Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Bench Memos - National Review Online

Federal Judiciary

: Bench Memos - National Review Online

CPAC?s Culture Club

‘Is conservatism a three-legged stool or not?'

In his question, Princeton politics professor Robert P. George hearkens back to the Ronald Reagan–era metaphor for the concept of the Right as an integrated whole of foreign-policy, economic, and social conservatism.

And it's the question at the heart of a controversy surrounding this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, set to convene next week in Washington, D.C., as it has every year since 1974.

#ad#In typical professorial style, George asks the question even though he is confident about the answer. George is the founder of the American Principles Project (APP), which is leading a boycott of CPAC this year. George believes conservatism absolutely involves core tenets about economics, about foreign policy, and about the family. And when a conference calls itself conservative, that should mean 'that core social conservative causes -- life and marriage -- should have the same standing as core economic and national security conservative causes,' George explains.

CPAC, at least at the moment, doesn't seem to be as sure about the answer to George's question. And George's answer isn't the position of GOProud, which is a participating organization in this year's event. GOProud is signed up for two of the legs, being 'committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy,' according to its website. The organization has just written 'crazy social issues' out of what it means to be conservative.

That 'crazy social issues' phrase comes from a comment made by its chairman, Christopher Barron, during an MSNBC appearance this fall -- and it underscores the reasoning behind the boycott. At best, GOProud is indifferent to the issue of defending traditional marriage; it supports letting the states figure it out. But in practice, GOProud has proven itself to be opposed to the defense -- and defenders -- of marriage, argues Frank Cannon, chairman of APP.

'The issue is not that GOProud works on only four of the five traditional items on the conservative agenda -- rather, it omits -- because it actively opposes -- one part of the core,' according to the official boycott letter that was sent to CPAC chairman David Keene in late November, signed by Cannon, Gary Bauer (president of American Values), Brian Brown (president of the National Organization of Marriage), and Mathew Staver (president of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's law school). 'It is no more acceptable as a participant at CPAC than a group that said it embraced the ‘traditional conservative agenda' but actively worked for higher taxes and greater governmental control of the economy,' the letter continues. Also: 'A vibrant conservative coalition must rest upon the powerful and mutually trusting alliance of social and economic conservatives.'

The relationship between GOProud and social conservatives wouldn't best be described as a 'trusting alliance.' 'Antagonistic' might be more accurate, at least in how it has played out in the media -- and the spat didn't start with the CPAC boycott.

GOProud presents itself as a victim. 'The reason the boycotters applied a litmus test to us is because we were born gay,' its executive director, Jimmy LaSalvia, told the New York Times, where the controversy was featured this weekend. But GOProud has not simply disagreed with the rest of the conservative movement on marriage while highlighting other issues. It has become a go-to group for comments about family and sexuality -- a gift to a media seeking to highlight divisions among the Right.

#page#GOProud was created as an alternative to the Log Cabin Republicans, which had all but become an arm of the Democratic party. Columnist and former George W. Bush speechwriter Bill McGurn, a well-known social conservative, welcomed the new group 'as conservatives who want to contribute to the team.' But it is no contribution to the team to treat one of its leaders the way GOProud has treated South Carolina senatorJ im DeMint.

Last fall, Barron all but 'wrote Jim DeMint out of the conservative movement,' as Cannon tells it. In the heat of the midterm campaigns, GOProud joined liberals in attacking DeMint over comments he made about religious freedom and education -- comments that bore no connection to any kind of legislative initiative. Barron has also said (on MSNBC, again) that DeMint -- who's now considered a Tea Party kingmaker -- 'has given up the ability to lead on any issues conservatives care about.'

#ad#Some have defended GOProud's inclusion on the grounds of 'outreach' to gays. But 'outreach' is a 'misnomer,' Cannon argues, when it translates to, 'We're going to increase outreach while downplaying social issues.' This point was at the core of the November boycott letter: 'We believe that, in general, the conservative movement is strengthened by the presence within it of organizations that give priority to particular, even single, issues. It is not necessary for each group within a political movement to embrace the fullness of a detailed and defined philosophy. But it is necessary for each group within any coherent movement not to stand in diametrical opposition to one or more of its core principles. It is our conviction that the institution of marriage and the family qualify -- historically, philosophically and empirically -- as such core principles. An organization committed to the ultimate abandonment of the legal and social meaning of marriage by definition disqualifies itself from recognition as a partner in the conservative cause.'

And while much has been made of some Republicans' rallying around GOProud, the priorities of an explicitly 'conservative' political-action conference are going to be different than, say, a Republican get-out-the-vote effort. As one longtime conservative activist familiar with the CPAC dispute puts it: 'We're trying to build a movement, not a popularity contest. We want to educate about conservatism.#...#CPAC is confused about what it wants to advance.'

Downplaying marriage and social conservatism doesn't make much political sense to Cannon. 'It's a strange thing to talk about growing conservatism when in reality you are undervaluing the enormous energy surrounding the social issues,' Cannon says. He points to marriage-related votes in 31 states, from California to Maine, as a reminder to the GOP that there is grassroots support for protecting traditional marriage.

Cannon and others are open to a gay conservative group of the kind GOProud has purported to be -- but one that won't contribute to 'the gradual erosion of marriage as a tenet of conservatism,' as he believes GOProud has. As is, Cannon sees GOProud and CPAC as actively moving to 'redefine conservatism.'

Though the boycott has expanded since its introduction, Cannon (who has been attending CPAC for over 20 years) and the other original signers haven't put pressure on others to drop out. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, and other potential Republican presidential candidates will be speaking at CPAC this year. And while conservative stars such as DeMint and freshman senator Marco Rubio won't be there, they haven't said they're avoiding the conference due to GOProud's presence. Rubio's absence, in fact, seems to have everything to do with his strategic decision to focus on his new job and Florida -- CPAC is one of many events he has passed up since being sworn in. In addition, the Heritage Foundation will not be involved in CPAC this year, but its decision predates the boycott, and the Family Research Council has been opting out of CPAC since 2007.

#page#People grumbling about CPAC have a whole host of concerns, including financial management. This year, CPAC chairman David Keene will be leaving CPAC -- as well as the ACU Foundation, which runs it, and the associated American Conservative Union. Conservatives inside and outside CPAC's inner circle expect a mission fight to come; many are optimistic about a restart.

Despite the boycott, Cannon and AFF will be watching what happens at the conference. 'I'm not asking any candidates to not be there. I'm asking people to define what they mean by conservatism and what they're going to do on marriage and life and related issues like religious liberty,' Cannon says.

#ad#Cannon is particularly interested in what Indiana governor Mitch Daniels will say; last year, Daniels infamously proposed a 'truce' on social issues. Such talk, unsurprisingly, has not been well-received by many conservatives. And if the recent Republican National Committee chairmanship race -- in which candidates worked overtime to prove their social-conservative credentials -- is any indication, the road for a candidate who endorses such an idea will be difficult.

In the final analysis, GOProud may be doing conservatism a real service. The organization is helping a movement and party discern how to deal in a principled and prudent way with fundamental, personal issues in the political realm -- in the contentious public square of a fallen world. Contrary to conventional wisdom, American politics has not evolved beyond social issues. And while 'don't ask, don't tell' was reversed legislatively -- with the endorsement of GOProud -- the issue of enforcing full combat integration of homosexual service members is far from settled, with questions of basic enforcement and religious liberty in the chaplaincy, among others, to come. Polling of voters who identified with the Tea Party movement suggested they are conservative on these issues, too, not just on the economy.

This year's CPAC will be the largest ever. But don't let a full ballroom mislead, one source familiar with the situation cautions: 'No one should allow themselves to believe that all is well -- absent some recommitment by CPAC leaders to all of conservativism's components, including marriage, next year's CPAC will likely be quite different. And that would be a shame.'  

--- Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online.

Full post as published by Bench Memos - National Review Online on February 01, 2011 (boomark / email).