The CPAC Boycott

It is disappointing that The Heritage Foundation has joined in with the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America to boycott CPAC this year. The boycott is over the participation of GOProud, a gay conservative organization.

Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America were formed over social issues - promoting their agenda with public policy from a far right viewpoint. Both are quite upfront about that.

Concerned Women for America, from the website, states: We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 30-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.

Family Research Council, from the website, states: Since 1983, Family Research Council (FRC) has advanced faith, family and freedom in public policy and public opinion. FRC's team of seasoned experts promotes these core values through policy research, public education on Capitol Hill and in the media, and grassroots mobilization. We review legislation, meet with policymakers, publish books and pamphlets, build coalitions, testify before Congress, and maintain a powerful presence in print and broadcast media. Through our outreach to pastors, we equip churches to transform the culture.

Contrast this to what is stated on the website of The Heritage Foundation: Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

So, from my personal standpoint, it is The Heritage Foundation that is a serious think tank, a serious outlet for formulating public policy. If a person wants to come at public policy from a Biblical reference or demands public policy be taken from a Christian reference, fine. However, by putting social issues at the forefront, above other considerations, it makes the institution no different than liberal foundations or non-profits that demand their point of view be given deference. Pro-life or pro-choice. Traditional family or modern family.

Ironic, right? Both sides come at it from belief that their position is superior. I thought better of The Heritage Foundation. I thought it was more about the serious issues of economics and historic Constitutional issues. Why would The Heritage Foundation chose to sacrifice its reputation as a group with intellectual heft at a time when conservatives and Republicans need a united front to battle the agenda of Barack Obama?

The Heritage Foundation would easily be viewed as a traditional Republican group while the other two would be of the Religious Right, which came into politics in the 1980's. You know, those who wish to say he or she is "conservative" not "Republican". It is obnoxious and divides the party. Especially with the far left lurch of the Democratic party today, where is a conservative to land if not the Republican party. Some common sense honesty would be helpful as the battle against the Obama agenda of big government continues.

The most vocal of the "conservatives" out there would not receive the approval of their hero, Ronald Reagan. As the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh sing the praises of Reagan, they seem clueless of what he truly stood for in politics. They are the very ones demanding purity tests and dividing the party. And, they are making millions of dollars doing it.