Get PJ Media on your Apple

‘It’s Do or Die for Us’: Social Issues, CPACers, and the Future

Libertarianism and conservatism meet but much debate remains on any course adjustment as the GOP moves forward.

by
Rodrigo Sermeño and Fallon Forbush

Bio

March 17, 2013 - 11:57 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – Many young conservatives who were at CPAC want more attention paid to fiscal rather than social issues – a fact not only emphasized by some of the straw poll questions but by the opinions expressed by many of the participants at the three-day conference.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), one of the conference’s most popular speakers and winner of CPAC’s straw poll, urged Republican leaders on the event’s first day to pay attention to the “Facebook generation.”

“They doubt Social Security will be there for them, they worry about jobs and rent and money and student loans. … They aren’t afraid of individual liberty,” said Paul.

“Ask the Facebook generation if we should put a kid in jail for the non-violent crime of drug use and you’ll hear a resounding ‘no.’ Ask the Facebook generation if they want to bail out too big to fail banks with their hard-earned tax dollars and you’ll hear a ‘hell no,’” he continued.

Former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the senator’s father and a staunch supporter of individual liberty, won the 2010 and 2011 straw polls, but never successfully competed for the Republican nomination.

Many organizations that promote individual liberty took part in the conference. The Competitive Enterprise Institute hosted a gay-rights panel. Students for Liberty, a libertarian nonprofit, had a booth at the event and its founder, Alexander McCobin, participated in a panel alongside Jeff Frazee, the executive director of Young Americans for Liberty – another libertarian-leaning organization.

Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, commended Sen. Paul for his filibuster earlier in the week and said, “I for one applaud this new generation of liberty-minded Republicans.”

Not all participants equated the increasing support for individual liberty at the event with support for certain social issues, such as gay rights.

Evelyn Weinstein, a student from the state of New York, told PJ Washington about her confrontation with another participant over her support for gay rights.

“I’m a fiscal conservative, I believe in individual rights and small government, and I’m standing here being called a liberal because I support gay marriage,” said Weinstein. “If there’s a future for the conservative movement, it will have to be one that supports gay rights, especially with my generation – it is do or die for us.”

Weinstein – along with other young conservatives – filled a room at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, the site of this year’s gathering, to hear a panel voice the need for tolerance within the Republican Party.

The panel happened a day before Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced his reversal on gay marriage after his son told him he was gay.

“[I want] him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have—to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” he told the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Friday.

“I don’t have a problem with gay marriage,” said Ben Dorchester, an attendee from Pennsylvania. “I see why so many conservatives disagree with it and they’re entitled to their opinion.”

Dorchester said he would support a Republican Party candidate that embraces gay marriage because he does not “believe conservatism is a take-it-all movement. Many people may disagree on several issues and still agree on core conservative values.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
There's a great deal of debate as to whether we should or should not separate "fiscal conservatism" from "social conservatism". I say that there is no essential difference between the two. As per buzzsawmonkey below (http://pjmedia.com/blog/its-do-or-die-for-us-social-issues-cpacers-and-the-future/?show-at-comment=118136#comment-118136) we need to stop blindly accepting the Progressive's vocabulary and agenda.

Conservatives are conservative because they see the wisdom in long-established ways of doing things, ways that have been proven over time. Progressives value intentions over results, personal gratification over long-term thinking, the individual over the society. They also tend to argue by extremes: your way is wrong, you are an extremest, we must go to the opposite extreme instead. Obesity is bad, obese people drink too much sugar, we must bad large soft drinks.

Conservatives, on the other hand, pursue the right solution. Results are important, regardless of intentions, and we must consider not only the intended results but the second- and third-order side effects. We favor time-tested ways of organizing a society because they are time-tested. We change them reluctantly and carefully because we value not only the individual but the society in which we must live - and it's stability leads to the wellbeing of the family and ultimately the individual.

Before you cry for some drastic social change, whether public acceptance of homosexual behavior, legalization of previously controlled substances, or acceptance of women into the military, first do the research into why these things were not done or prohibited previously. Study history, study the failures of those who did accept or practice them, learn from our predecessors' mistakes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What we see with the comments of several of the allegedly conservative posters here a complete acceptance of the leftwing political agenda at its own face value:

From their unthinking acceptance of the term "gay"---a 19th century slang term applied to theatre people, drug addicts, prostitutes, practicing homosexuals, and other bohemians---being applied to the current incarnation of the homosexual-rights movement;

To their refusal to look at any aspect whatsoever of the history of that movement;

To their refusal to look at the current social effects of having granted that movement's past demands;

To their unthinking acceptance of that movement's current demands without any examination whatsoever;

To their taking of that movement's word as to the probable effects of granting its current demands;

We can see a complete and utter abdication of historical analysis, and of critical thinking about cause and effect, about the nature of "rights" as they exist under the Constitution, and about the difference between "rights" and "legalization. There is not even a whisper of intimation that they apprehend that these issues exist, let alone require thought, analysis, and discussion.

Instead we see merely a series of exhortations, in most cases in the crudest terms, that others follow their lead and cave to the movement demands as presented.

I think that is intellectually shameful.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (35)
All Comments   (35)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
What we see with the comments of several of the allegedly conservative posters here a complete acceptance of the leftwing political agenda at its own face value:

From their unthinking acceptance of the term "gay"---a 19th century slang term applied to theatre people, drug addicts, prostitutes, practicing homosexuals, and other bohemians---being applied to the current incarnation of the homosexual-rights movement;

To their refusal to look at any aspect whatsoever of the history of that movement;

To their refusal to look at the current social effects of having granted that movement's past demands;

To their unthinking acceptance of that movement's current demands without any examination whatsoever;

To their taking of that movement's word as to the probable effects of granting its current demands;

We can see a complete and utter abdication of historical analysis, and of critical thinking about cause and effect, about the nature of "rights" as they exist under the Constitution, and about the difference between "rights" and "legalization. There is not even a whisper of intimation that they apprehend that these issues exist, let alone require thought, analysis, and discussion.

Instead we see merely a series of exhortations, in most cases in the crudest terms, that others follow their lead and cave to the movement demands as presented.

I think that is intellectually shameful.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Before we start debating same-sex marriage,

there's a shorter-term goal the GOP needs to deal with: Making gay Americans feel welcome in the party.

Why should a young gay American who has become enthused over the theories of Hayek, Milton Friedman, etc.,; and who opposes Obama's left-wing agenda, be made to feel like an outsider just because he's gay?

It's one thing to reject same-sex marriage as a social experiment with a revered traditional institution.

It's quite another to call gays "homos," "perverts," "sick," "mentally ill," "dangerous," and other names, and refuse to allow them to even come near.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, except that they _are_ mentally ill. Homosexuality is a compulsive behavior with many causes and triggers, but is not and should not be considered normal.

Re marriage, see especially the various articles by Robert Lopez - http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't recall any commenter using the nasty terms you just used. And, in reply to your previous comment on my earlier observation, I think it's well-established that marriage has always been assumed to be between one man and one woman. I think that fits the definition of "heterosexual".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Furthermore, your believing that anyone who has a question regarding SSM is just naturally a gay hater is absurd. Making that connection is bigotry, pure and simple.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"......same-sex marriage as a social experiment with a revered traditional institution."

Years ago this is what people thought with regard to the act of marrying someone of a different race. The institution of heterosexual marriage survived miscegenation quite nicely & it is bound to do the same in the case of gay marriages.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No similarity between the two. As mentioned above, marriage has been defined as a contract between a man and the woman for the formation of a family for the last 5 thousand years or so. Race has never been an issue generally, only in specific instances where certain societies have felt a need to oppress certain ethnic minorities or protect the status of the majority.

On the other hand, even the ancient Romans and Greeks - who certainly accepted homosexual behavior as an integral part of their society - where loath to allow same-sex "marriages" (and yes, there was an attempt to do so). Marriage has many purposes, but fundamentally it protects the basic man-woman-child family unit that is the cornerstone of society. It recognizes the distinct biological, physical, and psychological differences between men and women and the different roles that they play in bearing and raising children, and the different constraints that must be put on them to keep a society stable.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Indeed, no one dares proclaim the sanity of Nero, who made the first serious attempt at instituting same-sex marriage, because it is obvious to everyone that he was completely out of his mind.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Is it possible that the Homosexual Rights movement is being used as a tool by the Secular Liberal Progressives as a means of de-constructing what to them, is nothing but another part of a hierarchical society? What comes after same-sex marriage: polygamy? sibling marriage? incestuous marriage? corporate marriage among 3-4 couples of same or different sexes? If EVERYTHING bcomes marriage........then there is no marriage at all.
Perhaps that is the goal after all.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I doubt seriously that the gay marriage issue is going to lead to any of the things you list above. It's an easy line to draw at the boundary of two consenting adults. Marriage equality for the gay community is the theme, not opening the door to a host of other ridiculous arrangements.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's not about "other ridiculous arrangements" to include in the sacrament of marriage, bobbcat; it's about the replacement of a moral code based on belief in a higher power with a moral code based on belief in a secular government state. It is about making God irrelevant and replacing Him with Obama, or the next false idol. Secular progressives don't give a d*mn who you marry; they only care to whom you give power over your inalienable rights. Once they have that power, you will play hell getting them back!!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Perhaps. But remember, 12-15 years ago, the idea of 2 members of the same sex being married was considered ridiculous , now it's the law in 9 states and counting. There is a strong polygomous movement in the southwest. What seems ridiculous today is often the norm of tomorrow. All a movement needs are sympathetic judges who feel that their rights under 14th amendment are being violated.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't understand why gays are so determined to invade the heterosexual world by getting into traditional marriages. If they are as proud of being gay as they claim to be, why create a facsimile of a heterosexual institution? It makes no sense. And who will benefit the most from gay marriage? Why, lawyers, of course. Divorce lawyers must be salivating at the prospect of all those new clients!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They want public acceptance of their lifestyle. Which, in and of itself, is somewhat telling. Look at Joe or Sue Hetero on the street. Can you tell by their actions or clothing (other than, perhaps, a ring on the left hand) their sexual life? No, and they would say that it's none of your business. Only the homosexuals boast of what they do and demand public approval of it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A quest for equality can hardly be construed with credibility as a case of invading anything. Who benefits from equality? Everyone. Who in their right mind wants to be a target of unreasonable discrimination? Is it that difficult to wrap your mind around the concept that for most gays, it's just as natural for them to be that way as it is for heterosexuals to be straight?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What on earth do you mean by "invade the heterosexual world"???

Heterosexuals don't own America.

This is America, there is only ONE country for all citizens, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.

Gay citizens and straight citizens are equal before the Constitution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Correct.

And both have equal rights to marry membersd of the opposite sex.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Previous 1 2 View All