Cliff Kincaid writes at AIM that the conservative movement has been “infiltrated” by gays and libertarians.  Oh my!

It is with sad irony that such a piece was published by an organization, which I am normally a fan of, called Accuracy in Media, as it is riddled with errors and distortions.

Let’s start with his description of the events at CPAC:

California Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chairman Ryan Sorba generated a media controversy when he was shown at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) denouncing the organizers for inviting a homosexual Republican group, GOProud, into the event as an official sponsor. In “controversial” remarks, Sorba said homosexuality was unnatural and that he welcomed more debate and discussion about the subject from his political adversaries.

But what many people don’t realize is that Sorba’s “outburst” was provoked by a speaker who preceded him, Alexander McCobin of Students For Liberty (SFL). McCobin went out of his way to use valuable time from the podium to thank the American Conservative Union, the main CPAC organizer, for making the controversial decision to approve GOProud’s participation.

There are two things we are apparently supposed to get from this. 1) Sorba was somehow provoked into being rude and obnoxious, and 2) there’s something wrong with thanking CPAC for standing up to their own stated principles of liberty.  In fact, the “valuable time” McCobin used was part of his own two-minutes, so that point just seems gratuitous.  As for being provoked, I hardly see what from McCobin’s speech justified Sorba booing into another microphone and making negative gestures while McCobin was speaking.

The idea that someone who behaves like that is in any way welcoming “more debate and discussion” is difficult to swallow. No one provoked him into being so rude. Maybe he’s born that way.

Kincaid then sympathetically recounts Sorba’s complaints that apparently no one at CPAC but him is actually conservative.  Finally he comes to SFL:

Proving the point, McCobin’s SFL is based at the libertarian Cato Institute, which has a conservative view on federal spending issues but promotes a U.S. military withdrawal from much of the world and very liberal social views, such as legalization of marijuana and other drugs.

Yes, McCobin’s group is libertarian, but Kincaid betrays his own problems with conservatism here.  How is it “very liberal” to see that drug prohibition is a big government position?  Does CPAC not claim to stand for limited government? Or is that only limited government except when it comes to outlawing activities that Cliff Kincaid does not like?

It is entirely within keeping with conservative principles to have a problem with the drug war.   This is a policy position, not a social position.  You can be against the drug war and against drug use at the same time. What would be “very liberal” would be to say that frequent drug use is a socially acceptable, or even commendable, behavior.  I don’t recall that being on SFL’s mission statement.  Kincaid seems incapable of wrapping his mind around the obvious difference between social pressure and government force, a fault too many of his “traditional conservatives” share.

For instance, another one of those unconservative cosponsors, by Kincaid’s standards, was the Poker Players Alliance.  Back at CPAC for the second year in a row, and again extremely popular among the younger crowd, PPA is having to fight the real infiltrators in the conservative midst who insist on using big government to tell people how to use their own money for entertainment.  Do the “traditional conservatives” that Kincaid and Sorba lionize see no contradiction in complaining about government control of the economy, while at the same time telling people they can’t play poker?  Before casting stones of conservative purity, perhaps Kincaid should examine the application of his own principles.

Finally, Kincaid turns his attention to GOProud, who he insists is not really conservative.

In fact, GOProud’s commitment to constitutionally protected homosexual sodomy (i.e., anal intercourse) is not a position that appears on the agenda of any conservative groups. Hence, using the term “gay conservative” to describe these people is either a deliberate deception or an oxymoron that doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

This is just stupid.  Sorry, I can think of few other words to describe it, and none of them appropriate for this blog.  Let me get this straight: because conservative groups do not say that the constitution protects “homosexual sodomy,” GOProud is not conservative?

First of all, this is a non-sequitur.  GOProud is conservative because it stands for conservative principles.

More importantly, it’s just factually incorrect. All conservative organizations say they are committed to “constitutionally protected homosexual sodomy” (although they apparently don’t all actually believe it) when they proclaim to hold principles like “personal liberty” and “individual responsibility.”  As in, the individual has the liberty and responsibility to decide on their own what private acts they engage in, regardless of whether or not Cliff Kincaid and “traditional conservatives” think they are harming themselves.

But it gets better:

GOProud, the organization at the center of the storm, claims to be “conservative” but supports the Obama policy of putting active and open homosexuals in the military, supports homosexual marriage, and even advocates a foreign policy of promoting acceptance of sodomy abroad. The latter is referred to as “Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.”

These “radical regimes,” such as the Christian-dominated government in Uganda, are trying to prevent the spread of AIDS and protect traditional moral values by toughening laws against homosexuality.

Is this the same “Christian-dominated” government of Uganda that wants to put gay people to death for engaging in homosexual acts? I believe it is.  How unconservative of GOProud to stand up to such brutal repression!  Kincaid then hyperventilates that morally opposing such tyrannical practices while supporting a move to allow openly gay soldiers  to serve in the military will lead to “gay soldiers being deployed to overthrow “homophobic” regimes.”  And they say gays are dramatic!

There was more nonsense in his piece, such as his confused understanding of the Cato Institute (which he weirdly tried to depict as a Soros organ), but I think I’ve refuted enough for the time being.

I try to avoid gratuitous insults here (regular readers probably know I am sometimes unsuccessful), but there is really no other conclusion: Cliff Kincaid is an idiot. If we should be disturbed by any infiltration of conservatism, it’s that of the small-minded ideology of fools like this.