgrounds. What unites Americans is the opportunities inherent in a system where the government’s role is limited and doesn’t include choosing winners and losers.

And still, even with these wonderful groups (full disclosure: I’m a member of Smart Girl and have helped sponsor their conference this year) it is wise to remain vigilant. Good intentions in politics so often leads to hell. And a conservative world where advocacy groups morph into grievance groups bullying the conservative movement is one definition of hell.

Debt-reduction? Life? Initiatives to reform education? Wonderful. All these ideas on the right should be beneficial to all Americans because they promote freedom, reinforce autonomy, and encourage entrepreneurial risk-taking.

And here I am, saying this, as a woman.

If anyone tells you that sexism or racism no longer exists, they’re delusional. The treatment of Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas serve as Exhibits A and B.

In fact, I’ve spoken to many fine conservative women who would never run for office because they’ve seen the treatment conservative women receive and don’t want their families subjected to the abuse. The press has created a hostile working environment for conservative women. They’re like the lecherous old boss harassing the woman until she quits.

The solution to this unfair treatment isn’t to gripe about it. It’s to win.

The progressive left whines, complains, and shrieks in their desire to highlight their sad plight while they could actually be doing something constructive for all Americans.

The conservative movement needs to be different and better. Conservative values are about believing in the power of better ideas, better opportunities, and creating fertile soil so the greatness of any and every American can grow.

Conservatism is a message of hope.

Identity politics results in hopelessness and helplessness. People wrongly believe that by accident of birth–their gender, color, station–they’re deprived. It’s a progressive lie that serves the politicians and hangers on like Al Sharpton and destroys the very communities they claim to represent.

This rot has no place in the conservative movement.

So, I love that conservative advocacy groups have sprung up to reach out into under served communities. People shouldn’t have to buy liberalism just because they don’t see any other product available.

And still, I remain cautious. America is great because we’re that “shining city on the hill”. We are “E Pluribus Unum”. We are “out of many, one.”

COMMENTS

  • Raven
    • Raven

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ

  • Scope

    but I think you miss the point. I doubt many genuinely dislike people who are gay, they disagree with their chosen gay lifestyle, and, particularly GOProuds activism in Washington. They actively lobbied Congress to pass the repeal of DADT. They asked the Republican leadership to not go down the rabbit hole of social issues. It’s not some little group of gay people, who just want to be called conservatives.

    Our country was founded on Christian Judeo values, which means social values. Most all, if not all of our laws are based on those same values and ethics. Traditional conservatism stands on the shoulders of Christian Judeo social values for more than 200 years. I think I can pretty safely say that the gay lifestyle, and particularly gay marriage is not recognized by the traditional conservatives, and, it is not an accepted by the Christians for sure. It is not the gay people themselves, it is their choice of their sexual partners. There is no identity politics to that view of traditional conservatives.

    With respect to the inclusion of the Islamists at CPAC, with well known and proven ties to radical Islam, and the MB, should we back away, and not participate in calling out the danger they can wreak with the country. Would that not be PC?

    You talked about the Ron Paul libertarians having such a major presence at CPAC, and said yourself that they occupy only one leg of the conservative three legged stool. They are making a conserted effort to quiet any social and/or national security importance on the three legged stool. This in itself alienates those that consider themselves Reagan conservatives.

    BTW, what is this a fight between some front pagers? If so, put me in the camp of Leon, Bill S and Ben, as I find myself agreeing with their positions much more than believing that Conservatives should all just get along, and grow the tent so big it collapses on itself.

    • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

      …what?????

      I even re-read the above FP diary and still don’t know for sure what article you read or were commenting on.

      As I’m posting this at the side of the road via cellphone, I’ll just ask one thing and check back later; Where do you get the idea from reading the above that Melissa is “at war” with any other front-page poster or contributor?

      I take it she sees the right starting to play to the temptation to get into identity politics, and think she’s right. I don’t see where what some may take as rude behavior by another FPer even enters into the above at all.

      • Scope

        all of the posts over the last few weeks. Please go back and read the diaries by Bill S, the first diary from Mellisa Clouthier, the diary written by Leon Wolf, to apologize, more or less, from some of Ms. Clouthiers first diary, and finally Ben Howes diary today. I don’t think there is much question that Ms. Clouthier is fighting against identity politics, though she does bring women candidates up in this diary unnecessarily, and the positions that have been portrayed in the other diaries speaking against the wide open tent position that CPAC has taken this year. For me it seems apparent that Ms. Clouthier is saying, as Leon portrayed, let’s just give each other a hug, let’s all get along, let’s make love not war, which is not the position of the other diaries. Read them all please, and then tell me what you think.

        • Scope

          to oppose the proven radical Islamist participating at CPAC because that would just be politically incorrect identity politics?

          • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

            I’d like to think that conservatives attending CPAC would be intelligent enough to cut them to shreds within bounds of reason. Lord knows it happens here often enough.

        • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

          …but I have read enough to have it leave a bad taste in my mouth.

          What *may* or *may not* be going on between front pagers here isn’t my concern, as it is their playground not mine. They pay the bills, I just hog the resources.

          That said, I’d try to read the above once again, ignoring what is “between the lines”, as that part may not even exist.

          I do believe the pushing by the NRSC of certain candidates above others is indicative of her point (what I take it to be) above; that “true” conservatives are often sacrificed for electability. At what point then do we conservatives lose our “soul”? When will the conservative base just throw up their hands and go third party?

          It’ll happen, mark my words, if it’s continued to be perceived that the “intellectual elite” thinks it knows better than anyone else.

          You yourself have made that point in the past, if I’m not mistaken?

          • lineholder

            that sacrificing the soul on various issues this time could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. If so, will they go third party or will they simply withdraw from society? And if they withdraw, how far will they withdraw and for how long will they withdraw?

            Is it so difficult for people to understand that a sector of society whose spirit has been broken could withdraw all efforts to play a proactive role in that society? Surely I am not the only person who sees this possibility, am I???

          • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

            Look at California, I’m a good example of a conservative who’s close to putting California politics “in the hands of Jesus” and concentrating efforts elsewhere.

            After a two year fight to get conservatives nominated, we settled instead for voting the GOP candidate when the conservative was undermined at every turn by the elite in the GOP and failed to win their nomination.

            We then watched the “Conservative Tsunami” roll across the US and slam ineffectively into the Colorado River as nearly every candidate went down in flames. Can this happen nationally? Heck yes it can.

            And all you California bashers can chime in with your remarks, but be careful who you aim at, that’s all I’m gonna say.

          • Newton E. Mchuckney

            np

    • Finrod

      There aren’t ENOUGH OTHER threads going on right now that concern GOProud?

      Scope, do you have to drag your own personal fight into Every Single Thread On This Site?

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        If you have moderation issues, take it there, and if the proprietors see an issue, they will have the moderators address it.

      • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

        It’s where I take my leave. Can’t believe I was sucked in…

        • lineholder

          Sorry for it. But grateful you posted the response. Thanks.

      • Scope

        it directly addressed the issues Ms. Clouthier has involved herself in. Because you have run around the site, accusing everyone and anyone who posts not in support of your beloved gay issue, you interject whatever you can to try to silence those that don’t agree with your particular choice of lifestyle. You’ve done the same thing to kipling on another diary. If I am not mistaken, claiming to be amember for 6 years or whatever doesn’t qualify for posting whatever you will and do. Take your argument somewhere where you can chirp with the choir, and stop going after those that don’t hold value in your arguments.

        • Scope

          Your are so intent to quiet those that don’t agree with you that you will go to any length to accomplish your goal. You are very pathetic.

  • joecollins

    “Al Sharpton, notorious race hustler and false accuser and defamer into the people

    • jackhammer

      I mean if he owes that much, why isn’t some tax collector sitting at the corner of Pennsylvania Ave waiting for him to come, and just take him off to debtors prison….sadly that doesn’t exist anymore….except in Nevada I think.

  • jenniferjmilleresq

    And I’m really tired of hearing about Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged as a justification of taking social issues off the table.

    However, I have run across a lot of opinions by conservatives in my own social circles that women with kids should not run for office (e.g. Nikki Haley and Sarah Palin). That infuriates me. Of course they faced being falsely accused of all manner of slime as well. Don’t kid yourself that their Republican opponents who claim conservativism are not happy to use identity politics dishonorably to their advantage. I have witnessed this.

    There are also certain issues (e.g. immigration) that are huge legitimate concerns but are used dishonorably by some conservatives who know they can play the identity card to ramp up fear and support among those who are inclined to associate the problem with a race, rather than a failing system. Anti-semitism among those who are susceptible to conspiracy theories and would identify themselves as conservatives really bothers me. I run across it in my own circles and there is nothing more infuriating to me.

    • writeblock

      to counting votes. Power is all about numbers, not morality per se. It does no good to have the high moral ground and lose elections! I can’t understand why some conservatives can’t appreciate this–it’s the mother’s milk of politics. It’s all about winning enough votes to win elections. That’s the only way to power–and without power you get nothing. So why rant and rave about Sharpton or the blacks or anybody else? They have their numbers and we have ours. What each side ought to be doing is adding to their numbers–which is why the Dems made a pitch for the religious vote in ’08–and which is why we need to make a pitch for some ethnic votes. Morality is for when you win elections–not for nominating guys we like who are sure to lose!

      • Right Reason

        That is the most jack-a$$ed thing I’ve read inquite a while.

        Tell me, writeblock, exactly how many of your principles should you give up to win? And if and when you do win, then what? Do you reassert your principles and then alienate all of the people who voted for you thinking you were something else? Your power will be rather short-lived, don’t you think? Or do you just never act on your principles, lest you risk losing the precious power.

        • writeblock

          it’s strategic stupidity to have a primary system designed to nominate candidates who can’t win or who can only win by a hair–and to reject candidates who can win but can’t get the nod or who can win and just barely get the nod after two tries–like Reagan. The system sucks. It’s about time it was designed to win general elections by playing a little identity politics of its own.

          People who want to exclude gays are ridiculous, for instance. Gays can vote. They’re citizens. We’re not running a church, we’re running a party. Conservatives are against fornication also–should we rail against anybody who has sex outside of marriage and exclude them from our ranks? How smart is that? This is about winning votes and votes come attached to people, good and bad, black and white, young and old, male and female, married and unmarried, straight and gay. Vote for us and you should be made welcome to our ranks–though we may not like your lifestyle. But that’s a voter’s own private business as long as he/she votes for us.

          In the end we would gain power. And it’s power that matters. It’s power that nominates judges and SC justices, it’s power that runs the show, that makes cultural changes that matter. All the whining in the world will get you nowhere if you don’t win elections. And that means greater openness than we now have among conservatives. It amazes me so many have not caught on by now. You may talk about principles till the cows come home–but it won’t get you power–and power is what counts, nothing else. And it only comes when you get the most votes.

          You can pray for more votes, of course–but until you make some moves to change the system and attract more people, the road ahead will be fraught with problems–squeaker elections mostly, even against socialists like Obama.

          • Right Reason

            Anyone can join us, but we have principles. You would cast them all aside just to get more members of the club. It’s all about winning the election.

            So you would go out there and hide your principles and fool enough people into voting for you so that you get elected. There’s a name for that. It’s called deceit. You might be comfortable operating like that, but I’m not.

            Read the dissenting posts. No one wants to exclude anyone. But no one is going to put aside their beliefs and accept another’s just to get some more votes.

            “In the end we would gain power. And it

          • lineholder

            that you can communicate your own lack of desire for power to someone who seeks power. Totally different mindset, isn’t it?

          • Right Reason

            It’s that I do not think giving up your principles to get it is an equtable trade.

          • writeblock

            for two reasons.

            1. Nobody’s asking you to give up principles. Only to realize politics isn’t religion, that politics is all about making strange bedfellows, making deals with people you may not agree with on important issues but who will just the same take you to where you want to go. Remember how Santorum backed Specter over Toomey. Toomey was polling poorly in PA. Specter was ahead in the polls. The Senate was hanging by a thread and Specter was slated to get the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee if he won. Santorum made a deal–he wanted Bush’s nominees to get through the committee–something impossible if the GOP lost the election. So Santorum did the wise thing politically–though it ticked off social conservatives. He backed Specter. Specter won. We kept the Senate and Bush put through both Roberts and Alito–a huge win for conservatives. So Santorum was right. He played the game to win a huge victory in the long run–but compromised his principles in the short run.

            2. If you can’t bend a little in order to win and prefer losing to bending even a bit, then you actually are self-defeating in the long run. You NEED to win in order to bring about the changes you want. You can’t get there any other way. It’s the numbers that finally matter most, little else.

          • writeblock

            Only to be smarter playing politics.

          • Right Reason

            That’s So much better.

          • writeblock

            If they drive voters away in a general election, what;’s the point of making a big issue of your principles in primaries? Do you have a death wish?

          • Right Reason

            and gay marriage and abortion and school choice and illegal immigration and any other “divisive issues” are never going to be brought up?!!!

            How do you answer when they are? No Comment?!!!

            THAT’LL win you lots of elections!

          • lineholder

            that even though we may be facing economic difficulty will address those issues truthfully and lawfully.

            There’s been more than enough of the deceit and lawlessness in the past two years, writeblock, and we still have 18 months of it to go.

            No, I wouldn’t wish that same deceitfulness on the Republican Party at this point.

          • Right Reason

            that you would whore yourself out to win an election is disturbing.

          • lineholder
          • http://applescorneroftheorchard.blogspot.com/ Pomme
      • bcb1

        You are very correct in that politics is all about the numbers. Losing while holding your moral ground might make you feel good (?), it might make you feel like a martyr, but in any case, if you don’t have the votes, you still lose.

        But preaching that sentiment on a place like Redstate is going to do nothing but start a flame war. The true believers on both sides – the right wingers and the left wingers – are always going to be convinced of the righteousness of their cause, and have little time or patience for anyone who isn’t “one of them”.

        Both Republican and Democratic strategists would agree with your sentiment. Not so much the grassroots activists though.

        • writeblock

          We’ve got a primary system that gives small insignificant states the say about who gets to run in battleground states. Meanwhile the battleground states–much larger and more important, with millions of GOP voters–are shut out. It’s all over before we get to places like PA and OH. Millions of Republicans from the NE and Mid-Atlantic are routinely disfranchised, cycle after cycle–and nobody seems to realize this is stupid politics, though it guarantees at best dangerously close elections–and fairly weak candidates for any general election.

          • gekster

            of Ronald Reagan.
            He did just squeek by.

          • writeblock

            He LOST in the primaries the first time around. People in IA and NH and SC weren’t too interested in somebody from CA. And he almost lost in the primaries the second time around, just managing a win in NH by a mere 8000 votes. So even Ronaldus the Great was almost shut out by the system–which, as I just said–is designed to pick candidates who can win in the primaries and lose in the general.

          • Right Reason

            when he took 49 states against Mondale in 1984.

            Losing once in the primaries and winning two presidential elections by landslide margins doesn’t exactly prove your point.

          • writeblock

            I’m not saying a conservative can’t win in a general election. I’m saying our best candidates have a rough time in the primaries but poor candidates–like Dole and McCain–and even Bush who just barely won twice–do a lot better. Reagan was a known entity who definitely appealed in the NE, for instance–something few GOP candidates can claim, certainly not Bush or Dole or McCain. We call these voters the Reagan Democrats. It’s a constituency the GOP routinely ignores. Rudy won NJ and PA in the polls–in PA by 20 pts! but that made little difference to the farmers in IA or voters in SC. or NH. The system is ridiculous.

          • Right Reason

            Skip the revisionist history lesson.

            Dole and McCain ran were the moderate candidates who would appeal to the middle – just the ones you’d love. Bush ran as a conservative.

            Reaan didn’t win the Reagan Democrats over by hiding his principles. He did it by sticking to them.

          • writeblock

            why should I love them? But they prove my point. It doesn’t matter that Dole and McCain were moderates–but both toed the mark when it came to social issues. That was enough for people in the small early states.

          • Bill S

            So you’re looking for a candidate that’s hostile to social issues. Just so you can say they don’t “toe the line”. Or maybe one who will only kill a few babies. But who will appoint “STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST JUDGES!!!!11!”

            You twist yourself in so many knots, just to justify your man-god’s failures. It’s rather comical, actually.

          • writeblock

            You keep trying to put words in my mouth. I’m just asking social conservatives to focus on what the vast majority of Americans are interested in right now–the economy, health care, jobs, smaller government. They’re not interested in hearing about abortion or gay marriage. Saying I’m against the social issues merely because I’d like some of you to tone it down, is a straw man argument. It’s not where I’m coming from.

          • Bill S
          • Right Reason

            They “toed the mark” and that’s how they got the nomination but lost the general. That’s your recollection, is it?

            And what about Reagan? That doesn’t quite fit your theory so you ignore it, huh?

            Let me repeat my question from above:

            What does your ideal candidate do when abortion, gay marriage, immigration or other divisive issues come up?

          • gekster

            He was picked when needed.
            If Rudy was so smart, wouldn’t he know how to “game” the system as is?

          • writeblock

            and just barely won the second time four years later when his best years were behind him age-wise. He still had his principles and his charm–but he had lost his ability to articulate off the cuff, to wing it as skillfully as in the past. Thank God the GOP wised up–but just barely. Reagan was never in the club. He was an outsider to a lot of the country club crowd. Not unlike my favorite.

          • gekster

            Are you rewriting history.
            from
            http://www.reagansheritage.org/reagan/html/reagan_career_busch.shtml

            primary:
            1980 Total Republican Primary Vote
            Reagan 7,709,793 60.8% 29 wins
            Bush 2,958,093 23.3% 5 wins
            Anderson 1,572,174 12.4% 0 wins (that one was real close)

            and from:
            http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/571/40571.xml&style#1

            primary:
            1984 Total Republican Primary Vote
            Ronald Reagan (inc.): 6,484,987 (98.78%)
            Unpledged delegates: 55,458 (0.85%)
            Harold Stassen: 12,749 (0.19%)

            general election
            from:
            http://www.beyondbooks.com/gop00/1c.asp

            Reagan’s victory over the incumbent Carter was an electoral vote landslide. He tallied 489 votes to Carter’s 49.

            In 1984, Reagan won a smashing re-election campaign over Walter Mondale. Democrat Mondale won only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

            which one was close as you have stated.
            As far as past prime, that is a matter of opinion.

          • writeblock

            you mention the total vote–AFTER the NH vote when victory was assured–THEN of course all the rest followed! That’s the way it always is–the three little states decide, then the other states fall in line routinely because most of the other candidates drop out. But my point was he just scraped by in NH–by 8000 votes! Had he lost NH–all the rest would NOT have followed.

          • gekster

            and like Socratese said, you then move the goalposts.

            from:
            http://primarynewhampshire.com/new-hampshire-primary-past-results.php

            1984 – Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)

            1980 – Ronald Reagan* (49.6%) George H.W. Bush (22.7%) Howard H. Baker (12.1%) John B. Anderson (9.8%) Philip M. Crane (1.8%) John B. Connally (1.5%)

            lets see, Reagan 49.6%
            George H.W. Bush (22.7%

            diff. 22.4%

            want to try another one.

          • rickbull

            when you wrote this. I don’t seem to remember Reagan “squeeking” by. And I hope you won’t mind my protruding into this conversation a bit.

            I am a firm believer that winning votes isn’t about convincing voters that you (the candidate) hold their values. It’s about convincing the voters that your values are the correct values to hold dear. Most people (namely moderate independents) really don’t know what they believe — that’s why they are moderate independents. Reagan won them over by convincing them that his vision of America was superior to Jimmy Carter’s and Walter Mondale’s — and he was right. A candidate is not a spokesman for a particular ideology, he/she is a sales executive whose job it is to sell the majority of voters a product (the candidate) that is superior to what the competition is selling. Reagan did that very well.

          • gekster

            Read the posts just above.

          • rickbull

            I was 20 in 1980 when I voted for Reagan the first time. Like he is for most of the folks here, Ronnie is very special to me.

          • gekster

            No problem, my friend. ;)

          • Right Reason

            n/t

          • writeblock

            instead of winner-take-all. It would prolong the nominating process but would be far more democratic and much smarter politically since it would illustrate clearly where a candidate’s strengths lie. It does no good to be big in the red states, for instance, and do poorly in battleground states like PA and OH. Almost any Republican is going to take the red states, no matter who’s nominated. But it’s the purple states, the battleground states, that matter most. They decide elections, not tiny IA and NH–or even a bigger deep south state like SC.

          • Right Reason

            or do you favor open primaries?

          • writeblock

            nt

          • Right Reason

            would your Rudy win a majority of Republican primary voters?

          • gekster

            writeblock makes the rules.

          • writeblock

            so that he’s still viable when he reaches places like PA and NJ. Right now, after NH–and maybe FL–it’s all over. Money dries up in a winner-take-all system. Most candidates by then are forced out of the running. By the time it gets to bigger, more important states, it’s all over.

          • writeblock

            the democrats have a proportional system–which is why their primaries lasted so long. My state, PA, had a real say in who was nominated. Not so in the GOP primary. Rudy was still polling ahead of anyone else here–but he had already dropped out after FL–as had most candidates.

          • Right Reason

            would Rudy have won the nomination.

      • Scope

        you are like a broken record here, with your ideas that it’s all about the numbers. Right! That must be why your boy Rudy did so well in the primaries in 2008. Oh wait, I forgot, the whole system was unfair, and it worked against Rudy only. Blahh Blahhh Bubble Bubble Blahh.

        • writeblock

          Silly me, I didn’t know that you could win elections and gain power by not having more votes than the other guy. I say again, it’s not about morality per se. You can talk morality all you want AFTER YOU WIN. Right now it’s about counting votes and not chasing voters away–something social conservatives routinely do with their holier-than-thou ‘tudes–and thus manage to achieve exactly the opposite of what you should actually be seeking–power to make the kinds of changes that matter. That comes with the numbers–and only with the numbers.

          • Right Reason

            *

          • lineholder

            How do you go about getting those votes without providing a platform? And given that social conservatives are by their very nature voters whose primary focus identifies with issues of morality and tradition, how will present a platform without including those things?

            Or are you suggesting that a candidate should simply lie through their teeth about moral issues while running as a candidate and then alter course after they get into power?

            Because the latter of the two is no better than what we have now, writeblock, and it will not help Republicans in the long run to establish trust with the American people by following this plan of action. They’d get one term and that’s all, because they would’ve have proven themselves to be moral equivalent of what we have now through deceit.

          • writeblock

            Social conservatives waste a great deal of energy fighting over the platform–which is instantly disregarded in a general election and forgotten once an election is over. It’s meaningless flummery designed to make social conservatives feel good. Much ado about nothing. It won’t be abortion that the general election voter will be interested in, it’ll be the economy, health care, jobs. Abortion is a divisive issue, it’s not a vote-getter anywhere outside of diehard red states–so why give the emphasis? Once we win, THEN we take over the Justice Dept., we nominate judges, we nominate for the SC–then we wield the power we want. Until then, focus on getting the power. Downplay whatever doesn’t win voters to your side. Most Americans are pro-life–but not with the same degree of intensity. Many like myself, from purple states, dislike the constant harping on this issue–since it’s counterproductive and we can see it actually alienates voters who might otherwise be with us.

          • Bill S

            We don’t care what you think about this. Social conservatives will continue to pound the message home.

            I dislike the constant harping about your opinion on this. Ironic that one of the chief alienators on this site woud have the chutzpah to talk about “counterproductive”. (Or maybe you’ve learned your lesson, since you haven’t mentioned the R-word yet tonight…)

          • writeblock

            only don’t complain when you lose elections and somebody like Obama sticks it to you.

          • writeblock

            when a quiet word would do. You make a big noise–then lose elections. I’d rather go with somebody who focuses on issues that unite voters–like McDonnell did in VA. He is very pro-life–but he sublimated the social issues and focused on the fiscal.

          • lineholder
          • streiff

            we are conservative first and GOP somewhere after that. You can’t be conservative and sacrifice principles. That is what the RNC is about. If you can’t ken that very basic concept you really need to move over to FrumForum or someplace that holds the same views as you.

          • gekster

            You can

          • writeblock

            if you don’t bend a little. It comes with the territory. All great politicians–even RR–compromised their principles to achieve a greater end. We’ve got 350 million people in this country. What kind of insanity is it that drives some of you to demand all of them must adhere to what you think? You can oppose others–but should do so with respect and a good deal of caution politically. Politics is not for amateurs. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

          • gekster

            He adjusted his positions just to get lelected, right?

          • writeblock

            That’s not the same as denying one’s principles. But it means if you have to give a little on some issues in order to win a lot on others, you do it. Whatever it takes, you measure the price politically. But there are always trade-offs. For instance Reagan approved of billions in tax hikes in order to garner twice as much in spending cuts–which helped the economy more in the long run and further shrunk the government. That’s the sort of thing a good politician will calibrate.

          • gekster

            And this time don’t dodge or move the goalposts.
            Just answer the question as is.
            I’m betting you can’t do it.

          • gekster

            nt

          • writeblock

            Don’t put words in my mouth. He was always principled when he ran for office. But like all politicians, he gauged his audience and adjusted his comments accordingly. But as an executive, he often compromised some principles in order to achieve others. There was a lot of give and take. All good executives know this. Only amateurs think otherwise.

          • gekster

            The words in your mouth are yours.

          • writeblock

            You talked first about ADJUSTING principles for an election, then you switched to talking about COMPROMISING principles for an election. I responded correctly–Reagan ADJUSTED his principles for an election audience but never COMPROMISED them as far as I know. There’s a huge difference. Every politician suppresses what would not win him votes–and adjusts his pitch accordingly. It’s not denial or compromise of principles–it’s simply changing focus. But all politicians compromise principles in governance to some extent in a democracy. That’s a whole other ball of wax.

          • gekster

            I stand by what I said.
            You keep changing what you said.
            You think some of us don’t see.
            And all of what you say makes Rudy more plausible?
            You can’t keep to your own arguements, let alone Rudy’s.
            As Debbie Barone would say, idiot.
            God in heaven you are dunb.

          • gekster

            DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TERM IDIOT.
            Show me where Reagan compromised his principles in an election speech.
            Give me a link.
            Back up what you say with FACTS, as “I” have d one.
            God in heaven, you are DUMB.
            Wake up.

          • gekster

            Be homer or idiot, you are what you are.
            And every one is looking at what I said.
            Balls in your court, if you have any.

          • writeblock

            I said he adjusted what he had to say to suit his audience in an election. Doesn’t mean he compromised anything. Apples and oranges.

          • gekster

            How did I not interpret what YOU said.
            Can you show proof, or are you just talking smack.

          • rickbull

            demanding that 350 million people adhere to what THEY think. The only problem with that is that with 500 liberals, you get 500 platforms; with 500 conservatives you get ONE platform with a few varying degrees of conservatism.

            The libs had two years in control and all we got as 9.4% unemployment, a deficit that looks like Dubya on cocaine, a stimulus bill that didn’t stimulate a damned thing, and a healthcare reform bill that drummed up 30 million additional customers for the insurance companies, and jacked everybody’s health insurance rates up 20 to 60%. Oh, and a lousy T-shirt!

            I think we conservatives can do better than that!

          • writeblock

            But I also like to win, not lose. Your problem is you think anyone who criticizes your tactics is against your principles. I’m both a social and fiscal conservative. I’m also pro-military and served in the Army myself. Nothing I’ve said is against conservatism per se. It’s against stupid strategies and tactics that lose us elections.

          • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

            We understand it. You don’t need to repeat it any more.

            In fact, we understand it so well and so thoroughly that an entire election, in 2006, was held to determine if it is the correct way to go or not.

            It turns out that voters like parties who govern as they run.

            We tried it your way. Just count heads, wave the flag, and do GOTV. It got us Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.

            There is no need to shun moral issues. But neither should we run on them solely.

            It’s a coalition. There are some voters who vote only on abortion. The vast majority of those voters vote Republican.

            Likewise, to a lesser extent, with guns, defense, spending, crime, marriage, and so on.

            People use their pet social issues as proxies for the other issues they care about. That is, if a candidate is pro-life, they figure they’re fiscal hawks, too, especially if they wave a flag and quote Reagan.

            To reach people, you have to connect with their pet issue(s). That has to happen on a local, living-room-retail level as well as with TV and radio ads.

            And campaigns are also about educating voters, making an argument that connects their hot-button issues with ones they didn’t know they cared about until you made the case.

            Later.

          • Bill S
          • writeblock

            The same old losing system is still in place. It was never tried “my way.” If it had been, Rudy would now be president. He was running ahead of Obama and Hillary in all the polls and had PA and NJ in his pocket. But he couldn’t get the nod. Because it was never tried my way–which would be to give Republican voters from battleground states as much say as the farmers in IA.

          • Bill S

            And there it is, folks. Just as predictable as the sun rising in the morning, writeblock once again trots out his personal obsession.

          • writeblock

            Nobody can really refute it either. It’s a matter of numbers. PA was important, IA wasn’t. I stand by that.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
          • Bill S
          • rickbull

            and we see where Fred ended up. The pre-election polls mean nothing.

          • writeblock

            Don’t be ridiculous.

          • rickbull

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/19/us-usa-politics-poll-idUSN1918714220070619

            “(Reuters) – Fred Thompson, an actor and former senator who has not formally entered the 2008 White House race, leads Republican presidential contenders for the first time, according to a Rasmussen poll released on Tuesday.

            “Thompson held a statistically insignificant one percentage point lead over former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the national poll of likely Republican primary voters, 28 percent to 27 percent. It was the first time all year anybody but Giuliani has led the 10-strong Republican field.”

            Fred didn’t officially join the race until September, 2007.

          • rickbull

            I am a technical writer by profession, and I don’t make claims that I can’t back up.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I covered the Rasmussen poll weekly for months here at RedState. FDT led a long time.

            Get educated, son.

          • rickbull

            This boy’s got to get some education and do some reading or he’s going to wind up being a liberal.

          • writeblock

            One itty-bitty Rasmussen poll for one day? That proves something? Coulda fooled me.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • writeblock

            Thompson was ever the party’s frontrunner?

          • gekster

            Idiot.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Get educated, son.

          • rickbull

            Believe what you want to believe. You are kinda cute, though. Kinda remind me of the chicken hawk in the old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons.

      • Scope

        that you need to take a backseat in any discussions, as you have proven that you would sell your mother for votes, period. You have no principles at all whatsoever.

        • Scope

          when he says the same thing over and over again? He has some right under his thumb, right where he wants you. Is it just a fun exercise to give reason to someone who literally lives in a basement?

          • edwyrd

            will it ever end?

          • writeblock

            with a lot of you who would rather sell YOUR mothers than give up on what you consider the only strategical course that makes sense–even if it’s politically suicidal.

        • writeblock

          when you have nothing sensible to say to refute my argument, you start hurling insults. No, I wouldn’t sell my mother for votes. But I wouldn’t push principles that alienate voters either since I’d save more babies’ lives in the long run by being politically smart than by being politically stupid.

          • Right Reason

            you would DEFINITELY sell your mother.

            Your argument IS refuted. McCain, Dole, and GHW Bush were all your kind of middle-of-the-road candidates and they all lost.

          • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

            It’s a class we’ve seen before. My name for it is “Pet Issue Pete”.

            Pete always drags out his pet issue into any discussion. Pet always insists no one can defeat his reasoning. And it’s true.

            It’s true, because Pete has internalized his opinion so much on his pet issue that he accepts it axiomatically, and will ignore anyone who does try to argue the merits. He’ll move the goal posts, ignore points, pretend not to have seen comments, and so on.

            Without going too much into pop psychology … well, I won’t bother. The point is that the people you’re talking to here have been doing this for years — five years this month, in my case — and we’ve seen this behavior time and time again.

            So, that’s why people are acting the way the are.

            Prove me wrong. Try not bringing up the alternate reality in which Rudy performed as he would have if he’d been a viable candidate. Try understanding why Rudy had to behave as he did, recognizing the slight chance that he held a stance on an issue he know voters held dear.

            Give it a shot, and maybe you’ll still be here in a month.

          • writeblock

            Yeah, I’m pissed Rudy was shafted by Dr. Dobson when he brought PA and NJ to the table and promised to nominate strict constructionists. But my idea is not that we should nominate Rudy this time around–although I’d like that, since I’m convinced he’d be our strongest candidate who would bring into the fold some blue and purple states–but that we should avoid making the same dumb political mistakes over and over. We need to back winners. And you do that by running the polls and voting for the guy who has most chance of winning–even if it compromises you in the short term. Nor would I ever be so dumb as to confuse moderates like Graham and McCain–who are democrats lite–with heavyweights like Rudy and Christie from blue states who fought liberals their entire careers–and won. The latter have a feistiness and warrior-spirit most go-along moderates lack..

          • writeblock

            both Christie and Rudy hail from a region with huge Italian-American populations–which is why both Christie and Brown campaigned with Rudy and no other GOP pol. The Italian-American vote, while not monolithic, is equal in number to the Black vote–i.e., 12% of the entire electorate–and concentrated in even higher percentages in the Northeast. So as long as we’re talking identity politics–how can we have ignored such a huge bonanza in the last election cycle? Why on earth did we? What was our blind spot? Those were the Reagan democrats we’re talking about–working class ethnics. That’s Rudy’s constituency–and Christie’s–and it’s where Obama is weakest. Just talking numbers here. Do we want to win elections or don’t we? Should we care what farmers in IA think–or blue collar workers in PA?

          • Bill S

            Good to know.

          • writeblock

            are you confusing Crist with Christie?

          • Bill S

            At the time that the Florida Senate primary race began, Rubio was a nobody and Crist was the hands-down “could not lose” GOP candidate. Rubio was the hard-core conservative that could never win because he was a too-hard-right extremist.

            You said

            And you do that by running the polls and voting for the guy who has most chance of winning

          • lineholder

            was that the voters could see through the fake veneer that Crist presented.

          • acat

            And he sure tied himself into an unnatural knot trying to win as the “independent”….

            No, the solution isn’t to compromise on values…. but it’s also not to shun those who are interested in the same goals just because their reasons aren’t the same….

            Mew

          • lineholder

            I know that this is how it might seem to be on the surface, but that isn’t quite the case.

            Most of us as SoCons have specific things that we believe in, and those believes and convictions run really deep. Time after time, we’ve been told to compromise for the “sake of our nation” and “for the sake society” and “for the sake of peace”. And each time we’ve agreed to do so, it has cost us, in traditions that we respect, a way of life that we love and in having hope for the future.

            But there’s just a point where compromising further can literally break a person, in spirit, and a lot of us have hit that point.

            It isn’t that way for other people, acat, so I can understand why they don’t see it or feel it or sense it…but it is that way for a lot of us.

          • writeblock

            start to get in the way of political common-sense? I’m only trying to talk numbers–votes. How does it make sense to give so much authority and power to somebody in IA or NH and give none at all to those who live in battleground states like OH and PA?

            And I disagree that it can break the spirit to compromise a principle, if, by compromise you get to win and win big–if, by defying Dr. Dobson, you get to win PA and NJ in the general election instead of giving those states to Obama–how does that break the spirit? Just the opposite–it is terrifically bracing to the spirit–and puts us on a different moral path entirely from the one we’re on right now. It’s losing that breaks the spirit.

          • acat

            holding to core convictions and continuing to work with someone who has most of the same goals but a different set of core beliefs … but that’s not what seems to be happening here…

            I’m hopeful that this is just typical non-presidential-year CPAC kabuki…

            Mew

          • writeblock

            I’m not for moderates, period. Some of you still don’t get it. Rudy and Christie are special types–they hail from the NE and are very different from the Crists and the Lugars and the Specters and the Grahams and the McCains–who are all democrats lite. Rudy was never that, though he holds some views that are distinctly liberal–as does Christie. Yet both have fought liberals tooth and nail throughout their careers on their home turfs–the race hustlers, the bureaucrats, the unions, the tax-hikers, the media. Rudy is pro-choice–but he pro-actively lowered the abortion rate in NYC. Yeah, he has a lousy record with women–but he has a helluva record as an executive who reformed a city bigger than most states. Some say he lacks character because he “cheated” on his wife (though he did so openly)–but what more character did he need to show than his display of steady nerves and fine leadership on 9/11? So these are complex politicians–and those who would lump a Lindsey Graham with a Rudy Giuliani just don’t understand the NE–which is a hugely important segment of our society–and one that need not always vote with dems–as Brown and Christie have illustrated. It was no accident Giuliani was a factor in both those victories.

          • Bill S

            Pragmatism is ok as long as it’s writeblock’s priorities that are preserved.

            My advice to you is to stay out of the political consulting business.

          • writeblock

            for their own sakes, but only if they can win elections in overwhelmingly liberal places like MA, for instance. Then I’m for Brown–and even sent him money. But Crist hails from a state that had elected Jeb Bush. It was never the case that only a moderate could win FL as some in the party had claimed. It was short-sighted politics on the part of the GOP committee. In other words, it was never truly pragmatic to nominate Crist. It was just bad politics.

          • Right Reason

            You have a Rudy obsession. Therefore, the ideal system is the one that ensures Rudy wins.

            Rudy didn’t downplay the abortion issue to avoid division. He hid from it because he knew his position was a loser.

          • writeblock

            Yes, I’m a Rudy fan–since he’s been there, done that. He’s got a record of reforming things and knocking heads together to get things done. He’s fought the NYTimes, the unions, the race hustlers. Who else has that kind of record? Pawlenty? Romney? Newt? Huckabee? Daniels? But he also had the numbers–but not in the tiny states that decide these things. Our loss.

          • Right Reason

            than fighting “the NY TImes, the unions and the race hustlers.”

            Since you seem to be hiding from the question I’ve asked twice before in this diary, I’ll try it again:

            What does your ideal candidate do when abortion, gay marriage, immigration or other divisive issues come up?

          • writeblock

            it sure as hell helps, especially if he’s got a track record as a hugely successful executive. I personally have had enough of nice guys–gentlemanly types who never give as good as they get. I was a Bush backer–but he disappointed me consistently. The guy was too damn well-mannered for his own good–and ours. The party suffered tremendously because he never fought back. Eventually I took his picture down from my office wall. I want a warrior this time around and an executive who’ll REALLY reform Washington, not just talk about it in an election–like McCain did who actually didn’t have a clue.

          • Right Reason

            !

          • writeblock

            until the system changes. Right now it puts a lot of socially conservative die-hards in the catbird seat–because some very unimportant little states get to do all the deciding in a winner-take-all system. That’s pretty much why Giuliani waited till FL to take a stand–but by then it was too late. This is why I say the system sucks. It;s designed to cast out winners.

      • jenniferjmilleresq

        declare that “morality needs to take a back seat” in order to increase vote totals? Total presumption. I am 100% in support of the Tea Party’s fiscal conservatism and constitutional concerns, but that does not affect my laser focus on the abolition of abortion. These are all issues that can coexist and primary voters have every right and duty to consider them ALL.

        My total abhorrence for identity politics, as I understand the definition of that term, is subtly attacking a candidate because she is a woman and happens to have young children or whose parents have a different national origin (eg Nikki Haley). I am sick of those identity politics in primaries.

        • writeblock

          but that’s the political reality–and as long as the left plays it, the right needs to counter it with appropriate political moves. It would be ridiculous, for instance, not to run Rubio on the national ticket some time in the future if he can bite into the Hispanic vote and win us some victories. That’s the way the game is played–and SHOULD be played. You may feel this is distasteful–but politics is morally messy. It;s no place for moral purists.

          • gekster

            When did Reagan use race?
            And you say Rudy will get the 12% Italian vote?
            What about the othe 98%.
            And again, when did the greatest polotcian of my time use race to win.

          • writeblock

            It’s a game that is as old as politics.

          • gekster

            you sir, inserted “race”.
            You should change you username to “artfulldodger”.
            Even though your not good at it.

          • gekster

            answer my question.

          • writeblock

            only in numbers. If Christie and Brown invite Rudy to campaign with them in MA and NJ in predominantly Italian-American neighborhoods, that’s isn’t race politics, it’s common sense politics. Do you think the Irish didn’t vote for the Kennedys in overwhelming numbers? Sure they did! This is nothing new in politics.

          • gekster

            Republicans don’t need race, just Americans.
            Idiot.

          • writeblock

            would think ethnicity were not a factor in politics. Only somebody from la-la land would think that. OF COURSE Rubio is a terrific asset because he’s Hispanic and can cut into the share of Hispanic votes normally allotted to Democrats. It’s why Kennedy kept winning MA. Do you think the Irish didn’t favor him? It’s why Lieberman was put on Gore’s ticket–to attract the Jewish vote in FL. That’s Politics 101.

          • gekster

            And you call me politically me stupid.
            Hell of an arguement.

  • http://www.coloradans4palin.com bjwilson83

    I thought it was doctrine at redstate that any criticism of Palin could not possibly be sexist. At least I got raked over the coals for suggesting it.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Cool Story Bro

      • http://www.coloradans4palin.com bjwilson83

        Now you’re mocking Palin. And I suppose you have the gall to say she’s not polished enough to be president.

  • lineholder

    Sorry if that question is offensive to anyone. First there was the banning Libertarians suggestion through support of the CPAC and now another “big tent” scenario as well? I can’t help but wonder what the purpose is, that’s all.

    • Scope

      Ms. Clouthier was a new front pager until I read it on another site. Maybe RS gave her the push button for front page diaries without any checks on what she posts. After Ms. Clouthier’s libertarian banning diary, I looked up who she was, and, it seemed that she has quite the temper, and I’m not sure if this isn’t one of those tantrums. Here’s an example-

      http://libertypundits.net/article/daily-caller-naughty-bloggers/

      For me, having Dr. before your name doesn’t always equal intelligent conservatism.

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    I’ve never once analyzed what might or might not be conservative values. I just see things as life and death issues.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I see no evidence that GOProud’s purpose is to take a conservative message to gays.

    Its behavior seems the opposite: It’s taking a gay agenda on the military, marriage, adoption, and other issues to conservatives.

    • Aaron Gardner
      • runner12
        • Scope
          • fpete13527
          • joayn

            “And a conservative world where advocacy groups morph into grievance groups bullying the conservative movement is one definition of hell.”

            Hmmm. GOProud and Prop. 8 popped into my head for some silly reason when I read that sentence.

    • lineholder

      And for the time being, I reserve the right to choose my own course, regardless of all the efforts that are being made to get us “into the tent”, and simply wait to see what actions this organization follows.

      • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

        Excellent statement.

    • Read Chesterton
    • Finrod

      http://www.goproud.org/goproud-calls-for-end-to-taxpayer-funding-of-abortion/

      Now you cannot honestly say that you’ve never seen GOProud take a conservative message to gays.

      • Bill S

        but that’s certainly good to know.

      • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

        “It doesn

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Putting up a press release on the Internet isn’t outreach to gays. Otherwise everyone’s doing outreach to gays.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        If they show up to Gay Pride events as proud of conservative views, as much as they show up to conservative events proud of gay views, then that’ll gain them some credibility.

        • lineholder

          And that is exactly what it is likely to take for SoCons to even remotely begin to believe that they are in this for reasons of conservatism rather than political policy

          • silentcal2012

            GOProud does provoke the Left. It just usually doesnt happen in states, cities and events that conservatives follow.

            http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=111367

            Anyway, they are just one group out of dozens that will be fighting for social conservatism at CPAC.

          • lineholder
          • silentcal2012

            The issue isn’ t about GOPround. I dont care about them. Its about the purity people denegrating a good event because only 98% of the speakers agree with them.

            Besides, its been well documented that GOProud has fought amnesty and many are pro-life. But again who cares.

            They are gay, and they are often cajoled into being full spectrum liberal.. They want to repeal ObamaCare, oppose cap and trade, repeal the Financial Reform bill, secure our borders, oppose amnesty, fight terrorist, be patriotic, lower taxes, lessen regulations, support business, fight unions… So some gays roll with the GOP. Get over it.

            How can any conservative with courage and intellect be so afraid to even attend a conference because one tiny faction disagrees with them. Just being around people we disagree with on one issue makes people “uncomfortable”. What are we? A bunch of shrinking violets. We are the ones acting like sissies.

            If GOProud has demostrated one thing, its that they have more balls than some of the self-righteous moralists. Gay conservatives are the overwhelming minority and they will get more than their fair share of dirty looks, alienation, arguments, and oppostion. But hey, at least they will come and defend themselves..

          • cordpt

            That’s an excellent post.

          • lineholder

            Time will tell how long and how strong they stand with what they have presented that they support. SoCons have been on this side of the fence for many, many years.

            If we determine that what we see as being wiser to do is to simply wait and see what happens next….why does that bother you so much? It isn’t imposing on you in any way, is it?

          • joayn

            Tony Perkins, and Mike Huckabee provoking the left, exactly?

          • cordpt

            He didn’t say that criticizing DeMint et all (admitting they actually did that) was provoking the left or that they do nothing but provoking the left. I’m sure they also criticize the position of other conservatives. I don’t see the big deal, conservatism is not an axiomatic, dogmatic, schematic ideology like marxism or liberalism.

          • joayn

            Taken as a whole, the article was based on a personal interview that included two of GOProud’s views (one frivolous and one serious), and surely was not to Neil’s point, which silentcal was replying to.

            The only “provoking” done was by inviting Ann Coulter to Homocon. Big whip.

            The second part of the interview was about criticizing and calling out conservatives for “spewing” anti-gay rhetoric. And it was a pretty lengthy part of the interview.

            My point was criticizing Jim DeMint et al certainly is not provoking the left. Duh.

        • cordpt

          Admittedly I don’t do it closely, but my feeling is the polar opposite of yours. Seems to me their priorities are very clearly on attacking the left and that only residually they care about some sort of “gay agenda”. In fact, I’d say that they are one of the groups in the conservative real that cares less about intra-movement, intra-party fights. That’s my impression, at least.

          • lineholder

            then where do they stand? Given the activities of the homosexual movement as a whole and just how aggressive it has been in years past…can you understand why SoCons have the questions that we do?

            Simply because of our beliefs and convictions, it could be extremely difficult for some of us to consider joining forces with anything along the lines of teh modern day homosexual movement. But add to it what has occurred in the past decade or so…..

          • cordpt

            It seems to me you’re confusing GOProud with “gay rights” activist groups.

            Personally I see no reason to include them in some “modern day homosexual movement”, except in the sense they’re a political group and they’re homosexuals (not sure if non-homosexuals who agree with their agenda and priorities are part of it, I suppose so). In fact, most of those groups are heavy critics of GOProud.

            I think you just don’t know enough about them and decided to assume they’re something they aren’t, pretty much like Neil above.

            Personally, I go to their “legislative priorities” page and I agree with pretty much everything. Plus, only one or two points are related to what are commonly called “gay issues”.

            http://www.goproud.org.php5-12.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/federal-legislative-priorities/

            I’m sorry, but that’s not the “to-do” list of a “gay rights advocacy group”.

          • lineholder

            we do have our reasons for questioning the situation at hand. A great deal depends on what the organization as a whole does from this point forward.
            That’s just how it is.

            You ask us to be open-minded in considering their validity without granting to us the same privilege?

          • cordpt

            I just pointed out what’s patently obvious: you simply didn’t know their priorities and their agenda. Or if you did and you disagree, than you and me have extremely different visions on what conservatism means, Because to me that looks like a pretty conservative agenda and to-do list.

            Let me quote it:

            [quote]1

          • lineholder

            That is your choice just like I have mine.

            And for the time being my choice is to exercise both prudence and discretion in waiting to see exactly what this group accomplishes and achieves.

          • cordpt

            At least from my part. It seems to me you’re just refusing to acknowledge facts; or that you are too emotional to allow facts you didn’t know about to inform and correct your opinions.

            Can you answer to this question: out of the 10 points in their legislative priorities list, with how many do you disagree?

          • lineholder

            and believe me when I say that if I was purely emotional in my response, you would be getting far different comments from me.

          • joayn

            Ever heard of Propositon 8 in California? Google it.

            “I think you just don

          • Bill S

            Then they should have passed on the trucer pile-on, as only a spectacular lack of intelligence would think that such a thing would NOT start an “intra-movement, intra-party fight”.

          • runner12

            I am amazed that some people just do not get it. My problem and I would say that many people’s problem with GoProud is NOT that they are gay. I may disagree with their lifestyle, but if they were truly conservative then I would welcome them to the table at CPAC without reservations.

            The problem is that they espouse all of these conservative views, but when it comes to things like gay marriage and repeal of DADT they are all about government intervention and judicial activism. Even when it overturns the will of the people (Prop 8). These are not conservative principles, end of story.

            No one has been able to debate these points with me and point out how these things that they openly advocate for are in line with the limited government philosophy of conservatism.

          • cordpt

            I’m not really sure what’s unconservative about their position on marriage. How is it about government intervention? Or judicial activism?

            I disagree with their position on the DADT repeal, but that’s one disagreement and in an issue that is far from being pivotal to me.

          • runner12

            Do more research and see their involvement in Prop 8. Pretty sure trying to use the courts to overrule the will of the people constitutes judicial activism.

            Government invervention is defined as heavily lobbying Congress to overturn DADT regardless of the military’s opinion. These issues ARE pivotal to me, because it shows a lack of consistentcy in conservative belief. It shows that you pick and choose when you believe in limited government and when you do not.

            It is a question of character.

          • cordpt

            Can you explain that or not?

            You said that “when it comes to things like gay marriage (…) they are all about government intervention and judicial activism”.

            Well, I want to know why are they about government intervention when it comes to marriage. Because their position is pretty similar to mine and I don’t think I favour any sort of government intervention, quite the contrary,

            So, I’d really enjoy reading your views on this particular issue.

            (I addressed the DADT repeal position; I’ll check the prop. 8 issue but that’s another thing I really don’t care about as I’m not in California. I did a quick google search and the first returns were about left gay groups criticizing them for endorsing Prop. 8 opponents and stuff like that, but I’ll do a longer search later on).

          • runner12

            to accept gay marriage, that is what Prop 8 is all about. If they can do it California, it can be applied to other states. This is not leaving this up to the will of the people, it is judicial activism.

            A point that I failed to make was that last year CPAC invited GoProud and no one protested or boycotted, which underscores my point that the boycott was NOT about them being gay. It was all about the recent positions they have taken on gay marriage and DADT that are not in line with conservative principles.

            Besides, why push marriage when there are civil unions? The answer is simple. It is not about equal rights, it is about forcing others to agree with their position.

          • runner12

            you knew about Prop 8, I apologize. Let me give you a brief overview. Prop 8 was a ballot initiative in CA to define marriage between a man and a woman. It was hotly debated, but in the end the PEOPLE of CA voted to defined marriage as between a man and a woman. A gay couple protested and filed suit calling it “unconstitutional.” They chose a judge whom they knew would rule in ther favor and Prop 8 was overturned. It was appealed and is now on its way to the SCOTUS.

            If the SCOTUS fails to uphold Prop 8, then states lose the right to define marriage as they see fit. You see, it will set a legal precedent and will be used in other states to challenge other traditional marriage laws (that were voted on by the PEOPLE). This would go against every value that conservatives and even libertarians (states right to choose) believe.

            GoProud has been at worst supportive of the Prop 8 repeal and at best turned a blind eye with a wink and a nod.

            I apologize for the threadjack Mr. Howe, but cordpt asked me to clarify my statements and my position and I did.

  • edwyrd

    libertarians know they can’t run as independants so this is simply an attempt at an idealistic coup de tat of the republican party. it is, in its accusational tone, simply the same “identity politics” in reverse. they cry they are the real pure and true consevatives, but mask a liberal agenda behind fiscal conservatism. it is a trojan horse, this is the only pure and true component ; the libertarian power play.

    • Scope

      Right after the 2008 elections, Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty believed that there problem was that they weren’t organized enough for him to have done better. They literally went on a “community organizing” campaign. They said their goal was to overtake the Republican Party, because they don’t want to get their hands dirty, and have made a major major push, with typical Paul money bombs, to squeeze their way into every government elected position they could get into. They have changed their tactics lately, and have removed much of any reference to Ron Paul himself, because his name became toxic. I truly believe that they have been the major instrument in getting libertarians back on the radar, unfortunately. So many said back then that there was no worry, as they were so small in numbers. They are shouting now, literally, do you hear me know, especially at CPAC. The funny thing, Rand Paul did everything he could to distance himself from his father Ron during his campaign, but, he is joined at the hip with dear ole dad at CPAC. When he immediately gave up his opposition to earmarks, upon arriving in Washington, many of his supporters have decided that he didn’t run an honest campaign. LOL.

      • cordpt

        That Rand Paul gave up his opposition to earmarks.

        Plus, don’t you think Ron Paul is a social conservative? He seems quite social conservative to me. Why don’t you consider him social conservative?

  • streiff

    fit on the identity politics spectrum?

    • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

      They were not formed on the basis of conservative principles, but on their sexual behavior.

    • edwyrd

      they are the poison spearhead meant to cleve the consevative union into pieces, and therein to be conquered piecemeal.
      GOProud is infinitesimally small, 10,000 members.
      it is a drive toUSE political correctness within the conservatIve union to degrade the union and cause disention. you cant be a social conservative without being a homophobe, right?
      but what is GOProuds’ top priority? why don’t they leave their sexual orientation at home? why must they carry it like a stick on their shoulder and dare anyone to knock it off?
      it is nothing more than a poison pill for the republican party.

      and this i will respectfully submit; GOProud will do far more damage INSIDE the republican party than thety ever could from OUTSIDE.

  • 1stRichard

    Identity Politics, Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Politics of grievance, Rule 5: Ridicule is man

  • Scope

    destroyed any credibility she may have had with her first post, except of course with the die hard libertarians, and the gays. Some of them are still over there fighting their ideas. I’m sure that RS will acknowledge that sometimes even they make mistakes. The site claims to be a conservative site, and does support Republicans. It is neither conservative or Republican to invite every breathing being with 2 brain cells under the tent simply to rack up votes. Votes seem to be Ms. Clouthier’s only goal, even if they come from some who want to destroy this country, namely the radical Islamists. I’ve noticed she hasn’t addressed that group at all.

  • Bill S

    You disavow identity politics, but then you say this:

    So, I love that conservative advocacy groups have sprung up to reach out into under served communities. People shouldn

    • lineholder

      Reeked too much of “get into the tent” for me, I guess, which is why I asked above what the purpose of this diary truly was.

      • Scope

        the real impetus of Ms. Cloutheirs gripe. I just today read another article by Ms. Cloutheir in response to last year’s CPAC. She claimed that she had a ball at the event last year, and that even though the conservatives were more or less in the wildness, she loved the exuberance and lively atmosphere at last years CPAC. Who brought the most of the exuberance at last year’s conference, Ron Paul. I have a sneaking feeling that Ms. Clouthier is a Ron Paul supporter.

        • Bill S

          I don’t believe that’s the case at all.

        • lineholder

          If she claimed conservatives were in the wildness (or perhaps she meant wilderness)…don’t want to read too much into it, but that comes across elitist to me…that conservatives don’t know what we want and that we have to be “shown the way” out of the wildness.

          • lineholder

            that Ms. Clouthier was a Dr. of some sort? MD? PhD? Education maybe. If that is the case, then are we being “enlightened”?

          • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

            http://www.melissaclouthier.com/about/

  • Read Chesterton

    You post a diary arguing against Identity Politics, and two of the three organizational examples you cite for the way forward are 1) a conservative female identity group and a “conservative-libertarian” group advocating “RACIAL DIVERSITY” (caps theirs, not mine) to promote “conservative rejuvenation.”

    Unless you have some kind of “hair of the dog” cure in mind for the problem of identity politics in the conservative movement, I have to ask if you are one of those “trucers” that seem to be intentionally stirring up the right with all the deftness of Nairobian community organizers.

    • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

      having many groups who come together based on some factor they perceive as their identity, whatever that may be, then it will disprove that conservatives are into identity politics.

      Rather convoluted thinking–I’ve had to look at the post several times to figure out what she’s saying.

      It seems highly contradictory to me. How can you advocate acceptance of a group called GOProud who, as I said above, formed their group and named it, not on the basis of conservative principles, but on their sexual behavior.

  • Scope

    of GOProud and the radical Islamists. The radicals have no love or tolerance of Christians. GOProud is in essence balking at the Christian views on gays. Christians have been under attack by so many, and the liberals have waged war on the Christians. Anyone see any connection there, am I way off base?

    • Read Chesterton

      The well, in this case, being capital C Conservatism.

      I am of the belief that social conservatism cannot be separated from Constitutional Conservatism. Calls for social conservatives to put aside issues of life and religious liberty in order to focus on so-called common fiscal issues are like trying to put aside issues of flour and eggs before baking a cake.

      Reasonable and conscientious conservative RedStaters are unsuccessfully trying to convince our new “inclusive” conservative-libertarian members that fiscal conservatism can never be sustained under the burden of continued government subsidization of socially liberal causes. Because they don’t seem like stupid or illogical liberals, one might suspect that the goal of these concerned conservative-libertarians isn’t the furtherance of conservatism at all, but its dilution.

      When you think about it, this diverse big tent thing is pretty much how the Socialists dealt the death blow to the Democrat party that was once held together by working middle class nuclear families. This cannot succeed in destroying conservatism. But if the Roves, Gingriches, and Norquists of the GOP get their way, they will succeed in forcing Conservatism into a third party, but not before the Ronulans and other agent provocateurs cause enough chaos to give Obama a second (maybe a third, fourth, fifth, etc,) term.

      As someone who reads every RS front page diary just about every day, it’s pretty obvious that the “death by diversity” being inflicted on CPAC and the iron wedge being driven into RS this week are of a piece. But, to be perfectly frank, I’m overwhelmed at everything going on this week from Egypt to CPAC, and everyone in-between the two telling us the Moslem Brotherhood deserves our consideration as a freedom loving concern. Charlton Heston yelling “It’s a madhouse, it’s a maadhouse!” keeps coming to my mind.

      • bobmontgomery

        Like everyone else, we don’t want to pay high taxes and we believe that the 20,000 volumes of the US Code, or whatever the number, is about 19,950 volumes too much. But, my marriage is worth more to me than a 5% reduction in the marginal tax rate, and somebody wanting to make my marriage less special while claiming to be on my side is, well, insulting.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I’ll be honest, I was not big on the one you wrote the other day, inre CPAC and GOPRoud. This one I like. I endorse it.

    As to the comment section on this, I’ll let all those people speak for themselves. There are arguments and agendas going on that I have no interest in (today). For me, I read the article and I like it. If I am to gather correctly what your message was, it was this:

    Conservatism is the opposite of identity politics. Conservatism sees individuals and Americans.Identity politics sees “su vs them”, and leads inevitably to “how can I use the system for the advantage of “us” at the expense of “them”.

    Good job. Stay strong.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I’ll be honest, I was not big on the one you wrote the other day, inre CPAC and GOPRoud. This one I like. I endorse it.

    As to the comment section on this, I’ll let all those people speak for themselves. There are arguments and agendas going on that I have no interest in (today). For me, I read the article and I like it. If I am to gather correctly what your message was, it was this:

    Conservatism is the opposite of identity politics. Conservatism sees individuals and Americans.Identity politics sees “su vs them”, and leads inevitably to “how can I use the system for the advantage of “us” at the expense of “them”.

    Good job. Stay strong.