A few months ago, a new member of the College Republicans — who also happens to be openly gay — told me how uncomfortable he felt around members of the LGBT community who knew about his political leanings. He wanted to be active in both groups, but apparently he had been shunned for daring to hang around “those people.”
“It’s ironic,” he said, “that I’m more accepted by the College Republicans for being gay than I am by the gay community for being a College Republican.”
Actually, for anyone who understands the mind-set of gay-rights activists, feminist organizations and other groups that have been hijacked by the left, it’s not ironic, nor is it surprising. The College Republicans had this in mind when we invited Tammy Bruce, a former board member of the National Organization for Women and a self-described lesbian-feminist activist, to speak at Ohio University tonight.
As you might suspect, Tammy is no longer affiliated with NOW or any other feminist or gay-rights organization. Instead, she will be giving a speech titled “The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds,” which is also the title of her first of three New York Times best sellers.
“When I became president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, and eventually a member of NOW’s national board of directors … I believed that everyone, including Republicans of both sexes and men who honored the women in their lives, could appreciate the feminist struggle,” Tammy wrote in the first chapter of The New Thought Police. Instead, “I would be floored time and time again watching the struggle for civil rights being exploited for ideological power and control.”
On her first day as the Los Angeles chapter president, Tammy arrived at the NOW office and found a bunch of Democratic Party workers using the space as if it were Party headquarters. She promptly removed them — primarily because their partisan activities endangered NOW’s tax-exempt status, but also because she had no intention of letting a feminist organization, which was supposed to be working on behalf of all women, become an arm of a political party.
Instead of applauding her for upholding NOW’s nonpartisan mission, national NOW President Molly Yard rebuked Tammy for evicting them. She explained that Democrats “are our friends, and that’s who we are.” Yard then demanded to know which political party Tammy was affiliated with. Although she was a registered Democrat, she refused to answer, telling Yard “my feminism was going to be a variety that welcomed men, Republicans, the religious and anybody else who wanted to improve the quality of women’s lives.”
As Tammy would discover, “improving the quality of women’s lives” was definitely not NOW’s mission. Instead, NOW — as well as most other powerful feminist organizations — had evolved into an elite girls’ clique, unwelcoming to outsiders and intolerant of ideological and political differences among women. During another meeting with NOW leaders, Tammy was informed that they were “suspicious” of the Los Angeles chapter because it had recruited so many members that “didn’t fit the profile” — in other words, men and conservatives. The feminist establishment made it clear that diversity would not be tolerated.
But the final straw came for Tammy during the O.J. Simpson trial. As we all know, O.J. was a known wife-beater who was tried (and later acquitted, despite mountains of evidence against him) for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole. Nicole and O.J.’s marriage was a textbook case of an abusive relationship. Nicole’s desperate 911 calls — in which O.J. can be heard screaming and throwing things in the background — were played during the trial. Naturally, as a feminist leader who lived close to the scene of the crime, Tammy wanted to use the case to raise awareness about violence against women.
But the feminist establishment wouldn’t let her. Instead, NOW and the Feminist Majority Foundation — which claim to care about victims of domestic violence — teamed up with Jesse Jackson and the NAACP to defend the wife-beater as a victim of “racism.” When Tammy refused to stop raising the domestic violence issue, national NOW leaders voted to censure her — and called a press conference to publicly accuse her of racism.
For Tammy, the feminists’ suck-up to the NAACP during the trial was unforgivable, and it marked the end of her involvement with organized feminism as well as the gay-rights movement, where she had found the same militant groupthink.
She didn’t need them anyway. After departing from NOW, Tammy wrote three bestselling books, became the first open lesbian to host a mainstream talk radio show and serves as a regular commentator on the FOX News channel. She proudly describes herself as a “gay, pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death-penalty, voted-for-Reagan feminist.” Like so many other successful women, she doesn’t need identity politics or radical feminist ideology to guide her.
And she hasn’t abandoned the principles espoused by the feminist and gay-rights movements. Instead, she feels they have abandoned theirs. As she wrote, “Thirty years ago, civil rights organizations were classically liberal … [but] as the organized Left gained cultural power, it turned into a monster that found perpetual victimhood, combined with thought and speech control, the most efficient way to hold onto that power.”
Despite her negative experiences, Tammy is not going to waste her time tonight simply berating the Left. She has clear-cut ideas for how people who care about civil rights can break free from groupthink and actually make progress. As Sean Hannity said, “While other pundits just complain about the world we live in, she gives us all an action plan on how to change it.”
I invited Tammy to come to OU because I believe civil rights movements should welcome all people who believe in their mission. For anyone who agrees, I invite you to listen to Tammy Bruce tonight in Bentley 136 at 7:30.
Ashley Herzog is a senior journalism major. Send her an e-mail at ah103304@ohiou.edu.
Reader Comments
I'm going to be a shameless self-promoter and make this pop up in the "recently commented" section.
Since I started school here, columnists and letter-writers have been complaining that the College Republicans marginalize gay people and only host events that right-wingers could possibly be interested in. (http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/Opinion/2007/04/27/19532/)
Well, this time we're hosting a highly successful gay woman who has a history of liberal activism.
We'll see if any of them actually show up on Thursday night. If not, maybe the problem is their own narrow-mindedness and not our "marginalization" of gays and liberals.
"Like so many other successful women, she doesn’t need identity politics or radical feminist ideology to guide her."
But you use identity politics ALL THE TIME, Herzog. Your entire life is based on the fact that you're a conservative. That is the identity you have created for yourself. SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE F ARE YOU EVER TALKING ABOUT?! LOLOLOL YOU'RE MAKING ME LOL MYSELF TO DEATH!!!!!1 OMGWTFBBQ ROFLCOPTER GOING DOWN!!!!!!!1
Shut up idiot. Come back to me when you do something productive--like organize a speech with a three-time New York Times bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio host.
I think Arby is a few curly fries short of a value mean.
The troll account also has no idea what "identity politics" is.
Definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The laden phrase 'identity politics' has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups."
I should be paid to put up with these people.
First, Herzog, great way to be presumptuous and say that I've never done anything productive. Second, the way you posit your column, as "the Other side," mostly bitching about how conservatives ARE treated as second-class citizens on this campus who face "injustices," then this definition of "identity politics" completely applies to you. Maybe you could do some critical thinking for once in your life. Jebus.
Also, you get paid what you deserve.
jpmo13, I think you mean "value meal." I also think you think that I'm, in my name, referring to Arby's, the popular fast-food restaurant which bases its menu on roast beef. Sadly, you are mistaken. Good effort, though. A+, you silly goose.
God it'd be nice to read a Herzog column that didn't have the words feminist, conservative, or liberal in them. Just to see what else she can write on.
Personally, I'd like to see her try a humor column. Be nice to see a columnist in this paper try a difficult form of writing for once.
No issues with the column or the event, I look forward to it, but is it necessary for Herzog to lord over us all how awesome she is? We all knows she can "organize a speech with a three-time New York Times bestselling author and" blah blah blippity bloo I've read this kind of thing from too many people on this site. I wrote a popular column for two quarters, was reprinted in a college paper in California, interviewed Daniel Tosh, and I look damn good in a suit. Plus, I've arm-wrestled a street preacher. Do I mention this in place of an intelligent response to a comment. Well, sometimes, but if you've seen me in a suit, you'd understand.
It's kind of sad/funny to me that the point of the article has been overshadowed (at least in the comments section) by Herzog's reputation, because I actually really enjoyed this article, I thought it was very interesting.
Way to alter your comment to fit the actual definition of "identity politics." First, you said I engage in identity politics "because your whole life is based on being a conservative!!!1" Then, when it was clear you don't even know what identity politics is, you said I "view conservatives as victims." No, I don't. Nor are conservatives a recognized group that practice "identity politics" (unlike gays and feminists) if you spent any time whatsoever reading political theory so you don't come off as an idiot.
"God it'd be nice to read a Herzog column that didn't have the words feminist, conservative, or liberal in them." --No. I was hired as a political columnist who would write a lot on women's issues (that was in my application), so that's what I'll be doing.
Anyway, I hope all of you will come to the speech, for the reasons I stated in my first post, but also because Tammy is one of the most interesting people you will ever meet (imo, anyway).
first paragraph should end "Nor are conservatives a recognized group that practice "identity politics" (unlike gays and feminists), which you'd know if you spent any time whatsoever reading political theory so you don't come off as an idiot."
I liked this column but is there any chance you can stay away from partisanship? I realize this is a political column but it seems to me that you're doing the same finger-pointing at those damn liberals and Democrats that Tammy seems to oppose.
Yeah, OneRode, good luck with that. Better people than you have been barking up that tree for years. She's a Republican columnist, she's probably going to write with a Republican slant. Kinda weird how you need that explained.
Locke, I understand that. It just seems wrong (I hesitate to say hypocritical, it's not quite the word I'm looking for) to use the slant of a political party when talking about a speaker who seems to encourage putting aside party lines.
If the speaker had written this, then yeah, it would be wrong and hypocritical. I think the word for Ashley writing this and it turning out the way it did is "fitting."
You can't judge a community's open-mindedness based on weather one person feels more comfortable in it over another community.
When you consider the fact that, generally, the republican party has been oppressing the LGBT community for years (not to mention the disgusting parodical "fine by me" t-shirt many of you wear), its no wonder they feel a little more hostile towards the republicans. The LGBT community has always been supportive of the certain person you mention in the beginning of your article (And it is very obvious who you are referring to), and there are many republican LGBT members who attend regular meetings at Open Doors, the LGBT student Union. Don't use one person's personal bias to generalize levels of acceptance in the two communities.
That said, i want to clarify on my first comment that I'm not trying to attack you, Ashley. I understand you are generally a very LGBT-friendly person, and I respect that.
I guess what I want to say is, while the feuding between LGBT and conservative groups is unfortunate, i think it is very warranted on both parts. All I can hope for is to bridge that gap eventually. There was a greeks and gays social earlier this month, and i think, similarly, a Republican and LGBT sponsored event would be beneficial on both parts. We can only learn from each other, in my opinion.
Maybe I'm thinking too fast too soon?
I attended the talk that Tammy gave and found it very interesting and enlightening. I am a conservative and my friend is liberal, we both attended together and both of us thought she did a pretty good job. I was particularly interested in the fact that most of the people attending were members of College Republicans.
I figured more liberal-minded people on campus would want to hear what Ms. Bruce had to say, especially those who identify as LGBT. I am slightly disappointed that hardly any left-leaning people, and zero members of the LGBT community (as far as I know), showed up to hear what "the other side" has to say.
You're right Jason, I am very supportive of gay rights and LGBT people in general. That hasn't scored me points with the Christian conservative crowd (the readers over at Townhall.com were not happy last summer when I mentioned that I'm not against gay marriage, and my inbox was flooded with hate mail). But I stand by it.
As for "bridging the gap," that's what we were attempting to do with the Tammy Bruce speech. After the "Conservative? Fine by Me" t-shirt controversy, I figured I'd extend the olive branch. I personally contacted Mickey Hart and had information about the speech go out in the LGBT programs e-mail newsletter. I also invited some of the LGBT student leaders. Guess what? They, along with their liberal allies (with a few exceptions), didn't show up.
We were prepared for that. As zxcvbnm32 said, it was an awesome speech, and I would have gladly done it for the College Republicans only. But we all figured we'd expand our horizons and invite members of other communities.
I think their lack of attendance says much more about them than about us. Obviously the CRs don't hate gay people so much if we were willing to pay thousands of dollars to bring one here (the speech was my idea, but the CRs were 100% supportive from the first day I mentioned it). Tammy also isn't even a typical conservative--she's pro-choice, not religious, and a feminist. But we were open-minded enough to bring her.
Personally, I don't care if the liberals/allies/LGBT community on campus won't even give our events a chance. But I think they've officially lost their right to portray themselves as victims of those mean College Republicans who just want to "oppress gay people" and "mock everyone's beliefs":
http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/Opinion/2007/04/27/19532/
http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/Culture/2008/05/01/24211/
We invited you to come to a lecture with a prominent member of your own community, and you wouldn't come. I think the real problem is that OU has put so much effort into catering to the LGBT community and making sure they feel comfortable (SafeZone is a good example), that they now expect to have their own beliefs reinforced 100% of the time.
That's fine, but don't accuse the CRs of being mean to you.
I dunno... personally, I wouldn't imagine an invitation into the hornets' nest would make it any more desirable.
Thanks for proving my point.
You're the ones who are completely narrow-minded, not us.
Ever notice that it's the conservative crowd that's constantly trying to justify their position? A humanitarian stance doesn't need justification; its existence is sufficient.
It's silly to say that one group's constant struggle for acceptance and equality can be so easily disregarded by saying, "Well, we got one of you to side with us and the rest of you didn't, so obviously you're wrong, not us!"
When there is such a ... /rich/ history (wish we could use HTML tags on these comments) of mistrust and animosity between conservative groups and marginalized peoples there's no wonder why your "olive branch" didn't draw many of the opposing crowd. I commend you on setting the whole thing up, but don't trivialize the LGBT struggle (and others like it) with such brash dismissals as "you're the one's who are completely narrow-minded, not us." It just sounds glib.
"A humanitarian stance doesn't need justification; its existence is sufficient."
This is laughable. This was also actually a large part of Tammy's speech; she pointed out that liberals just assume their beliefs are above criticism, and that everyone else is horrible and inhumane for not agreeing with them 100% of the time. As she said, they think they have "absolute ownership of the truth."
Like I said, I don't really care that no one from the LGBT community came. I just don't want to hear them reveling in their victimhood and accusing us of only being interested in "preaching to the choir" (or whatever Doug Cloud said) when we aren't. If that were true, we would've invited a mainstream conservative who agreed with the club on all the issues.
Oh, and the mere fact that you referred to the speech as a "hornet's nest" proves that you view any ideas other than your own as too painful to listen to. Poor babies. It must be nice to have your beliefs confirmed every day on the OU campus. Good luck in the real world.
I don't claim to speak for anyone else that considers themselves liberal (I don't even consider myself a liberal, I just tend to find many of my views align with theirs), but I've never assumed liberals consider their beliefs above criticism. Liberals simply tend to believe that the human element is the most important, and rally against anything that prevents people from being happy, healthy and safe at the expense of others.
I suppose you'd also say that Blacks need to quit whining about inequality, or that battered wives should quit whining because self-defense classes are available, or that atheists should quit whining because the Bible is no longer used as a textbook.
Hate crimes are actually up from recent years. Nearly 20% of them focus on or around sexual orientation and nearly 10% of all violent crime is considered a hate crime (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov07/hatecrime111907.html). So, do you still not "want to hear them reveling in their victimhood" just because you feel as though you've washed your hands of guilt?
To be fair, the hornet's nest analogy works for this speech. Three quarters or more of her speech was devoted to how flawed liberal thinking is, and how awesome conservatism is. It was an intelligent and illuminating speech, but hardly what I'd call unbiased. Granted, she did mention the flaws inherent in the two-party system, but it was clear that her solution would involve the elimination of liberalism. Ok, it wasn't that simplistic, but I, being one of maybe 3 liberals there, did feel a bit like a wounded gazelle in the lion's den.
Geez, the more I read, the sicker I get. The conservatives think the liberals are childish and naive, the liberals think the conservatives are blind and self-righteous. One day, I'm gonna invite a bunch of liberals and conservatives to the same party. 8 beers a piece later, and we'll either have peace, or a glorious fight of 300 standards.
"we'll either have peace, or a glorious fight of 300 standards."
...I better start working on my abs.
Well, Warren, at leas you came, and that's the difference.
But I'm really looking forward to that party.
Submit a comment to The Post