By Daniel Foster
Monday, February 25, 2013
For the second straight year, it looks as though neither
the Log Cabin Republicans nor GOProud will participate in the Conservative
Political Action Conference (CPAC). There was a minor dustup when GOProud was
asked to move along at last year’s conference after the group had served as a
sponsor in the previous two years, and the story has been given fresh oxygen by
progressive MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who said that he would accept an invitation
to appear on a CPAC panel (opposite Ralph Reed) only if GOProud were welcomed
back into the fold. Though I don’t agree with Hayes on much, he’s right on this
one. Here are five reasons why.
small-g gay, small-c conservative
GOProud is
consistently big-C “movement” conservative on the important issues — especially
on fiscal policy and the size of government, but also on social issues such as
abortion. After all, GOProud was founded by a couple of Log Cabin Republicans
dissatisfied with that group’s Main-Street-partnership-style centrism. This
alone is a pretty good reason for their inclusion at CPAC. But arguably more
interesting, and more important for a powwow that’s ostensibly about making
conservative advocacy more effective, is GOProud’s lower-case conservatism.
Watch them operate and you realize that, unlike many social-issue activist
groups on both the left and the right, GOProud understands that speed kills in
the culture wars. A D.C. journo-acquaintance once complained to me, “What does
GOProud actually do besides put out press releases?” Said journo is exaggerating,
but it’s true that GOProud picks its spots. They’re playing the long game of
acclimating gays to conservatism and conservatism to gays, and a large piece of
that, frankly, is just sitting around quietly and behaving themselves. This is
why GOProud leads with its full-spectrum conservative bona fides and why its
position on gay marriage (officially agnostic and federalist, but with implied
underlying support) is intentionally circumspect and backgrounded. It’s an
approach that makes GOProud not only small-c conservative, but small-g gay, an
illustration that one’s sexual preference does not require one to be wed to
readymade big-g “Gay” identity politics.
gays should be gettable
According to
post-election analyses, President Obama won the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender
(LGBT) vote by about three to one, and LGBT voters constituted about 5 percent
of the electorate. If you’re a conservative who thinks that’s not a chunk of
the vote worth fighting for, consider that nationally Romney and Obama split the
straight vote 49–49. Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all top-ten states in
terms of total gay population, and New Hampshire, Colorado, and New Mexico are
all in the top ten in terms of the percentage of gay residents. These are all
fabled “battleground” states that Mitt Romney failed to carry in 2012, and that
Republicans will have to woo if the conservative movement is to have a national
political vehicle. All the intra-conservative talk about reaching out to Latino
voters via immigration reform has been subject to wet-blanket reminders that
Latinos tend to be liberal voters for all sorts of other reasons, not least
because they fall into other demographic buckets that tend to break liberal.
The data on gay Americans are scattershot, but there is some indication that
something similar is going on here: that is, self-identified homosexuals tend
to be younger, less white, and less educated than self-identified
heterosexuals. One could look at this as reason for conservatives to despair of
winning their votes, or as an opportunity to kill a number of demographic
challenges with one stone. One reason to be hopeful about the latter is that,
while it’s difficult to be secretly Latino, it’s fairly common to be secretly
gay. (Living in New York City, I know both conservatives who are closeted gays
and gays who are closeted conservatives — indeed, would anyone be surprised if
Romney carried the closet vote?) Bringing GOProud into the conservative fold is
the sort of symbolic action that could contribute to breaking up this two-way
shame. It’s also the type of action that could have real spillover effects with
the political middle, broadly speaking, as polls continue to show that the
center of the country is becoming more gay-friendly.
youth movement
Those polls, by
the way, show movement among conservatives as well. The 2012 Gallup poll
showing majority support for gay marriage also showed 30 percent support among
Republicans. More noteworthy still, a contemporaneous Washington Post–ABC poll
showed that Republicans ages 18–44 were evenly split on the question, 46–46.
The smart money is on that split tipping in favor of “marriage equality” in the
next few years, and even that probably underrepresents the momentum, because
most young Republicans today are driven first by fiscal issues and exhibit a
prominent libertarian streak, meaning that in addition to those who support gay
marriage outright, there is probably a sizeable segment of conservatives who
regard it with benign indifference. While “conservatives” are not always and
everywhere synonymous with “Republicans,” it’s still true that if CPAC wants to
be oriented toward the future of the Right, and not its past, it should feature
a mix of participants that reflects the evolving reality of where conservatives
and Republicans stand on the gay question.
contested conservatism
If there is
significant internal disagreement among conservatives on any given issue, that
disagreement ought to be represented at CPAC, which plays a unique role in the
conservative movement. This is especially true in “wilderness” years such as
this one. GOProud’s involvement in past CPACs caused a (relatively small)
amount of controversy and disruption at the proceedings, and that may have been
reason enough to ask them to stay home in 2012, a year in which conservative
unity was especially important. But the election is over, and one of
conservatism’s great intellectual strengths is that “conservatism” is a
contested concept. If confabs like CPAC aren’t going to reflect the robust and
vital internal debate about the present and future of conservatism, what are
they good for?
the intolerance cudgel
Last, let’s
stipulate that it is the business of the American Conservative Union and CPAC’s
organizers to determine who is and isn’t represented at CPAC. I wouldn’t
advocate, and I don’t think GOProud’s exclusion warrants, a widespread boycott.
But the move against GOProud does seem to be all downside. It lacks even the
abstract nobility of “holding the line” or “standing athwart” leftward cultural
drift, because GOProud was a CPAC sponsor for two years before it was kicked
out. Meanwhile, the active, purposeful decision to leave it out in the cold
gives the Left — see Chris Hayes — a cudgel with which to beat the Right for
its implied intolerance. And unlike, say, the mythic “war on women,” they will
kind of have a point. “Tolerance” has been more or less weaponized by cultural
progressives, coming to connote a forced embrace of all the “good” kinds of
heterodoxy and a rejection of all the “bad” kinds. But tolerance in its
original, and best, sense requires merely a respectful coexistence governed by
a principle of charity, not a commandment to embrace or celebrate. CPAC could
perfectly illustrate the difference by inviting GOProud back into the tent.
No comments:
Post a Comment