Ben Johnson

, ,

Video: Jim DeMint tells CPAC 'we cannot' stop talking about social issues

Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson
Image

(Gov. DeMint's speech begins at approximately one hour, 10 minutes into the video.)

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The following is the text of a speech given by former Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, now the president of the Heritage Foundation, to the opening night dinner of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) on Thursday, March 14. His forthright defense of life and marriage underlies an intensifying conflict within the ranks of the Republican Party between its Beltway leadership, which has urged the party to jettison social issues, and its grassroots voters, whose opposition to abortion and redefining marriage is intense and definitive. DeMint previous clashed with his colleagues in the U.S. Senate by supporting more conservative challengers in the GOP primaries, many of whom were successful. We are grateful someone in such a position of leadership sees the clear connection between a self-governing society and smaller government. -- Ed. 

You may have heard that I recently received a big promotion. That’s right. I was promoted from the U.S. Senate and ranking member on the powerful Commerce Committee to The Heritage Foundation. Some people have wondered why I would leave the most debilitated body in the world to help lead the freedom movement in America. The answer is simple. The President and the Congress will not solve America’s problems unless the people force them to. Washington is America’s problem. We are the solution. And the situation is too urgent to wait until the next election. The conservative movement must get its act together and act now to save our nation.

Ed Feulner, the current President and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, recently joined me and a team of Heritage freedom-fighters on a cross-country tour that covered 12 cities. Thousands of people came out for rallies and meetings. We told them how we were working with a large coalition of conservative organizations and state policy groups to build public support for conservative ideas. We told them how Heritage Action is working with coalition partners to hold lawmakers accountable and to organize grassroots support for congressmen and senators who stand for conservative principles.

The people who came to our rallies were a little discouraged when they showed up, but by the time they left, they were full of hope and ready to jump back into the ring to fight for their country. All they want is leadership. They want champions who will stand up to the progressives, take on the liberal media and push back against the Republican leadership when they go wobbly. Their message to us is … if we will be their champions – and lead with courage and bold ideas — they will join us.

Speaking of champions, did any of you happen to see Rand Paul on C-SPAN last week? Senator Paul, along with Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio and others took a courageous and principled stand. Their courage inspired the nation. Americans are hungry for some genuine conviction and passion. And there are many new champions of freedom with conviction and passion in the House and Senate. It is our job to make sure they are heard and that their ideas are supported by the American people.

Rand Paul’s filibuster should remind us that one person with the courage of his convictions can inspire the American people — including young people, women and minorities — and it should also remind us that a national conservative movement with leaders who have the courage to stand for bold, visionary ideas can change the course of our nation and save freedom for the next generation.

After the last election, a group of downcast conservative leaders here in Washington asked me to speak to them about the future of the conservative movement. They wanted to know what conservatives should do. My answer was simple: get up, spit out a few teeth, wipe the blood off your lip and get back in the fight.

Our situation is a lot like the boxer who had been knocked down multiple times in the third round, he was bloodied and could barely pull himself off the canvas before the referee counted him out. He was about to get knocked down again when he was saved by the bell. He stumbled to his corner and collapsed on his stool. Then his manager whispered in his ear, “You’ve got him right where you want him.”

Tonight, you are the boxer and I am the manager. I’m here to tell you how we have President Obama and the whole liberal progressive movement right where we want them.

To understand where we are as a movement and our path forward, we must remember that there is a distinction between the Republican Party and the conservative movement. National Republican leaders have not advanced a conservative agenda for almost 20 years. Not since the first few years of the Republican revolution in the 1990s – when welfare reform and a balanced budget were passed – have Republicans in Congress seriously championed conservative ideas. By the time I arrived in the House in 1998, my party was increasing spending and handing out earmarks like candy to help our members get re-elected.

Two years later, when George W. Bush was elected and Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress, spending and earmarks exploded, the federal role in education was vastly expanded with No Child Left Behind, Medicare was expanded to include prescription drugs, and numerous other new federal programs were created.

In 2004, when I was elected to the Senate, the spending binge continued. By 2006, Americans had seen enough and Republicans lost the majority in both houses. This was not a rejection of conservative policies. In 2008, things got even worse as Republicans helped pass bailouts for big banks on Wall Street and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Barack Obama was elected and Republicans lost more seats in the House and Senate.

But it wasn’t long before the far-left policies of Obama and the rudderless Republicans finally woke Americans from their apathy. Americans from all walks of life – conservatives, libertarians, independents, and even recovering liberals – came together in groups called Tea Parties all across the country. They had a unified, simple message. “Stop the spending, borrowing, bailouts and government takeovers … and restore constitutional limited government.”

The majority of Americans agreed with these ideas. This was the opportunity for Republicans to embrace the movement and build that big tent our leaders have been talking about for years. Instead, the national Republican leadership rejected the Tea Party and, along with the liberal media, participated in vilifying the movement.

But many Republican candidates did embrace the Tea Party and the ideas that were uniting America. Many of them defeated establishment Republicans and went on to help Republicans take the majority in the House and gain seats in the Senate. This was the election that brought us Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson and many champions in the House who ran their campaigns on cutting spending, banning earmarks and balancing the budget.

But even after these remarkable gains, some establishment Republicans blamed the Tea Party for keeping them from winning the majority in the Senate.

In 2012, with the Presidential election on the line, national Republican leadership rejected the lessons of 2010 and went back to the old way of campaigning – millions of dollars of negative television advertising telling Americans all the bad things about President Obama. They didn’t even try to inspire America with a bold positive vision. The Democrats, on the other hand, used the lessons of the Tea Party, built a grassroots network with voter registration in key demographics and states, and used a high-tech get-out-the-vote campaign to destroy Romney and defeat many Republicans.

As the leaders of the conservative movement, we need to recognize what worked in 2010 and build on it.

First: Republicans didn’t lead in 2010 … conservatives did. Conservatives from all walks of life made our ideas so persuasive and so pervasive across America, that many Republican candidates embraced them and rode our backs to victory. When we take control of our ideas and our message and convince Americans that these ideas will make their lives better, their futures brighter and their country stronger – the politics will follow us. If we do our job, candidates from all political parties will have to embrace our ideas and principles to get elected.

Second: We must have a permanent, from the ground up grassroots organization. That’s why Heritage created Heritage Action. They are promoting our ideas and holding Congress accountable by working with coalition groups across America to organize grassroots activists.

Third: We must learn how to communicate our ideas to all demographic groups and explain how conservative policies benefit 100 percent of Americans. School choice is a conservative policy that is specifically designed to help low income, minority students escape the shackles of failing public schools. Workplace freedom is a policy designed to increase the freedom of union members, to join or not join a union. Entitlement reform is designed to ensure low-income and middle-income Americans have the same freedom in retirement that wealthy Americans enjoy, the chance to control their own health care and income.

Fourth: We must tell the stories about real people whose lives have been transformed by conservative policies and contrast them with the stories of the people who are being victimized by liberal progressive policies.

People like Joe Kelley, a single father here in Washington, calls the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program a “blessing” for his children. By the fifth grade, his son Rashawn was three years behind in the public school system. Kelley had to get a court order for the school to provide Rashawn with a tutor after finding out that the school hadn’t fulfilled its requirement to update his son’s individual education plan.

Beyond the academic failures, Kelley says the school was so bad that “eight police officers patrolled it every day, yet kids were still scared of getting jumped.”

As a result of the scholarship, Rashawn was able to switch to a private school. He caught up to his grade level within two years and is today a high school graduate attending the University of the District of Columbia.

We must do more for the other Rashawns out there who need our help. The good news for us is that conservatives now control more states than ever before. Bold governors and state legislators are proving that our ideas work.

States like Tennessee that have eliminated their income tax and replaced it with a consumption tax have seen their economies boom. States like Indiana that have adopted freedom in the workplace and states like North Dakota that have opened their own energy resources have created new jobs and more opportunities for their citizens. States like Florida that have promoted education freedom have seen more students succeed … especially minorities. And states like Texas that have passed tort reform have seen the best doctors from all over the world move to their state – improving healthcare and lowering costs for everyone.

Our ideas work!

We know where Obama’s policies end up. Look at Greece and Europe. Look at California and Illinois. And look very closely at Detroit where big government liberals and union bosses have controlled city government for over 50 years. Detroit is bankrupt and elected officials have been replaced with a dictator … I mean director. Their population has decreased by more than half in the last 50 years. Only 7 percent of eighth graders read at grade level. Unemployment for Hispanics and African Americans is near 40 percent. Gangs and violence are rampant. There are over 400 liquor stores in Detroit, but not one chain supermarket. Detroit is a showcase for the liberal agenda. Like I said, “we’ve got em right where we want ’em.”

Our ideas make life better for everyone. Their ideas destroy lives and bankrupt cities, states and nations. If we can’t convince people of these facts, we are failing our fellow citizens.

Conservatives are committed to serve 100 percent of Americans – whether they vote for us or not. We will not rest until every American can reach the ladder of opportunity and climb as high as they can dream.

But none of our ideas, our policies or our communications will make any difference unless we show up. People won’t care about what we say until they are convinced that we care about them. We must engage Americans from all walks of life where they live. We must meet with those who are voting for policies that hurt them, listen until we understand why … and learn what words we must use to connect the right ideas with their hopes and dreams.

This is what I plan to do at Heritage. Our plans are bold and it will take several months before we can ramp up to full speed. In the meantime, there are at least four important things we must do right now.

First: We cannot give up on repealing Obamacare. Accepting Obamacare is giving up on America. We must cut the funding for Obamacare and support all the governors who reject the expansion of Medicaid and the creation of healthcare exchanges.

Second: America’s proud heritage of immigration has fueled our nation’s strength and diversity, but today we have a broken and politicized system that makes it easy to come here illegally. We have to fix the system, but we cannot design our national immigration policies to accommodate those who broke our laws. Granting citizenship to those who came here illegally violates the basic principles of freedom. It is wrong because it undermines the very reason immigrants flee other countries and come to America: our rule of law. And we know from history amnesty and citizenship does not solve the problem, it only encourages more law breaking. There were 3 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. in 1986 when they passed the first amnesty. Today, there are an estimated 11 million illegals immigrants. Congress should take a step by step approach that streamlines our legal process to encourage those yearning for freedom and opportunity to come here the right way.

Third: Conservatives must lead with a plan that balances the budget in the next decade without raising taxes. My oldest grandson is 6 years old. Is it too much to expect that by the time he gets his drivers license, we will stop borrowing money from his future? The next battle over the debt will be in a few weeks when we reach the debt limit … again, and we know the chicken littles will squeal and tell us how the sky will fall if we don’t let the President borrow more money. The debt limit is simply a balanced budget. It prevents us from spending more than we take in.

So, we have three options. The first, and my preferred option, would be to balance the budget within 10 years. The second option, which is the President’s preferred option, is to never balance the budget … ever! Just keep borrowing and taxing and spending. The third option, which is ironically the easiest option, is to balance the budget immediately. In other words, just don’t pass the debt limit increase.

Here’s the conservative proposition: Mr. President, we reject your plan to never balance the budget, so you have two options. We can either balance in 10 years — without raising taxes — or we can balance immediately. It’s your choice.

And lastly: We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.

In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases. The Supreme Court should uphold these laws. It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.

We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them. We cannot.

Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand. They’re natural allies. Strong families, churches and voluntary institutions build strong character and economic independence. And government must always remember we are endowed by our creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is true for you and me, and it is true for the unborn. When government understands its limited role, it can be smaller, people can be freer and our economy can create prosperity for everyone. And when government grows larger with programs like Obamacare that consume so much of our lives, it tramples on both economic freedom and religious liberty. This has united conservatives of all stripes to fight to end Obamacare so we can all be free to live our own lives.

Conservatives can unite America with a platform of federalism that moves dollars and decisions back to the states and the people. Let’s encourage the states to compete for the best business environment and quality of life. States should have the freedom to determine how best to meet the needs of their students. For health care, let states use private contracting for Medicaid to deliver better health care for more people at lower costs. Federalism means letting more states have Medicaid waivers to serve those most in need more effectively and efficiently.

More dollars would be available for roads and bridges if states kept more of their own gas tax dollars and made their own decisions about infrastructure. States could grow their economies if the federal government would get out of the way and let them develop their energy resources.

The less we try to do at the federal level, the more we can unite the country around our ideas. Federal programs are failing and they are bankrupting our nation. The states are proving that conservative ideas deliver better results for all of our citizens.

Another area where conservatives can unite America is foreign policy and defense. Americans want a strong defense, but they are tired of endless wars. The conservative platform for defense and foreign relations can be summarized with two words: strength and focus. The White House, by contrast, has created confusion around the world by not leading and threatened our security by gutting defense.

If we want a strong defense and a foreign policy that serves the interests of the American people, we must act with clarity and judgment. We must defend our homeland, protect American interests abroad and limit foreign entanglements. The world expects us to lead, but we must do it with strength and focus.

I’ve talked a lot tonight about what conservatives need to do to take control of our ideas, our message and how we need to connect with the American people. We can’t wait for Republicans to advance the conservative cause, it is our job to make our ideas so winsome to the American people that they become irresistible to the politicians. The voices of the new and bold conservatives in the House and Senate will certainly help, but it is our responsibility as conservative leaders to build support for our ideas among the voters.

Milton Friedman explained it this way when he said: “I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or, if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

That’s my main point today. It’s why I left the Senate to lead The Heritage Foundation and to help lead the conservative movement. We must take control of our ideas and our message. We must win the hearts and minds of the American people … all of the American people. We must help Americans see the connection between their hopes and dreams and the public policies that will help them achieve their goals. Then they will vote for the right ideas and the candidates who support them.

We can and we will unite America around the principles of freedom. We will develop a simple inspiring platform based on competitive federalism that unites rather than divides Americans. That is my hope and dream and it is my commitment to you. Please pray for our country and all those who defend it – those in uniform and all those who stand with us for the cause of freedom. Thank you.

Help us expose Planned Parenthood

$5 helps us reach 1,000 more people with the truth!


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Fr. Mark Hodges

, , ,

NY court lets woman refuse vaccine made with aborted baby tissue

Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

NEW YORK, September 3, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – An Orthodox Christian woman has won the right to refuse a vaccine developed using aborted babies' tissue, based on her religious beliefs.

The vaccine is for measles/mumps/rubella and is required by New York City law for all schoolchildren. It was developed from fetal tissue procured from abortions, hence the moral dilemma for practicing Christians.

The woman, who remains anonymous, said her Christian beliefs against abortion compel her to have nothing to do with vaccines made using aborted fetal tissue.

"Abortion is clearly a mortal sin and is [an] abhorrent act to any Christian," the New York mom said in her petition for exemption, according to the New York Post. "The vaccine manufacturers' use of aborted fetal cells in its products and research means that I cannot associate with them or support them financially (by buying their products), for such support would make me complicit to their sin."

New York State Department of Education Commissioner Mary Ellen Elia concluded in the woman's favor, explaining, "The weight of the evidence supports petitioner's contentions that her opposition to the MMR vaccine stems from sincerely held religious beliefs."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Christianity has always opposed abortion, from the time of the New Testament.  The Bible teaches that from conception, the womb holds a human person, calling pregnancy "to be with child" (Isaiah 7:14). Many biblical individuals are explicitly described as called or known from the womb, such as Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:4-5), Isaiah (Isaiah 44:2;  49:1), Job (Job 10:8-12), Paul (Gal. 1:15), and John the Baptist (Lk. 1:15). The New Testament also condemns abortifacients (Galatians 5:20;  Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15).

Other early Church documents condemning abortion include the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Apocalypse of Peter, St. Athenagoras's writings, the letters of St. Clement of Alexandria, the Apostolic Constitutions, Tertullian, Hippolytus's Apostolic Traditions. Additionally, every early Church council says likewise. 

Every ancient Christian leader unequivocally wrote that abortion, without exception, is against Christian belief and practice. Those who wrote extensively on the topic include St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Augustine, St. John the Faster, and the sixth worldwide Great Ecumenical Council (691).

This conviction continues to the present day. The Congress of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America stated, "The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal, and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or medical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder, that is, the premeditated termination of the life of a human being.  Decisions of the Supreme Court and state legislatures by which abortion is allowed, with or without restrictions, should be viewed by practicing Christians as an affront to their beliefs in the sanctity of life."

Thus, New York admitted that the woman's beliefs were in line with her religion.  Nevertheless, pro-abortionists say the First Amendment's assurance of the free exercise of religion should not include parents choosing whether to vaccinate their children.

Pro-abortionists sharply criticized the decision. "If we allow people to opt-out of vaccination, it puts other people's children at risk," says Sharon Levin of the pro-abortion National Women's Law Center.  "I think this decision is just one can in a crate of a can of worms that have been opened since the Hobby Lobby decision."

Levin was referring to Hobby Lobby's legal attempt to opt out of Obamacare's mandatory abortion/sterilization/contraception coverage, which violated the family-owned and operated corporation's religious convictions.

Yahoo Health writer Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy reports that undercover Planned Parenthood videos "have pushed questions regarding fetal tissue-based biomedical research to the forefront."

Advertisement
Featured Image
Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland. Gage Skidmore / Flickr
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

‘It’s absurd’: Rand Paul blasts Kim Davis’ jailing over gay ‘marriage’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

ASHLAND, KY, September 3, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has been arrested and taken to jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples this afternoon. After repeatedly refusing to give such a license to gays and lesbians, a federal judge found her in contempt of court and sentenced her to jail time rather than assessing a fine. 

As she was escorted out of the courtroom to jail, homosexuals began chanting, "Love won! Love won!" 

As the scene played out, her U.S. senator, Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul, said the decision was unwarranted, violated religious liberty, and would further polarize the country on the issue of same-sex "marriage."

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," Sen. Paul, R-KY, told CNN. "If you want to convince people that same-sex 'marriage' is something that's acceptable I would say try to persuade people" instead of using state force.

He also warned such heavy-handed tactics would backfire on LGBT activists. "If we're going to use the federal government, and we're going to get involved in every state and locality, you know what's going to happen? It's going to harden people's resolve on this issue," Paul added. "There's going to be no open-mindedness on this."

"I think it's a real mistake to be doing this," he said.

He said if state force continued to be exerted against Christian believers, "I think what's going to happen as a result of this is states and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business completely."  

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning - a George W. Bush appointee and the son of former moderate Republican Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky - had ordered Davis to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples but was repeatedly rebuffed.

"The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order," Judge Bunning said in issuing the arrest order. "If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that's what potentially causes problems."

Bunning ordered Davis imprisoned, rather than imposing a fine, because he said her fellow believers would take up a collection and pay her fine. 

Similar tactics were applied when Christians who refused to participate in same-sex "marriages" tried to raise funds via crowdfunding platforms.

Paul's rivals for the 2016 Republican nomination - Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio - have also voiced their support for the now-incarcerated Davis. 

"We should seek a balance between government's responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions," Rubio said yesterday. "There should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office."

But her opponents say they demand nothing unreasonable of her. ACLU attorney Heather Weaver said, "Its not making someone a martyr to ask someone to do their job and follow the law."

Republican presidential candidates Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, and Carly Fiorina have agreed that clerks who have deeply held religious beliefs must enforce the law. Christie underscored his resistance to finding any accommodation for public officials.

The prospect of jail does not frighten Davis, a born again Christian, who says iron bars cannot separate her from the Savior Who dwells in her heart, nor does prison compare to the punishment that she believes awaits should she participate in legitimizing sin.

"I've weighed the cost and I'm prepared to go to jail," Davis told Fox News yesterday. "This is a Heaven-or-Hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes. This is a fight worth fighting."

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Hundreds of thousands of people join the 'Manif pour tous' march in Paris supporting natural family in 2014.
Gabriele Kuby

, ,

Alarmed report details Sexual Left’s agenda to defeat surging European family movement

Gabriele Kuby
By Gabriele Kuby

September 3, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- The world-wide operating Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) is the intellectual activist centre of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) which presently governs Germany in a coalition with the Christian Democratic Party under Chancellor Angela Merkel. As their publications and conferences reflect, the FES pushes for same-sex “marriage,“ reproductive rights, biotechnology, sexual diversity, gender equality, and sexual education. It also publishes reports with the intention of “naming and shaming” individuals, organizations, parties, and networks which work on behalf of life and the family.

The FES’s latest publication takes an international approach, describing anti-gender activists and actions in France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Titled Gender as Symbolic Glue: The position and role of conservative and far-right parties in the anti-gender mobilizations in Europethe report was published by something called the Foundation for European Progressive Studies – “with the financial support of the European Parliament” and the Budapest branch of the FES.

The authors are alarmed over the growing resistance to ‘gender politics’ seen at the grass-roots level (e.g. La Manif pour tous movement in France and Demo für alle in Germany) and expressed in referendums held in several countries across Europe. In addition, they cite the opposition of political parties at the local and European levels, and the ‘anti-gender’ declarations of Bishop’s Conferences. What is seen as a dangerous development by the sexual left is really a testimony to the success of the pro-life and pro-family movement in Europe. The authors say:

Anti-gender movements want to claim that gender equality is an ‘ideology’, and introduce the misleading terms ‘gender ideology’ or ‘gender theory’ which distort the achievements of gender equality … This phenomenon has negative consequences for the legislation on gender equality.

The Symbolic Glue report then provides “policy recommendations for the progressive side to stand up against fundamentalist political activism.”

The individual country reports on the “reactionary backlash” against gender politics in France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia give a good overview of the situation in each country and the positions of the conservative and right-wing parties. In contrast to previous publications from the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, which tried to defame and stigmatize conservative individuals as right-wing radicals, bigots, and family-fundamentalists, the Symbolic Glue report largely refrains from such slanderous language. In fact, the authors sound worried that conservative activists are acquiring dominance in public debates, and are influencing party politics and legislation by: 

  • coining the terms “gender-ideology” and “genderism”;
  • giving “scientific” evidence against “gender ideology”;
  • mobilizing at the grass-roots level through “fear-managing language”;
  • making use of “authoritarian themes” such as the polemic against the French schoolbook Tous à poil (All naked);
  • creating “moral panic” that “allows socialist officials to be accused of … jeopardising the future of society”;
  • re-articulating “parent-power” or parental involvement in “promoting the parents as actors of the restoration of authority and traditional values at school”;
  • the “gradual subordination of educational institutions to Christian conservative worldview, carried out by local authorities in cooperation with the Catholic Church and religion-based organisations”;
  • utilizing “hate-speech towards Gender Studies” (as an academic subject) and relying on “freedom fighter rhetoric”;
  • pointing to the EU as a “cultural coloniser”;
  • leading successful constitutional referendums for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Symbolic Glue also analyses the deficiencies of the sexual left. It is difficult to say whether this self-critical stance is a tactical device to arouse sympathy and motivate people to engage in the anti-anti-gender battle, or whether it is really dawning on the authors that anti-gender movements can have “grave consequences not only to women’s and LGBT rights but to the emancipatory promise of the Left altogether.”

The sexual left, according to the authors’ own evaluation, seems to be missing ‘symbolic glue’. They see:

  • “difficulties of building an ideological response to conservatives”;
  • “lack of public campaign against the anti-gender discourse”;
  • “the inability to articulate a progressive agenda in the concrete experience of “ordinary people”;
  • the counter-reactions of leftist parties to the anti-gender mobilisation being “one step behind those of extra-parliamentary forces”.

The ultimate intention of the authors is to cure “progressives” of these deficiencies. But it is good that they also let conservatives know how they want to achieve this. 

Indeed, it is difficult to convince “ordinary people” of the notion of gender theory, and that the traditional identity of man and woman are restrictions on human freedom that must be overcome by voluntarily choosing one’s gender identity according to one’s feelings. Since the authors supply no definition for the concept of gender identity, we have to refer to the Preamble of The Yogyakarta Principlessince it is one of the rare places where a definition is given:

‘Gender identity’ … [refers] to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.

The solution to the incompatibility of gender theory with common sense – rooted in nature – is apparently to drop the concept of gender entirely. "Using the concept of gender as a technical category in the long run can be more self-destructive than useful while encountering this new political challenge." The progressives intend to move away from a “framework of identity politics” and reclaim the “real leftist values, using the language of solidarity” by “creating a counter-language, which reflects the emotional-fear language of the rightists.” Furthermore, “Instead of putting the emphasis on ‘human nature’ or ‘traditional values’, progressive actors have to take advantage of other aspects of ‘common sense’:  us/them distribution of power and wealth. Defining political antagonism is a pathway to hegemony.” The authors recognize that the opposition is composed of hard to control grass-roots movements and, therefore, advise progressive actors and left-wing parties to “strongly connect to grassroots [sic] organisations, local and individual initiatives.”

Furthermore, the public is to be provided “with concrete information about gender studies and policies through academic conferences, articles and statements from gender experts.” But in addition to conferences and a public dialogue between feminists and Catholics in order to “ridicule the anti-gender campaign”, an “e-learning course on … gender equality”, developed in Slovakia, is recommended as “best practice”, targeting administration staff, students, and the general public.

The authors of the Symbolic Glue report also sound somewhat startled to see a “paradigm change in science as we know it.” They describe the science they know as the “post-modern turn of modernity … where science became a moral and normative category acknowledging the positionality of the knower. This approach also questions the subject-object division and brings in new symbols, new myths and redefinitions.”

It is worth noting that with the exception of Andrea Petö who wrote the Epilogue, the report’s authors are all young women who belong to the “millennial” generation born around 1980. Several of them are in the process of obtaining a Ph.D., so their academic formation took place during the last ten years. This is precisely the period during which “gender studies” was established as an academic subject at the universities. (In German-speaking countries there are more than 200 professors for “gender” or “queer studies”, nearly all of them women.) “Gender studies” was and is a wide open door for female careers and a booming market for jobs.

These young women only know a “science” which is subordinated to the aim of effecting a political change in society – and academics is seen as an instrument for serving the cause of feminist and LGBT-interests. This so-called “science” has completely severed the academic commitment to the search for truth – which is – or was – the moving force behind the unfolding of European culture.

In general, Gender as symbolic glue, which was published by a foundation with a certain scientific claim, does not show the slightest intention of dealing with arguments on their merit; it just wants to pillory the enemy. Twenty-three individuals – perceived as enemies of the sexual left – are presented in an “Index” at the end of the book. (Wasn’t there an aversion to Catholic “indices” among enlightened liberals?)

In the end, the report says more about the weaknesses of the gender identity movement than about its opponents. The young authors must feel that their ‘intellectual house’ is built on sand, otherwise they wouldn’t express such worried dismay over the opposition they are facing. After all, international institutions like the UN and the EU – with their sub-agencies like the Fundamental Rights Agency and European Institute for Gender Equality – and national governments, with the superpower U.S. leading the way, as well as global corporations like Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook, and global NGOs like IPPF and ILGA, to name but a few, all with billions of dollars at their disposal, are on the side of the gender identity activists in this cultural war.

So why are these young women worried about the opposition of twenty-three people and a few comparatively tiny organisations with extremely small budgets? The answer is simple: Because they feel that the truth is on their side.

Gabriele Kuby is a sociologist, international speaker, and author of Die Gender-Revolution – Relativismus in Aktion, 2006, and Die globale sexuelle Revolution – Zerstörung der Freiheit im Namen der Freiheit, 2012. Both books have been translated into several languages and are referred to in the Symbolic Glue report. Die globale sexuelle Revolution will be published in the U.S. by Angelico Press in the fall of 2015.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook