5 Reasons It's Good For Libertarians, Gays and Donald Trump's Hair to Be At CPAC

The GOP just won its biggest victory in half a century, we've had the highest attendance ever at CPAC and yet the faces are so long, you'd think we were in a roomful of John Kerry imitators. How can so many people be so upset about CPAC when things are finally going in the right direction? Here's what you have to realize, folks. Most of the issues CPAC had this year are "high quality" problems, especially compared to the ones we had back in 2008. Let's take a look at some of the complaints we've heard about CPAC this year and it'll start to become a little clearer.

1) Donald Trump was allowed to speak? How ridiculous! So, we have a rich, famous, exciting celebrity businessman who's toying with the idea of running for President and he feels compelled to do a speech in front of 11,000 conservatives at CPAC to test the water? This is supposed to be a bad thing? Conservatives didn't call up Donald Trump and say, "We'll abandon all our beliefs if you just please come and speak to us." Instead, he came to OUR CONVENTION and he talked about issues that he hoped would APPEAL TO US. When you consider that the audience seemed to really enjoy Trump's talk and the fact that it increased the buzz around the convention, allowing Trump to have one of the many, many speaking slots that were available seems like a no-brainer.

2) How did CPAC go so gay? So GOProud, a group that's generally conservative on everything except gay marriage, is making a lot of waves. We've heard that they can't be gay and conservative, that they're infiltrators, that they're closet liberals, that they're trying to subvert conservatism, and that this is part of some secret plot to make us all like Elton John and dance theater. That's all just horseflop.

Once you understand that they're conservative and gay, it shouldn't shock anyone that they're pro-gay marriage. Guess what? If for some reason, there were tens of thousands of conservative illegal immigrants in the United States, mysteriously, you'd find that a large percentage of them support amnesty. If conservative think tanks started to get most of their funding from the government, guess what? Suspiciously, you'd start to notice that they'd become much friendlier to government spending. The truth is that a lot of people vote their interests and then figure out how to justify it later. So, if gay Americans think gay marriage is in their interest, they're probably going to support it even if they're conservative in every other area. It doesn't require a plot. It's just human nature.

So, if GOProud doesn't mind that most of the rest of their compatriots in the conservative movement disagree with them on gay marriage and probably always will, why should we insist that they have to agree with us on gay marriage before we'll allow them to support the conservative movement? As Christians, we're supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner and as conservatives, we should be looking for converts, not heretics.

3) CPAC loves radical Islam; CPAC loves it not. One of the great difficulties in dealing with radical Islam is that not only do radical Islamists feel justified in lying about their faith, but also a lot of moderate Muslims either stay quiet or lash out at the people who are trying to stop the crazies. So, there ends up being a lot of debate over who's REALLY a supporter of radical Islam, who's not, who's going over the top in fighting them, who's not -- it can all get very muddled, very fast, even when people have good intentions.

With that in mind, CPAC absolutely should have speakers and events that are anti-radical Islam -- and at least from my perspective, they seem to be adding more of them. For example, my friend Pamela Geller put on a powerful, very well attended event at CPAC that gave the family members of 9/11 victims a chance to speak out.

On the other hand, as Pamela has told me before, we need to "fight for the moderates," too. Moderate Muslims still tend to be culturally conservative and if they love freedom, free enterprise, the Constitution, and their country, they should be welcome at CPAC. Because of the nature of the fight against radical jihad, that can be a tough line to walk sometimes, but we just have to plod on and do the best we can.

4) Those darn Libertarian Paulnuts! They're everywhere! Conservatives have spent years telling Libertarians that the Libertarian Party is a waste of time and that they should join the GOP so they'll have a chance to actually make an impact. Now, the Libertarians are actually trying to change things from the inside and we're getting upset because it means Ron Paul is probably going to win the CPAC straw poll every year.

We should want ALL Libertarians in the GOP even if it occasionally means some brain-dead goof yells out "war criminal" when Donald Rumsfeld speaks (Fun Fact: When it was announced that Ron Paul won the straw poll, one of the people on bloggers’ row loudly yelled out "war criminal" across the main ballroom, which was both totally inappropriate and yet hilarious at the same time.)

This comes down to a confidence question: Who's changing whom? Are we going to change the Libertarians or are they going to change us? I'm betting on conservatism winning that battle of hearts and minds over the long haul. Let's engage, work together to defeat the socialists, and find out.

5) We gotta get rid of those darn social conservatives! Whether it's Libertarians, squishes, or Mitch Daniels, we're always hearing about how we've gotta get rid of those darn social conservatives. Nobody ever explains how that would even be possible, since the overwhelming majority of fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives and vice-versa, but there's always someone pushing that message.

The great thing about CPAC is that despite all the hype to the contrary, you get to see that "Get lost Christiancon" message rejected by big name conservative after conservative. Whether it's Ann Coulter,

"Liberals want religion destroyed and family destroyed because then you have loyalty directly to the state."

”Ladies and Gentlemen, we, as a nation, must move towards God, not away from Him.”

”My first year as Governor my pro-life agenda was adopted by our Democrat- majority legislature, and Americans United for Life named Mississippi the safest state in America for an unborn child.”

"We must hold sacred the privilege of the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman to promote the promulgation of our society because we cannot allow the destruction of the American family."

...what you find is that the most important names in the conservative movement are still standing up for God, life, and marriage.

At the end of the day, what it all comes down to is that growing an ideological movement is a messy business. There are personality conflicts, disagreements about goals, infighting and debate. That's not as bad as people think, especially when the alternative is the same old people who agree on everything, showing up every year in slightly smaller numbers and marching in lockstep to the same beat. The CPAC controversies we've seen this year are a result of a growing movement and that's good news for conservatism.

Once you understand that they're conservative and gay, it shouldn't shock anyone that they're pro-gay marriage. Guess what? If for some reason, there were tens of thousands of conservative illegal immigrants in the United States, mysteriously, you'd find that a large percentage of them support amnesty. If conservative think tanks started to get most of their funding from the government, guess what? Suspiciously, you'd start to notice that they'd become much friendlier to government spending. The truth is that a lot of people vote their interests and then figure out how to justify it later. So, if gay Americans think gay marriage is in their interest, they're probably going to support it even if they're conservative in every other area. It doesn't require a plot. It's just human nature.

Are we going to change the Libertarians or are they going to change us?

A good question.

Non-libertarian conservatives should ask themselves whether they prefer the libertarians...

- in a third party, getting a few percent of the vote in swing districts, or

- as part of the conservative party, participating in candidate and platform selection.

I look at it from a different perspective. The sodomite conservatives know that sodomite marriage and openly homosexual people in the military are things that are opposed by most of their fellow conservatives. They are willing to side with us on fiscal issues and probably the majority of social issues. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

If they want to join my church while practicing sin, I’ll have a problem with them — just as I would if they were heterosexuals openly engaging in adultery. However, if they want to work with us politically to save our nation, I think we might ought to give them some room.

Most of the homosexuals I’ve known have been pretty decent people — aside from their sexual practices. I’ve called some of them my friends. They know my stand. I don’t ask them to be other than who they are, and they don’t ask me to change my opinion that they are in bondage to a degrading and destructive sin.

Non-libertarian conservatives should ask themselves whether they prefer the libertarians...

Libertarians need to ask themselves if they want to accept the Republican party's platform on social issues or allow let Obama and the Democrats retain or regain power.

Under no scenario can the Republican party be a majority one without opposing the homosexual agenda and without being pro-life.

So, if GOProud doesn't mind that most of the rest of their compatriots in the conservative movement disagree with them on gay marriage and probably always will, why should we insist that they have to agree with us on gay marriage before we'll allow them to support the conservative movement?

What load of horse manure that comment is. Was Hawkins even at conference? GOProud agreeing to disagree? GOProud members went out their way to taunt and harass social conservatives at the event.

Well, screw that and screw them. CPAC has come to its sense and expelled the phony conservatives, whose only goal is promoting homosexuality within the conservative movement, from next year's conference.

Truly conservative homosexuals don't play identity politics.

Misses the whole point. If you stump for gay marriage, then you're not very conservative, just as you wouldn't be if you were stumping for amnesty. If you're for gay marriage, then you can't reasonably be called "conservative" in the first place, regardless of what any CPAC apologists might try to argue.

While you might be convinced of this, it doesn't make it true. Personally I have no use for gay marriage whatsoever, and I think it is a really awful idea with bad consequences in many ways. However I have plenty of friends who do either support it, or have no objections to it. These friends are extremely conservative fiscally and on defense/foreign policy issues. They abhor the left on just about every issue and have nothing but contempt for the loser in the Oval Office. One issue does not magically make them not conservative.

I have even argued extensively with some of these friends on the topic, and we will never see eye to eye, no matter what arguments I have used. None of that changes the fact that I consider them reliable conservatives, and in general I can expect their decisions on policy matters to be correct.

It seems to me that some conservatives seem to equate social conservative with the only real conservative, and that is a blatantly false premise. It is also the route to a minority party. There are three main parts to the conservative mindset; social, fiscal and defense/foreign policy. You don't have to be perfect in all ways to be acceptable. While I have little use for RINOs who don't support any of those legs to much of an extent, I can accept people who accept at least two out of three.

People around here are often purists to an unreasonable extent. They very often let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and that is not a winning tactic.

I don't either.

At the same time, though, I don't accept that they are "conservatives."

If they are right-leaning libertarians, that's fine, and probably a more appropriate term.

What I am zealous for is the term "conservative," not telling gays that they can't vote for us.

One issue does not magically make them not conservative.

Well, it's not "one" issue, it's a whole host of issues which tend to cluster around this particular lifestyle choice. And yes, that makes them not conservative. They may well be right-leaning libertarians - personally, I think that's a better term anywise - but they aren't conservative since they've rejected some pretty fundamental, traditional bases for our entire civilization in arriving at the positions on this lifestyle choice and its allied issues.

So you basically claim that nobody can be conservative if they are not socially conservative. I would disagree, as would many political analysts.

However say we accept your premise, say they are defined as right leaning libertarians, would it not be better to have them on our side, fighting the fights we are aligned on rather than to shun them? I would rather have these people on our side fighting against the threat of radical Islam and the profligate spending of the Left rather than have them sniping against conservatives over issues which IMO, are not quite as urgent.

My differences with the Libertarians are not based on any one single issue, but if I had to pick one, it would be foreign policy and support of Israel.

It occurs to me that while the Libertarians call for a “big tent” approach to the GOP, they, themselves are bent on shutting out the conservatives and limiting the dialog, referring to Bush administration conservatives like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as “neo-conservatives”.

When it comes right down to it, the only thing that we, as conservatives have in common with libertarians is the desire for small government because their concern for the constitution seems to only apply to preserving their own rights, while they trample over the free speech of traditional conservatives.

So you basically claim that nobody can be conservative if they are not socially conservative. I would disagree, as would many political analysts.

In a sense, yes, because I think you need all three "legs" of conservatism to be "conservative." I mean, we wouldn't call somebody a "conservative" if they were pro-amnesty and believed in Keynesian economics, would we?

However say we accept your premise, say they are defined as right leaning libertarians, would it not be better to have them on our side, fighting the fights we are aligned on rather than to shun them? I would rather have these people on our side fighting against the threat of radical Islam and the profligate spending of the Left rather than have them sniping against conservatives over issues which IMO, are not quite as urgent.

Well now, I never said I didn't want people who are generally with us to vote for us and work with us. I'm perfectly happy to work with libertarians, etc. so long as they understand that I will not be with them when it comes to liberalising things socially. I just won't be.

Liberaltarians will give the queers their agenda and fiscal conservative ideals. Why aren’t the queer bastards flocking to them?

If you are so unfamiliar with the nature of our two party system that you have to ask this, I would point you in the direction of some books on history and civics. Anyone with the barest grounding in this subject is well aware of the lack of success of third parties in U.S. politics historically. They are likely not overly interested in tilting at windmills.

There are two pro queer agenda parties, Liberaltarians and the RATS, they can join them.

I do have to say your post really go past the point of hyperbole well into the humor category. The fact that you invent a nonsense word to try an denigrate the Libertarians which is based on a term which has been destroyed by the left in spite of having a historically noble pedigree is particularly laughable. Personally I object to people referring to leftists and progressives as liberals because classic liberals had good ideas and promoted good principles. A conservative worth his socks would not have objections to free markets, individual freedom, and limited government, all of what are the tenets of classical liberalism.

The fact is that the left doesn't deserve to be able to sully that term, and to have a work associated with liberty trashed to such a degree is truly a crime.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.