A Conservative Syllogism

Conservatives don't like taxes.

Some gays don't like taxes.

Therefore, conservatives hate all gays, even ones who don't like taxes.

This faux exercise in logic (exercise in faux logic?) is prompted by this AP story on ABC News' Web Site:

PHOENIX Sept. 18 ? A conservative anti-tax group on Thursday dropped an ex-legislator as president of its first state affiliate. The dismissed man said it was because he is gay, which the group denied.

The Washington-based Club for Growth had been criticized by some Arizona conservatives for its selection of former Rep. Steve May as head of the week-old Arizona affiliate.
…

While critics questioned May's credentials as a conservative on fiscal and school-choice issues, May told The Associated Press, "The real issue is the gay issue. It's unfortunate."

May said in a telephone interview that he received a voicemail from Club for Growth national President Stephen Moore saying the group "thinks we need to make a change in leadership to someone who is less objectionable and to someone who is not a lightning rod."

Moore declined to comment late Thursday.

Club for Growth spokesman Kevin McVicker said the group "categorically denies that they are separating from Mr. May because he is gay. Rather it has to do with policy issues."

He declined to elaborate.

McVicker had acknowledged earlier that May's role as state president was under review because of complaints prompted by a social conservative, Len Munsil, president of the Scottsdale-based Center for Arizona Policy.

On Monday, Munsil urged supporters in an e-newsletter to contact Moore with e-mails to protest May's role.

"Politely let him know conservatives will not support an organization led by a liberal gay activist who has declared war on social conservatives in Arizona," Munsil wrote.

The Washington-based Club for Growth is a supply-side advocacy group that until now has sought only to influence the outcome of congressional races with donations and by running ads criticizing incumbents it opposes.

The Arizona affiliate was to be the group's first foray into state-level politics.

I know the Club for Growth's head, Stephen Moore, very slightly but well enough to know that he's no bigot (Moore, formerly director fiscal policy studies at and currently a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is a hard-core libertarian and socially tolerant; Cato is likewise a group where sexual orientation is not an issue).

This sort of report points to very real friction between conservatives and libertarians--and not the sort of friction that feels good. Despite some common ground--such as a desire for lower taxes--the underlying philosophies are very different. What's the point of keeping more of your own money from the government if you can't spend the extra dough on the lifestyle you want?

Btw, The Center for Arizona Policy isn't just anti-gay--sorry, pro-family. The group also casts a cold eye on gambling, abortion, and folks uncomfortable with Ten Commandments statues being displayed in court houses.

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

Argh! Stephen Moore was involved in this? Aww, come on, Steve. You need to be able to look at yourself in the mirror, and eventually face Ed Crane.

Stand up to those asses!

[Whippersnapper]

Man, I can't wait until 2020 when all those old farts with their authoritarian "family values" crap are dead.

Hopefully each will take a yuppie boomer with them in their cold dead fists!

[joe]

Moore doesn't have to bigot to fire someone for being gay. He just has to be concerned about getting flack from bigots who he hopes to bring on board. You know, people who find gays "objectionable" or "lightening rods" when they achieve a position of prominence. Moore certainly wouldn't be the first social libertarian to nod along with bigots in the hopes of getting a big pile of dough.

[Sir Real]

Unelaborated "Policy issues"- riiiiiight... Quite a coincidence to have these "policy issues" just four days after a vocal protest from The Center for Arizona Policy.

Quite frankly, bullshit. As glad as I am Mr. Gillespie wants to assure us Moore is "no bigot", he fails to assure us that Moore isn't a spineless dissembling fool who will let bigots determine the actions of his organization. In not opposing them, he is "objectively pro-" bigot. I don't support the "objectively pro"-bigot, regardless of how in they are with Libertarian cool kids.

[Jason Ligon]

Sir Real,

To be fair, I somehow suspect that there is a wee bit more utilitarianism in your policy thinking that you let on here.

Does your failure to sell your house and give all of the funds to charity imply that you are objectively pro homelessness?

I don't mean to defend this particular action, but you are making a very strong accusation here ...

[Mark A.]

The bigots demanded, Moore supplied. All hail the free market!

[Franklin Harris]

My own observations are that Moore has become less and less a "hard-core libertarian" and more and more a typical politico since helping found the Club for Growth. So, sadly, this turn of events doesn't surprise me in the least.

[joe]

Policy differences. I've read some of Moore's stuff on NRO, and he seems to have a policy of never letter truth, fairness, or principle get in the way of a big pile of money.

[O.J. P'Orc]

Most "libertarians" are principled persons who belief that minimal government is the only ethically-acceptable government. Most of these also believe that the free market will provide for citizens' needs (according to their qualities, or via private charity) much better than any state schemes could.

Others are basically Republicans who want to do drugs---business groupies salivating for smokestacks.

I've had useful discussions with the former sorts; the latter can get beyond what's basically "victim politics" with rich men playing the victims.

[Sir Real]

Jason-

I would be "objectively pro-homelessness" if I didn't stand up to people trying to impose rent controls (just as Moore is objectively pro-bigot for not standing up to people trying to impose their morality on his organisation).

I make strong accusations because they are deserved.

In terms of utilitarianism, I fail to see the utility of revealing how ethically debased a libertarian organization is- There'll be other donors, but once you sell your soul, it's gone.

[Jason Ligon]

Possibly, Sir Real, possibly.

[Thorley Winston]

While critics questioned May's credentials as a conservative on fiscal and school-choice issues, May told The Associated Press, "The real issue is the gay issue. It's unfortunate."

Okay I?ll ask the question that no one else seems to want to ask ? what were May?s credentials on fiscal and school choice issues? Isn?t that an important part of the story or are we all just supposed to accept May?s contention at face value that he?s being fired because he?s homosexual?

[Eric]

I've lived in Phoenix my whole life, so I'm familiar with Steve May. He's NOT a libertarian, and he's not a conservative. In fact, I was surprised when the AZ Club for Growth hired him in the first place.
Having said that, I thought libertarians believed that employers could hire and fire whomever they pleased. I mean, it is a free country, isn't it? And when one person gets grief for dismissing someone who happens to be gay, don't be surprised when more people decide not to hire gays in the first place.

[Curt Warner]

I really admire the names "Club for Growth" and "Americans For Tax Reform." I mean, who could possibly be against either of those things?

[sarah]

How is being anti-gay "pro family?" I have a gay family member. Should I fag-bash him, wrecking my family to save it? The moralists have confuzzled me. I need to go have some hot chocolate.

[Thorley Winston]

Based on one article, it seems that one of the criticisms being made of May is that he ? voted to put a sales-tax increase for education on the 2000 ballot and introduced legislation that could have scrapped tax credits for donations for private school scholarships.?

I have no idea what the extent of these actions (assuming there true) were or their context. Having worked in rather hot and contested GOP primaries, I know that any vote your candidate may have made in the past can be used against him or her ? even if it might have been taken out of context (what else was in his legislation). Does anyone more familiar with Arizona politics know anything about this?

Article found at:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0919clubforgrowth.html

[Glenn C]

Thorley:
Just in case you missed the byline, the article you're quoting is the same AP Piece ABC News put on their website. Interesting editing on their part, don't you think?

[Eric]

Thorley,
Yes, that article is true. As I said before, Steve May is no libertarian or conservative. It was a poor hire by the Club for Growth, regardless of May's sexuality, and now it's corrected.
This wouldn't even be a story if May weren't gay. But we now seem to have reached the point in America where it's morally wrong to fire a gay person. Didn't think libertarians were so into political correctness.

[Julian Sanchez]

Get off it Eric. Maybe he's not right for CfG for independent reasons; the point is still that it looks as thought the pressure on them to remove May is the result of his sexual orientation, not his politics. As for "political correctness," that term long ago went from being a legit critique of leftist groupthink and became a hammer bigots use to whack anyone who points out that they're bigots. Well, fine: if it's politically correct to call someone out for bending to hatemongers, then I'm "politically correct." Racism and homophobia don't become less ugly because you've learned to defuse them by parroting an epithet.

[joe]

Eric, do you think Moore hired this guy without knowing his background?

[Anonymous]

Speaking of selling your soul, this just came by me today:

http://www.wewantyoursoul.com/

[Eric]

Joe,
I don't know what Moore was thinking or even what his role was. I do know that any politician who has advocated tax increases is not a good fit at the Club for Growth. As I said, this was a bad hire that's been corrected.

Julian,
One could be forgiven for characterizing the reactions to Club for Growth's actions as libertarian groupthink. May was fired, May was gay, ergo Steve Moore is a bigot. Furthermore, anyone who questions this groupthink is also a bigot, as evidenced by voicing their independent thoughts. I expect better from a magazine which supposedly champions "free minds."
Leftists also throw around the racist or homophobe label to intimidate dissent. Often, those accused are in no way bigoted, and I suspect that is the case with Moore. And yet that doesn't stop people who really have no idea about Moore's feelings on the subject from slandering the man.

[Thorley Winston]

Glenn C wrote:

Just in case you missed the byline, the article you're quoting is the same AP Piece ABC News put on their website. Interesting editing on their part, don't you think?

I agree, you would think that if someone said that May should lose his position over policy differences and someone said what those policy differences were, that they would be considered an integral part of the story. Unless of course you decide in advance that the "story" is "Gay man fired by homophobic conservatives because he's gay."

BTW: Reason did an article on Arizona Republicans which discussed then Representative Steve May. Apparently he is also in favor of increased tax dollars for government schools (it said he supported charter schools but no mention as to whether or not he supported school choice beyond that) and for government art programs:

http://reason.com/rauch/99_12_18.shtml

[Julian Sanchez]

Everything I know about Steve Moore leads me to believe that he is not personally a homophobe. Nick said basically the same thing. The concern is whether he's chosen to back down to homophobes in his organization when the principled thing to do would be to take a stand. So that's one issue. The other is whether this is about politics or orientation. And if you look at the language of the email circulated by this guy Munsil, it's pretty clear that orientation is at least a factor. So it's not that we're inferring that it's about that just because he's gay; May's critics are the ones who raised the issue.

[Sir Real]

Eric-

May put the tax increase on the ballot in 2000. Club for Growth fired him Sept. 18, 2003. This came 4 DAYS after bigots launched a campaign to have him fired for his sexuality- and you would have us believe the Club for Growth was responding to the 2000 bit?

(takes a moment to stop laughing at Eric)

Insofar as "have no idea about Moore's feelings...slandering the man."- I don't give a good god-damn about Moore's "feelings". NOTHING could be more irrelevant to the topic at hand. In case you haven't been paying attention, the issue is COLLABORATING with Bigots- it is about firing someone to please devoted enemies of freedom (The Center for Arizona Policy) and having the audicity to still call yourself "libertarian". I use my "Free Mind" to call Bullshit- you use your free mind to eat that bullshit up with a spoon- fair enough.

[Andrew Lynch]

This sort of report points to very real friction between conservatives and libertarians...

Good, I'm tired of being identified with morally normative conservatives. What a horrible stigma. I pray the friction continues.

Despite some common ground--such as a desire for lower taxes--the underlying philosophies are very different.

Good, good, good, we need more talk about this. Every time I turn around, I see libertarians and conservatives in the same bubble on a Powerpoint slide. Gross me out.

[Ray]

Live from Phoenix;

Steve May is not much of a conservative or libertarian. He was much like our beloved little crackpot John McCain in that he could claim a "conservative" title but when the opportunity presented itself, he could flip faster than a windsock.

So May was actually a typical Republican; conservative as long as it benefitted him but easily persuaded to vote other than his stated values if need be.

That and everytime someone disagreed with him, so it seemed, he would pull out his injured homosexual card.

[Mark S.]

"Leftists also throw around the racist or homophobe label to intimidate dissent."

...and right-wingers throw aroud the "political correctness" label to deflect criticism of their backward, reactionary, and--dare I say it--bigoted statements, actions, and beliefs.

[Anonymous]

if you check out http://www.stevemay.org you will see that he takes some very anti-libertarian positions, namely, "public" investment in biotech research, more money for public schools (with precious little mention of choice),increased funding for ineffective mass-transit and support for broadening hate crimes laws. Further, he thinks its unproductive for legislators to
take no tax pledges, which cant sit well with the Club for Growth. The Club prides itself on avoiding social issues entirely, and that would not be possible with an outspoken advocate of gay rights at the helm. This was a case of very poor vetting. I am not at all denying that some pressure from SoCons was involved, but there are legitimate policy differences and Moore is not entirely out of line for cutting May loose.

[Glenn C]

Sir Real:
You point out May was fired 4 days after Munsil started complaining. The Arizona Republic reporting of the "kickoff" meeting of Arizona Club for Growth on 9/12 included this Steve May quote: "The Arizona Club for Growth will choose who is on the Republican team." The article additionally mentioned the Club for Growth's attempts to get primary opposition for John McCain this year.
Which sounds more accurate, the Club for Growth fired him 4 days after a fringe group started complaining, or 7 days after May declared political war on the state Republican Establishment?

[Ray]

Still live from Phoenix;

Bottom line is that May's record speaks for itself. He doesn't belong heading up anyone's anti-tax organization if they intend to retain any credibility.

Now, even if he were the neatest guy since von Hayek, picking someone that is a social lightening rod is not what an organization needs in a leader, it can only distract from the organization's primary goals.

At the same time, just being gay isn't necessarily enough to make someone (justifiably) a lightening rod but this is the same guy who "came out" of the closet as an officer in the National Guard. It served no purpose other than to "make" his statement. That's fine, great, make your statement, but live with what these statements do to your resume later in political life.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

That's right; just go ahead and ignore everything Julian wrote. 🙂

[tom b]

"At the same time, just being gay isn't necessarily enough to make someone (justifiably) a lightening rod but this is the same guy who "came out" of the closet as an officer in the National Guard. It served no purpose other than to "make" his statement. That's fine, great, make your statement, but live with what these statements do to your resume later in political life."
--Ray
Uh yeah, whatever you say. fascinating use of parentheses and quotes, dude. some real breakthroughs in logic and political science, too. Bravo, sister ray.

[Andy]

The hateful quip about Cato is beyond the pale. They've got a couple of gay employees out of a whole building and right-wingers make jokes about homosexual rape. Ha ha ha -- how clever. I wonder how many gay people work at Heritage or National Review, but are induced by such juvenile hatefulness to stay in the closet.

[Kevin Carson]

O.J. P'ork

Don't you know that big business is America's true oppressed minority? Not only that, the mililtary-industrial complex is a pernicious myth. We've got an entire corporate economy run by John Galts and Francisco D'Anconias, with nary a James Taggart in the lot.

[thoreau]

Kevin-

In regards to your last post, this is completely off-topic, but is Atlas Shrugged worth finishing? I started reading it several years ago. I got about 2/3 of the way through and thought "OK, I get her point, but it's gone from being a story to being a sermon." So I put it aside and sunk my teeth back into the Silmarillion, and I have yet to return to the story of John Galt. Does it get back to being a story at some point?

[Gary]

Libertarians and social conservatives have no common ground. Libertarians believe in, or should believe in, individual rights. Social convservatives believe in the negation of individual rights in the name of collectivism: "family values".

If Stephen Moore is going to compromise himself on basic issues like this one, he might as well save himself the time and just join the Republican party.

[John]

I found Stephen Moore's decision disheartening. There are many gays who want or support tax cuts, business deregulation, stock options in social security, and school vouchers. Some oppose gun control and affirmative action.

For its own good, the Club for Growth should appeal to those of all persuasions so long as they support its economic platform. By removing Steve May after religious fanatics complained, Mr. Moore told gays they are not valued members of the community. They can be used and then thrown away when it becomes inconvenient.

Those gays who were thinking of joining the Republican Party will now turn away and their liberal Democratic buddies will tell them their future lies with the pro-gay Democrats.

Gay Republicans have a dilemma in the voting booth. They could vote for a gay-bashing Republican who supports tax cuts, a pro-gay Democrat who will take their money and squander it on an unworkable program, stay at home.

[Anonymous]

Cato is likewise a group where sexual orientation is not an issue

That might be a bit of an understatement. I heard someone once quip that if you drop your keys in front of the Cato building, you have to kick them all the way to Brookings before you can pick them up.

[Julian Sanchez]

Thoreau-
No; in fact, you get about 60 pages of nothing *but* sermon shortly past the point you probably stopped. It might be worth finishing for purely social or historical reasons (seems like every libertarian on earth has slogged through it at least once), but by 2/3 of the way through you've gotten her basic message several times over, and you're not going to miss a whole lot if you leave it at that.

[Zev Sero]

Will someone please explain, since when is homophobia, or bigotry of any kind, contrary to libertarian morals? Moore is being criticised here, not for being a homophobe - he isn't - but for not shunning homphobes, for cooperating with homphobes, and sucking up (you should pardon the experession) to them. But why on earth shouldn't he?

Yes, thoreau, you're right that "Freedom of association cuts both ways", and that if a business fires someone for being gay (or white, or French, or left-handed) you have the right to say "Way, uncool, man, we're not hanging out with you anymore". But must we all? Must Moore? When you say that "as a matter of principle, [people should] be criticized if they fire someone based on sexual orientation", which libertarian principle, exactly, are you talking about? *Why* should homophobes (or antisemites, or triskaidekaphobes) be criticised?

It seems to me that one can be a libertarian in good standing while thinking that homophobia is a trivial error, a peculiarity of personality, that shouldn't be allowed to destroy a good relationship.

And since the Club for Growth explicitly tries to stay out of social issues, and *not take sides*, firing May was the right move. Keeping him on in the face of the homophobic criticism would be taking sides on the gay issue, in favour of gay rights, and the CfG wants to stay neutral. This is precisely what Moore is being criticised for - his refusal (at least in his capacity as CfG head) to "take a stand" in favour of gay rights and against homophobia. But why should he? CfG is a limited purpose organisation to advance economic liberty, and for that purpose it makes alliance with social conservatives who agree with us on economic matters, and why shouldn't it?

Only if homophobia is itself a moral offense (albeit one that shouldn't be illegal) can this criticism of Moore be justified. And I can't for the life of me think why it should be one.

[thoreau]

First, I have no idea if the guy was fired because he was gay or for other reasons. In this thread I've heard persuasive stuff both ways.

But, as a matter of principle, should people be criticized if they fire someone based on sexual orientation? Absolutely. Saying that somebody should not be forced to keep an employee doesn't mean that it's cool to fire the guy for being gay. The employer has the right to fire, and the rest of us have the right to say "Way, uncool, man, we're not hanging out with you anymore."

Freedom of association cuts both ways. A business can fire somebody for being gay. And I can refuse to associate with that business, and also exercise my free speech right by saying "This business is making bigotry its policy, don't shop there." And then other consumers can exercise their free association rights by either ignoring me and voluntarily doing business there, or by voluntarily not doing business there.

Opposing coercive anti-discrimination laws doesn't mean we can't criticize discrimination.

As to libertarians and conservatives: The "Republicans who like to smoke weed" faction doesn't bother me too much. What bothers me more is the "Republicans who think the GOP has gone soft faction." This faction writes letters to LP news saying we should fight an all-out war against Islam (something that goes much further than invading Iraq, not that I want to open that can of worms here), writes letters saying that concentrating too much on social freedoms makes the LP look bad (um, it just makes the LP palatable to former Democrats, and blames all the world's ills on "the left."

[thoreau]

Zev-

The question "Will someone please explain, since when is homophobia, or bigotry of any kind, contrary to libertarian morals?" is ill-posed.

I don't know about everyone else here, but I don't consider libertarianism to be the guiding moral and ethical force in all of my life's decisions. I simply think that it's a pretty good guide for law and government, mostly for practical reasons (all the other systems seem to work out even worse).

But, if we must appeal to libertarian philosophy, how about the observation that not everything in life should be subject to law and government? Why should we expect a set of principles for law and government to also provide answers for ethical questions outside the realm of law and government? I thought the whole idea of libertarian government is that individuals will have to work out a lot of things for themselves without gov't guidance/coercion. We'll have to rely on our own judgement and whatever moral/philosophical codes we choose to use as guides for judgement.

I won't try in this post to present a moral and ethical argument against homophobia. The homosexuality argument is one that's hashed out every day in so many other places, and I just don't feel like fighting all those battles yet again. I'd rather stick to the observations that:

1) Even if we agree that somebody should not be coerced to refrain from certain actions we can still criticize those actions.

2) We shouldn't expect a theory of law and government to guide us in matters outside the realm of law and government.

Now, I realize that the not-so-big-tent of libertarianism includes a large contingent determined with a philosophical bent, determined to reduce everything in life to a self-consistent set of postulates and consequences from those postulates. Great, have fun with it! And if you only want to work with people who also think that way, great, go for it! But don't be surprised if you find that your movement is incredibly tiny and unable to bring about the policy changes necessary to downsize government.

[Zev Sero]

"I thought the whole idea of libertarian government is that individuals will have to work out a lot of things for themselves without gov't guidance/coercion. We'll have to rely on our own judgement and whatever moral/philosophical codes we choose to use as guides for judgement."

Fine. And you seem to have decided, for reasons orthogonal to libertarianism, that homophobia is wrong, and homophobes ought to be ostracised, and on this basis you criticise Moore for working with them and cooperating with them. But it seems just as acceptable for another libertarian, e.g. Moore, to decide otherwise, that homophobia is not immoral, or at least not so immoral that he ought to stop working with people because they are homphobes. Why is his position less consistent with libertarianism, and thus deserving to be less acceptable to Reason readers, then yours?

For that matter, it seems to me that a libertarian could decide, on his own and without govt guidance/coercion, that homosexuality is in fact morally wrong, and that he will not work with homosexuals; so long as he doesn't seek to impose his opinion by force on those who disagree, why should his position not be acceptable in a Reason crowd?

You repeat without change or further explanation your original statement that "Even if we agree that somebody should not be coerced to refrain from certain actions we can still criticize those actions". I agreed with this the first time. But why should we criticise homophobia? Why do you criticise Moore for not criticising homophobia? For that matter, why shouldn't people criticise homosexuality, if they think it's wrong (which Moore doesn't)?

In any case, your final paragraph is twisted: "f you only want to work with people who also think that way, great, go for it! But don't be surprised if you find that your movement is incredibly tiny and unable to bring about the policy changes necessary to downsize government". Isn't that precisely what you want Moore to do? Moore is the big-tent libertarian who is willling to work with people who disagree with him on the homosexual issue, in order "to bring about the policy changes necessary to downsize government"; you and the other readers here have piled on to him for that decision, and demand that he not work with these non-libertarian homophobes. Aren't you the little-tenters?

As for me, I don't like homophobes or racists, and if I find out that an acquaintance is one I'm likely to drop them; but I don't insist that all my friends do likewise. And in some cases I like someone enough to keep them as friends and put up with their opinions; I don't see this as somehow immoral, because I don't see bigtry as in itself immoral.

[TM Lutas]

Let me provide two hypothetical complaints about Mr. May

1. "Hey! What kind of vetting process do you guys have? You hired a pro-tax, anti-school choice idiot to head your AZ chapter."

2. "Hey! What kind of vetting process do you guys have? You hired a pro-tax, anti-school choice fag to head your AZ chapter."

If you receive complaint #2 instead of complaint #1, should your behavior be any different than if you had received complaint #1? Especially if, on investigation you find out that the guy's past record is not compatible with your group's goals? To hold that the irrelevant opinions of a complainant should cause you to keep in your employ somebody who doesn't agree with your goals is foolish and worse, incompatible with the maintenance of a diverse society.

[Zev Sero]

Big-tentism includes not hiring a director who is going to alienate half your constituency. That means, if you have decided not to take a stand on abortion, in order to attract people from both sides, that you don't hire the former director either of Operation Rescue or of NARAL. And if you want to attract people on both sides of the gay rights debate, you don't hire either Barney Frank or Fred Phelps.

Now I don't know what sort of profile Steve May has within AZ politics; the first time I ever heard of him was when he came out (BTW, he did so in the context of a legislative debate where it was absolutely relevant, and I was appalled at the attempt to use this to fire him from the National Guard). The only context in which I have ever heard of him subsequently has been as a defender of gay rights. Now that's fine by me - I believe in gay rights, and I'm delighted when `conservative Republicans' come out as gay; I think the political right needs to capture more of the gay vote, and spokesmen like May and Jim Kolbe are good. But it does mean that May can legitimately be regarded as a lightning-rod for homophobes, and when he is appointed director of an organisation that is trying to be big-tent, and to attract pro-economic-freedom homophobes, they have a legitimate claim to have been dissed.

If, after receiving these complaints, a closer look at his record reveals that he wasn't really suited for the job after all, that makes the decision to fire him all the more logical. But even if he really were a libertarian, he was the wrong choice for this particular job, and Moore was right to fire him.

[thoreau]

OK, first in regard to TM Lutas's post:

If it is indeed true that May had made significant departure's from his organization's stances on taxes then of course he shouldn't be the head of a state chapter. The fact that he remained the head of a state chapter until somebody complained about his homosexuality says two disturbing things about his organization and his superiors:

1) They evidently aren't very principled on tax issues if they kept him on for so long. (I'm assuming these weren't minor violations of a purity test, but rather significant deviations from the basic principles of the group.)
2) The leadership apparently cares more about not upsetting homophobes than adhering to its agenda on taxes if they didn't remove him until the homophobes complained.

So maybe this organization has some pretty big problems that render all of these discussions moot by comparison.

And to Zev Sero-

I completely agree that there's a big difference between firing a person who happens to be gay vs. firing a person who combatively engages people on homosexual issues and hence alienates a lot of people when his job is to win support from people. Since I don't know enough to know which of those categories, I really can't comment much further on the specifics of this case. But, as a matter of principle, I refuse to believe that a big tent necessitates avoiding people who might offend any and all conceivable constituencies. Otherwise they might as well hire Gray Davis, who built a career on not standing out himself, but instead letting his opponents' flaws stand out.

So, if the homophobes were upset that the guy happened to be openly gay and they simply can't stand the notion that an openly gay person holds a position in that group, the leadership should say "Look, he's not being combative with anyone, he's just a guy who happens to be gay." Otherwise they set the precedent that any and all pressure groups can bring down the big tent.

But if the homophobes were upset because he never missed an opportunity to aggressively and loudly clash with people on homosexual issues, then I guess he was the one who was trying to scare people away.

[Zev Sero]

"If they kept him on for so long" - he was only in the job for a few days. If he were a car, Moore would be entitled to return him.

I don't know whether he "combatively engages people on homosexual issues"; all I know is that the only times he *ever* gets noticed outside AZ is on gay issues. That doesn't automatically mean that he makes it his big issue; but it means that Munsil may not be completely unreasonable in regarding him in that light. And bear in mind that Munsil didn't complain that May was gay, but that he was "a liberal gay activist who has declared war on social conservatives in Arizona"; for all I know, Munsil is full of it, and all he's really concerned about is that he can't stand thinking about the yucky things May does in bed. But he may also be simply stating the truth.

"I refuse to believe that a big tent necessitates avoiding people who might offend any and all conceivable constituencies". I don't think it always *necessitates* that. But if the constituency that someone offends is big enough and important enough, and there isn't a correspondingly large constituency that will be offended by *not* having him, then big-tentism means make nice with the big block of potential supporters who are about to walk, and can the guy you only hired last week. Especially if they point out that the guy isn't really as suited for the position as you thought he was in the first place.

[thoreau]

First, thenotion that when posting on Reason we should only make criticisms that can be defended from a libertarian philosophical point of view is ridiculous. We mostly have a libertarian philosophy in common here, but we're still individuals with other ideas in addition to libertarianism. We discuss topics and say what we think, and what we think draws on many sources, both our libertarian philosophies and whatever other ideas individuals subscribe to.

I never said that Moore's actions should be unacceptable to a libertarian audience for reasons derived from libertarian philosophy. I said what I think, and since I happen to think that I'm right (everyone thinks he's right at the moment he's thinking something), even if later we change our minds) I say that homophobia should be discouraged.

Second, we're getting into criticizing me for criticizing Moore, which gets us into a vicious circle. I think Moore is a homophobe and I criticize him for that. Somebody else thinks I'm being intolerant by cricitizing a homophobe and criticizes me for that. We all have the right to do that, and if you think my criticism is wrong then fine. But it can easily get ridiculous with the "don't criticize anybody! Oops, I just criticized. Well, don't criticize anybody unless they criticize somebody else." So I try to steer clear of that.

Third, in regards to the big tent, here's where I'll have to get into the (alleged) details of the case. Supposedly Moore had no problem working with May until homophobes demanded May's head on a platter. Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that my description is accurate, so we can get at the matter of principle we're discussing. May never demanded the removal of homophobes, but homophobes demanded the removal of May.

A truly "big tent" position would be that Moore wants both the homophobes and May in his group, and he'll happily work with both. If one can't stand to work with the other that's unfortunate, but the big tent will rapidly collapse if somebody is ejected every time somebody else complains. There's a difference between saying "I won't work with you on tax issues if you're homophobic" vs. "I'll gladly work with you on tax issues, but I'll also gladly work with people that you don't like on tax issues."

Now, since I don't belong to the Club for Growth I can't really complain about the leadership from a personal standpoint. But I can say "Wow, that's so idiotic. They set the precedent that every time somebody complains somebody else gets kicked out. The big tent will collapse in no time." Sure, they also would have lost people had they not kicked the gay person out. But a leader who says "We'll work with anyone who agrees on taxes, and attrition is due solely to voluntary resignation" will attract a large crowd, with the exception of a handful of people who can't bring themselves to work with the big crowd. A leader who says "We'll remove members if other members don't like them" is inviting all sorts of in-fighting and basically agreeing to roll out the unwelcome mat to segments of the population.

So, I don't think my position is opposed to the big tent. Now, this is all in the abstract since I don't belong to the organization. But if I belonged to a group that ejected gays to satisfy some vocal complainers, to avoid the collapse of the big tent my first course of action would probably be to demand a change of leadership to restore the tent. I would only resign if a leadership change were impossible, figuring that implosion is inevitable so might as well turn my energies elsewhere (and, admittedly, hasten the inevitable implosion).

[Beavis]

The alliance between social conservative and fiscal conservatives has always been tenuous. This should just be an additional wakeup call to those libertarians who vote Republican as the lesser of two evils.

This Club for Growth is a bunch of people who believe in dishonest government. They know Bush has increased federal spending way beyond any recent President, despite having a Republican congress. They just want more tax cuts that will lead to a real fiscal crisis. As astute libertarians, like Ron Paul of TX, point out, deficits must be paid for at some point. With either higher taxes or the tax of inflation. There is no free lunch despite what Kudlow, Moore and other disciples of SS economics believe.

Gillespie pretty much admitted the attempt to downsize government is over.

Some libertarians are more concerned with social freedom than some supply side tax cuts. Others side with Republicans because they push tax cuts and the second amendment.

I'm a libertarian and personally I'm so repulsed by social conservatives like Bauer and Dobson that I can't vote Republican.

[raj]

Moore should know: when you sleep with dogs you end up with fleas.

He's sleeping with bigots.

[raj]

Zev Sero on September 21, 2003 09:47 PM

Thank you for confirming that conservatives (or libertarians, whatever) have no principles.

[Thorley Winston]

Gary wrote:

Libertarians and social conservatives have no common ground. Libertarians believe in, or should believe in, individual rights. Social conservatives believe in the negation of individual rights in the name of collectivism: "family values".

Actually libertarians and social conservatives have quite a bit of common ground (far more so then libertarians and social liberals). Both support the right to keep and bear arms, oppose government-mandated racial discrimination (affirmative action), support of freedom of association, support school choice, oppose speech codes on college campuses, oppose bias crime statutes, oppose censoring political speech via ?campaign finance reform? and the ?fairness doctrine,? etc. A number of libertarians are pro-life and a number of conservatives (e.g. National Review) have questioned the War on Some Drugs (which is as much a product of the social liberals as it is the social conservatives) while in contrast many leftists have supported wars on alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods via the civil courts and various local statutes.

[Thorley Winston]

John wrote:

I found Stephen Moore's decision disheartening. There are many gays who want or support tax cuts, business deregulation, stock options in social security, and school vouchers. Some oppose gun control and affirmative action.

Is there any evidence to show that Steve May held any of these positions? What we?ve seen before (including the article in Reason) seems to suggest that he favored tax increases to pay for the government schools, government art programs, higher wages for government workers, etc. while taking some positions on social issues such as opposing freedom of association and favoring bias crime statutes which are incompatible with libertarianism.

In which case this seems to be less of an issue as to whether or not it was ?unfair? for the Club for Growth to remove Steve May as it is a chance for people who disagree with people who are opposed to promoting homosexuality to air their grievances.

[Haider Asad]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://digital-photo-software.online-photo-print.com
DATE: 01/19/2004 11:36:50
Morality by consensus is frequently morality by convenience.