More harm than help 3
We have only just found out that this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is co-sponsored by the John Birch Society.
Is this harmful to the cause of conservatism?
Here is an interesting and seemingly objective account of the John Birch Society. What emerges from it is that if this organization is not as bad as it has been painted at the worst, it is also not as guiltless of bigotry, especially of a racist and anti-Semitic slant, as its apologists have claimed. It propagates ideas – anti-communism, anti-collectivism, anti-world government – that most conservatives would agree with; but it also propagates conspiracy theories that place it in the “cranky” category.
Furthermore, its reputation for being guilty of “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia”, and “anti-Semitism”, whether fully or only partially or even unfairly deserved, should be an impediment to any close association with it unless and until it can prove its innocence – perhaps by emphatically and repeatedly denouncing such opinions. Mere denials, or statements to the effect that only “some members” held these views, won’t do.
All this considered, we’d say … yes – the conservative cause is more likely to be harmed than helped by this sponsorship.
And why give ammunition to the enemy on the left?