Abortion, homosexuality, birthers, the lot: if there's a reason to squabble and polarize oneself, many conservatives are all too happy to tuck into the controversy smorgasbord.
Well, something's shifting. This year CPAC has its fair share of nuts (as FrumForum shows photographically) but this year also marks the presence of GOProud (a prominent gay Republican group) and a group advocating reducing abortions through more counselling and greater options for expecting mothers rather than bans. To many this sounds irrelevant.
The importance of these invitations is enormous. Liberty University Law School decided to boycott the conference because of GOProud and it caused a bit of a brouhaha. Yet CPAC standing their ground and telling its cosponsors they can't rule the conference is a massive blow to the radical wings of the movement.
For proof of the changing attitudes look no further than the main conference room. A Young Americans for Freedom speaker diverged from his rehearsed speech and openly attacked CPAC, GOProud and homosexuality. To many's surprise and my delight he was booed off the stage in disgrace.
What matters is the economy, the debt and foreign policy. It is time to put the uselessly divisive questions on the back burner and stop frightening independents with nuttery.
6 comments:
The only concern I have with fays if they are Conservative first or PRIDE first?
I have had several exchanges of emails with gay conservatives over this matter, most claim they are a pariah to the gay community for their political allegiance.
I do have a problem with PRIDE.
Crap spelled fay not gay. What a maroon.
Agree with you on gay rights, and I was glad to see what's-his-name get booed.
Disagree with you on abortion. Sorry, that's a major difference between Canadian and American politics, and it's interesting to see transplanted Canadians (David Frum, I'm looking at you) fail to understand that.
The Republican Party wins more votes than it loses by being a pro-life party. That's just an electoral reality, leaving the morality of it aside. You'd make a few urban intellectuals slightly more comfortable about voting Republican who would anyway, and lose a grand swath of what now is the conservative base.
The abortion issue was litigated at CPACs in the 1970s -- the party and the movement went into that era pro-choice, and came out pro-life. The pro-lifers converted enough pro-choicers (including the-Governor Reagan) on the merits to win that fight.
Now, you can try to re-litigate the issue, but if we're talking about who's going to be more "divisive" or not, I'm pretty darned sure that that's going to be a lot more divisive in the party than keeping the platform plank what it is now.
"then-Governor Reagan", not "the-Governor" Though maybe he's earned the definite article by now. :p
Great points! Though I would like to clarify I'm advocatging simply putting some of these issues on the back burner and focus on what most voters care about.
A pro-choice GOP is unlikely and I don't think it would be positive. However the party can't afford to make abortion or gay rights its main election message.
I'm talking campaigns rather than legislative initiative.
Oh, sure. I couldn't think of a sillier campaign than "no abortions or gay marriages!" I'd probably avoid voting for the first time since I turned 18, if that were the ballot question.
I'm sure that the straw poll at the end of the conference will show that conservatives are mainly on the same page, issue-wise. Last year, 75% or more thought that taxes and over-spending were the most salient issues -- which was very reassuring. (President Obama with a huge legislative majority concentrated the mind very quickly.)
Post a Comment