RWN’s Interview With GOProud’s Christopher Barron

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

RWN’s Interview With GOProud’s Christopher Barron

Written By : John Hawkins

As you may know, GOProud is the only gay conservative organization out there and they’re doing a NYC fund raiser, featuring Ann Coulter, called Homocon. Right Wing News is sponsoring the event.

Naturally, this has generated a lot of controversy, so I decided to interview Christopher Barron, the chairman of GOProud, talk about the whole controversy and some related issues.

What follows is the slightly edited transcript of our conversation.

Joseph Farah has been trying to draw attention to WorldNetDaily by publicly disinviting Ann Coulter from a WND convention she wasn’t booked for in the first place over her appearance at Homocon. Now Farah’s gone on gay radio shows to denounce Coulter for speaking to your group, which is kind of weird if you think about it. Honestly I consider Farah to be a clown and I don’t think he believes anything he’s saying. I think it’s a publicity thing for him. Still, he’s drawing a lot of attention to your event; so I think it’s fair to ask, do you have any comments on Joe Farah?

My only comment is I think at this point, it’s clear exactly what this has been about. Ann said from the get-go that the reason why Farah did this was publicity — and everything that Farah has done from the moment that he cancelled Ann from a speaking engagement which she wasn’t even booked for makes it clear that this is about nothing more than publicity. If he was really standing on principle, it would be one thing. I’d still disagree with it, but it would be one thing — but he’s not standing on principle, he’s pretending to stand on principle to promote his website. He’s learned what the liberals have learned, that if you attack Ann Coulter, you get attention. Surprise, surprise, it works for the Left and it works for Joseph Farah.

Now believe it or not, I have actually not caught a lot of flack for sponsoring Homocon. Very little, actually. But still, I’ve heard some complaints and there are two I’ve heard most often. So I wanted to pitch them out to you and let you just respond to the ones I’ve heard most often.

The first is that GOProud is a group that engages in identity politics and conservatives shouldn’t support groups that do that. What would you say to that?

The reality is that it’s not engaging in identity politics to make the case to groups as to why they ought to support conservative policies.

We make the case that everything that is on our legislative agenda, everything that we support, we say is good for the country and it’s good for gays and lesbians. We think that those policies that are good for America are good for gay people. So I don’t think that is traditional identity politics.

The flip side of that is that we can’t continue to lose group after group because we simply refuse to have a debate about this. We’ve lost African-American voters for decades because the belief is that we don’t care about African-American voters — and what’s outrageous is that we support the policies that are actually good for African-American voters. But we’ve let the Left drown it out because we won’t engage in quote unquote identity politics. I think that’s unfortunate. The same thing can be said of Jewish Americans and Latino Americans.

The truth is, is that we have the conservative policies that are good for all Americans, good for conservatives, good for Jewish people, good for African-Americans, good for gays and lesbians, and good for all people. We shouldn’t be afraid to say guess what? Our policies are good for you.

The second complaint I’ve heard is from some Christian conservatives who say that even if conservatives make it clear that they disagree with you on issues like gay marriage and gays in the military, that supporting your group in any way will end up promoting those policies and a gay lifestyle by default. What would you say to those people?

We have made it clear from the get-go that we think that social conservatives are an important part of the conservative movement. And, I don’t think by having social conservatives in the movement who may disagree with me on things like marriage or gays in the military, it’s somehow corrupting the movement from my perspective. So, I guess I don’t understand how it would be corrupting the movement from their perspective.

There’s a core of issues that I think all of us in the conservative movement can and should agree on and those are the issues that are at the forefront of our political discussion today. Debates about the size and scope of government, about tax policy, about whether or not we’re going to have socialized health care in this country. These are things that all of us can agree on. I mean, we’re not all going to agree all the time. And accepting our 80 percent friend rather than forcing him to be 20 percent enemy, I think makes smart politics for conservatives.

Now, since Homocon made the news, what has been the overall reaction on the right? Has it been good? Has it been bad? What would you call it overall?

The overall reaction has been spectacular, absolutely spectacular. Person after person has come out and said we think this is great. Right Wing News is a perfect example. You don’t agree with us on marriage and don’t ask don’t tell, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t see the value in this event.

You know Erick Erickson at Redstate, somebody else certainly would not be considered as being for repealing don’t ask don’t tell or for gay marriage, said that he thought that it was great that Ann was speaking at Homocon. You know Matt Lewis, too. I mean, you know, conservative leader after conservative leader gets it and understands that this is good for the movement and it’s good for all of us.

Now, along those lines, what would you say to liberal critics of Homocon who’ve been pretty scathing about the event, who are upset that Ann Coulter’s headlining, or that people like me are sponsoring, because we don’t agree with your group on issues like gay marriage and gays in the military. What would you say to them?

I’d tell them to get a life. Honestly, I would.

The fact is that we don’t take our marching orders from the Left and we’re certainly not going to be bullied by them. I’m not surprised that they’re outraged that you’re sponsoring it or outraged we’re having Ann speak. They’re outraged over everything. I mean these are the folks who wake up in the morning outraged. So, that’s what I would say: I would tell them to get a life.

Now, last question here. Do you find it odd that so many of these groups on the left basically say to gay Americans, “The only issues you’re supposed to care about at all are gay marriage and gays in the military and everything else is irrelevant?” Do you think that’s helpful for gay Americans?

No, it’s not helpful at all. The fact is that gay people, like any other Americans, sit down at their table at night and what are the things that they’re talking about? What are the things that they’re worried about? They’re worried about jobs. They’re worried about healthcare. They’re worried about taxes. They’re worried about retirement security. On all of these issues, the gay left has no answers.

The only thing they say is, “marriage or bust.” That’s it. You have to be for marriage. Well, you want to know what? What we say is, “Yes, marriage is great,” but there are lots of other things that gay people should be for that would improve the lives of all Americans, including gays and lesbians…… free market healthcare reform that would result in more domestic partner benefits becoming more available and giving individuals, not the government control over their healthcare. Social Security personal savings accounts would allow people to take a portion of their Social Security, invest it and own, and pass it on to whomever they want. If we replace the income tax with a fair tax, we would automatically have straight couples and gay couples on the exact same tax footing.

So on issue after issue, I try to make the case to gay people that, yes, marriage is important, but there’s a whole lot of other issues that are just as important, if not more important, to the every day lives of gay people.

Thank you. I really appreciate your time.

Also see,

An Interview With GOProud’s Christopher Barron on Liberty University, CPAC, And The Log Cabin Republicans.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

Conservativism is incompatible with identity politics and victim groups. I really don't know what's happened to you lately, Hawkins, but it makes me sad to see how you've abandoned what used to be your principles. Sponsoring a “gay Conservative” group to get more Republican votes, accepting the liberal Mike freaking Castle over a real Conservative candidate in Delaware just because he's got an “R” after his name… you really ought to change the name of the site from Right Wing News to Republican Party News.
FurrowedBrow

I love the way people keep saying that Farrah's only after publicity. Anyone ever notice that Ann Coulter could use a little publicity herself?

Mr. Hawkins, the longer you act as useful idiot for the gay agenda, the more impossible it becomes for you to dig yourself out of this tactical error.
FurrowedBrow

Mr. Hawkins, you keep insisting that you are being strategic, ignoring the fact that homosexuals were already welcome to the conservative movement as INDIVIDUALS.

The only people being strategic here are the activists whose central goal is to disable conservative opposition to special rights for gays.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“ignoring the fact that homosexuals were already welcome to the conservative movement as INDIVIDUALS”

Exactly! In the interview, Baron says “Debates about the size and scope of government, about tax policy, about whether or not we're going to have socialized health care in this country. These are things that all of us can agree on.” Great, so that's Conservatism. Why does anyone need to say “oh, but I'm a gay Conservative?” So what? Why drag your personal life into it? If they're not trying to push gay “marriage,” then they're just plain old ordinary Conservatives who happen to be gay, and that's fine by me. So why create this artificial separate identity by calling themselves “gay Conservatives?” It's a smokescreen for people trying to push gay “marriage,” and Hawkins is bamboozled into thinking one can oppose gay “marriage” while giving support and affirmation to a goup that supports it!
FurrowedBrow

You reject supposedly-moderate Muslim organizations unless they openly denounce Islamic efforts to radicallly change our laws and institutions, but then require no such thing with this group. Not only does GOProud refuse to denounce the gay agenda, they OPENLY endorse it.

Would you accept a group called “ConservitIslam” if they included the goal of giving Islamic American citizens the right to practice Shariah law? And then tell us, “We need their votes! Don't be so bigoted and closed-minded!”
FurrowedBrow

The disturbing thing here is the way these people keep focusing on Farah, “he's a fake Christian”, “he's looking for publicity” . . . rather than the legitimate concerns about this decision.

This is not about Farah. This is about someone from that conservative conference last year deciding to throw the rank-and-file under the bus by allowing GOProud in as a sponser and speaker. Instead of listening to another point of view and reconsidering THAT bad decision, they decided to just dig in.

GOProud will never convince the conservative movement to include support for gay rights in its platform. It doesn't need to. All GOProud has to do is convince the conservative movement to drop OPPOSITION to gay rights from its platform and leave others to finish the job.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

That's too far.

Radical Islam is far different than asking for government recognition of a gay union. Similar? Perhaps, but on no where near the same page.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

Cav, I understand where you're coming from, I really do. At the same time, I have to wonder if you would condemn a Jewish conservative group that believes America should support Israel in removing all the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, despite America's position being the two state solution.

It seems to me like you wouldn't condemn a group like this, even though it is no different than GOProud.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“I have to wonder if you would condemn a Jewish conservative group that believes America should support Israel in removing all the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza”

You mean, like ethnic cleansing? That's against American and Conservative principles. Also, the idea of a special “Jewish Conservative” group sounds just as ridiculous to me as a special “gay Conservative” group or a special “anchovy pizza-eating Conservative” group. Conservative principles are universal.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“The disturbing thing here is the way these people keep focusing on Farah, “he's a fake Christian”, “he's looking for publicity” . . . rather than the legitimate concerns about this decision.”

Sounds exactly like the standard Liberal method of making personal attacks instead of answering arguments, doesn't it?
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

So you have no answer for the question, then? Would you accept a ConservIslam group which included in its agenda the hope of getting shari'a law accepted as binding in American Islamic communities, or not?
FurrowedBrow

To the extent that there are non-terrorist Muslims who wish to use our legal/political system to radically change this country's legal, educational, and cultural institutions — the two are very similar. I AM NOT equating gay activists with terrorists. I am saying that gay conservatives are using similar legal/political tactics to advance their agenda.

People like John Hawkins and Ann Coulter see those tactics when it comes to Muslim activists, but then they turn around and attack conservatives who point them out when it comes to gay activists.
FurrowedBrow

I would also point out, Mr. Hawkins, that someone could just as easily label your decision to jump out in front of what you perceive to be (and cast as) a wave of support for GOProud's inclusion as “publicity stuntish”.

Hoping the more popular sites will link to this interview today, are you?
President Friedman

“Would you accept a group called “ConservitIslam” if they included the goal of giving Islamic American citizens the right to practice Shariah law?”

Depending upon the extent of their practice, I might. If they want the right to beat their wives and perform female circumcision, I'm against it on the grounds of human rights. If they want to formally organize within their community to attempt to resolve some social disputes outside of the court system and according to legally acceptable religious customs, I don't have a problem with that on general principle, though their authority would be rightfully limited. Many communities have “restorative justice” programs that operate in similar ways, and they aren't problematic. Self-determinism, religious freedom, and local politics are inherently conservative concepts.

And if ConservatIslam was willing to recruit people to fight for smaller government, lower taxes, and personal freedom (including the freedom to subject your own bad self to whackadoo religious rules), I'd accept them. Would I go to their conferences? No. Would I throw money at their group? No. Would I boycott other conservative groups who accepted them? Probably not.
FurrowedBrow

What if they wanted the United States military to divert focus, time, and resources to making huge accomodations for Muslim soldiers?
NotALibertarian

What if they wanted to force employers — public and private — to recognize their concept of marriage, and award benefits to their spouses, regardless of how many they decide to take?
President Friedman

I would disagree with them, but my refusal to accept them as political allies would hinge upon their willingness to vote for politicians who don't support these things, or for whom they are a very low priority. I have plenty of issues that I disagree wtih social conservatives on, but small government, low taxes, and individual liberty will trump those issues almost every time.

So if a group supports a few things I don't agree with, but is willing to put those issues on the political backburner for the sake of accomplishing larger goals, then we can do business. I don't expect them to completely disavow those things, just not to obstinately reject any politician who doesn't support them.
mightysamurai

Different in practice and scope, perhaps. But the same in principle.

In both cases we're talking about a group who wants to fundamentally change the country in a way that conservatives consider detrimental to society.
FurrowedBrow

Just curious: If the United States were not in a fiscal crisis, and there was a more moderate president/Congress in office, how important would opposing gay marriage & a repeal of DADT be to you on a scale from 1(not at all) to 10 (vital)?
President Friedman

Opposing gay marriage = 3

Opposing repeal of DADT = 5

Neither are issues that would be very likely to influence my vote one way or another. There are no politicians seriously advocating my solution to the gay marriage question (get government out of the marriage business altogether), and I think DADT is destined to be overturned, the only question is whether this is a good time to do it or not, and I lean towards 'NOT' while we have combat troops deployed.
FurrowedBrow

Thank you for your honesty. So, a poster who admits he doesn't really care that much about an issue thinks people who are gravely concerned about it should just put their concerns about it on the “back burner”.

. . . And if that ends up being a huge mistake, no skin off your nose, right PF?
President Friedman

Well, FB, everybody's gotta vote their conscience as best they can. I'd say there are certainly circumstances where GOProud would need to put gay marriage on the backburner in deference to supporting a well-qualified conservative candidate who is against gay marriage. If they refuse to support any otherwise conservative candidate who doesnt' also support gay marriage, then the alliance will never work. But assuming all parties can agree to disagree on an issue or two, I think GOProud has promise of helping break the cultural meme that the GOP is only a club for straight, white, old, Christian, American males, and that's a stereotype that needs to be broken.
FurrowedBrow

That stereotype was already on its way to being broken, without GOProud.

You're pretty okay with gay marriage, and I'm pretty okay with the world accusing the GOP of being “anti-gay” (because we happen to think that gays already have all of the rights everyone else has).

I don't think you are a conservative. I think you are one of many libertarians who see an opportunity to comandeer the conservative movement. (Never let a crisis go to waste!) Looks like we're not going to agree.
President Friedman

“I think you are one of many libertarians who see an opportunity to comandeer the conservative movement.”

Well, I've always been more libertarian than conservative, but I've also always been willing to vote for and support politicians who are much more socially conservative than myself (my Senator Tom Coburn being one of my favorites), if I feel they have the right priorities. So yes, I do feel like the Tea Party movement has been a boon to libertarians seeking more elbow room in the GOP, and I am glad the political issues I've always focused on are suddenly a higher priority for social conservatives than they've been in the past. But I fail to see why that has to be some kind of dealbreaker between you and I when it comes to supporting politicians who want to give us more freedom to pursue our own happiness. I've supported social conservatives for years and in a state like Oklahoma I'm sure I will continue to do so. I'm just glad to see more libertarians joining the fight. You should be too.
FurrowedBrow

Okay. This comments space is too narrow. I need to start a wider one. If you're able to continue this, look for a new post that starts “MR FRIEDMAN,”
FurrowedBrow

MR FRIEDMAN,

I appreciate your support for social conservatives in spite of your not being one of them.

But the fact is, once libertarians convince the conservative movement to drop its opposition to the gay agenda, there will be NO ONE fighting it. You know this is so.

Libertarians tend to focus on their ideology rather than actual consequences of their ideology applied. Rather than actually discuss, say, the Red Light District in Amsterdam — what it has become, and the fact that NO ONE wants to raise a family there for a reason, they romanticize about “freedom” and the “pursuit of happiness”. The fact is, though, the founding fathers did not consider the kind of freedoms you are so okay with to be legitimate ways to pursue happiness.
wassamatta4u

Um, no. GOProud is not the only gay conservative organization out there. I'm not even gay and I know that! Yeesh!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Rob-Schellinger/501387091 Rob Schellinger

What's “the gay agenda”?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Rob-Schellinger/501387091 Rob Schellinger

GOProud isn't “identity politics” as that requires a belief that the group is oppressed or aggrieved. GOProud does not. As gay conservatives, we're merely telling others that we are gay and conservative and that you don't have to be a liberal. You know, like the National Black Republican Association.

And what, exactly, is the “gay agenda”? Does anybody really know?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Rob-Schellinger/501387091 Rob Schellinger

What other groups are there? LCR has thrown in with the left way too many times.
FurrowedBrow

Gay marriage and a repeal of DADT. GOProud includes these goals in its platform, so I don't really understand why you're being so coy, as if it's just our imagination, or something.

There are people pushing for hate crime legislation, hate speech laws, fair housing laws, etc. Other activist organizations (NAMBLA) — considered to be fringe — want societal/legal acceptance of pederasty. This issue probably wouldn't get the attention it does if Planned Parenthood & other liberal organizations weren't pushing gay sex education for first graders into the public schools.