Group Uninvites Itself From CPAC 2011 Because of Inclusion of GOProud

This again? To recap: last year, Liberty University boycotted the conservative conference over inclusion of GOProud and several other groups and individuals threatened to boycott (before they backed down). At the conference itself, an anti-gay and anti-GOProud speaker was booed from the stage.

Same ol', same ol'. A group called the American Principles Project is preemptively withdrawing from CPAC because of the inclusion of GOProud.

This decision is not taken lightly. 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.

Last year, of course, the American Principles Project participated in CPAC despite the presence of GOProud. That was a mistake, just as it was, in our opinion, a mistake for CPAC to countenance GOProud’s participation. Having now examined closely GOProud’s mission and its behavior since its inception, we can only conclude that the organization’s purposes are fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith in a thriving civil society. Needless to say, we are deeply persuaded that a thriving civil society is an indispensable bulwark against the relentless expansion of government, a phenomenon that has gripped much of the Western world and helped to fuel the present fiscal and economic crisis.

You can click over to Red State for CPAC director Lisa De Pasquale's response.

Though I'm certain I disagree with several of APP's positions, I think the tendency of this group and others to withdraw from participation when faced with disagreement isn't ultimately going to be good for conservatism or, for what it's worth, good for those groups. We wrote here at the HQ that primaries are a good place to hash out disagreements within the GOP. Conferences like CPAC are a good place to hash out disagreements within the conservative movement.

Sorta, but not really related: In February after CPAC, there was a great deal of commentary about how the Tea Party was the "new grassroots" and that in the face of Obama's out of control spending it had displaced the more traditional GOP grassroots. I just stumbled across this from Jim Geraghty's Campaign Spot in October 2007:

“Who could possibly replace social conservatives as the GOP’s grassroots?” asked Dan Sullivan, a northern New Jersey veteran of several campaigns. “Country club Republicans? Those people write checks and spend their free time riding horses. They;re not going to take off work and drive two days to volunteer on a Senate candidate’s race like pro-lifers and homeschoolers did for Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania in 2004.”

Hmmm. As always with such things, not a permanent "replacement" -- not really a replacement at all, I think; just a shuffling of priorities -- but the Tea Party sure caught "veteran" campaigners unaware, didn't it?

posted by Gabriel Malor at 05:58 PM

| Access Comments