Kristi Noem: A Republican Who Frags Culture Warriors

Republicans

Kristi Noem: A Republican Who Frags Culture Warriors

South Dakota governor talks Right, but keeps selling out to gender revolutionaries -- and knifing conservatives who call her on it

Rod Dreher

Jan 5, 2023 9:29 PM

I wish I could bring myself to care about the big GOP fight in the House of Representatives over the speakership. I know it's important, but I don't really take the Washington party to be serious about the issues that move me the most. I think it's probably the case that more Washington Republicans are serious than I realize, but in general, I vote Republican not because I expect them to do much, but because they do less harm than Democrats do.

Sometimes, though, you'll hear about a senior Republican politician who is a jaw-dropping sellout to the enemies of conservatives. Nate Hochman's powerful piece in National Review about South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem ought to drive a stake right through the heart of any national political career she hoped to have. It shows that she has a tendency to shoot conservative culture warriors in the back, and responds vindictively when she's called on it. I wrote back in 2021 about how she threw female athletes and conservatives under the bus to defend Big Trans. She's still doing that kind of thing, according to Hochman's reporting. Excerpts:

Last month, South Dakota State University (SDSU) sparked fierce criticism from conservatives after allowing a “kid-friendly” drag show to be hosted on campus. Among those critics was Norman Woods, director of the state-based social-conservative advocacy group Family Heritage Alliance (FHA), who penned an open letter to Governor Kristi Noem urging her to take action: “Innocent children should not be exposed to drag shows. Full stop,” Woods wrote. “Considering you have the power to hold the South Dakota Board of Regents accountable and fire at will, I am greatly disappointed you and your administration have taken no action to rectify this situation or to ensure that drag shows for children never happen again on South Dakota soil.”

Noem has just responded — by denying responsibility, threatening to sever ties with FHA, and implicitly calling for Woods to be fired.

“I’d encourage the Family Heritage Alliance to evaluate the purpose of your organization,” she wrote in a letter to the group’s board of directors yesterday. “Is it to promote family values — or is it to attack the most conservative governor in the country? I believe it is the former. . . . I suggest you find an executive director who agrees.”

The controversial event, which took place on state property and was organized by the college’s Gender & Sexualities Alliance student group, encouraged attendees to “show [their] support for the drag queens by bringing $1 or $5 bills to tip,” according to a now-deleted post on the SDSU website. (“This show will be kid-friendly, so bring the whole family,” the promotional ad concluded.) The controversy led to swift condemnations from conservatives, including some in the state legislature who argued that the drag show’s content could be illegal under South Dakota’s prohibition on “show[s] or other presentation[s]” deemed “harmful to minors.” Woods’s letter echoed those criticisms and requested that Noem “work with the Attorney General’s office” to apply that section of South Dakota law, “push legislation that protects South Dakota minors from future drag shows,” and speak “to the South Dakota Board of Regents and the President of the South Dakota State University about this drag event to ensure our taxpayer-funded buildings are not used to harm our children in the future.”

Read the whole thing.

If we cannot count on GOP elected officials to oppose drag shows for children at publicly-funded venues, what's the point of electing those officials?

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Subscribe for as little as $5/mo to start commenting on Rod’s blog.

Join Now

Theodore Iacobuzio

This is the best thing I've seen on Kevingate, from Kim Strassel in this morning's Journal. I get from it that it really is pretty important (paywall):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mccarthy-house-speaker-vote-trump-freedom-caucus-budget-spending-committee-republican-majority-11672956869?mod=opinion_featst_pos1

1 year ago

She's not veep material for Ron, at least. He needs somebody with some foreign policy cred, and that leaves out Marco Rubio, Teen Vampire (whew). I mean after he gets squished in his own Presidential bid.

Scott Regener

I'm not an unbiased observer, as I've been a Noem fan since the early days of the pandemic. I would caution Rod and those who side with him to consider the potential harm of government getting involved in stopping speech conservatives don't like, as the weapon we wield can be (and often is) wielded against us. A student group wants to host an event, and the government shuts it down - if it's a conservative, we howl in protest, but somehow if it is a liberal, we celebrate. This is not classical liberalism at all, the view of American freedom ("I hate what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.") Classical liberalism may be dying, and the days of authoritarianism may be upon us, but I'd rather take a principled stand on the ideal of self-government over against a top-down approach.

You ought to exercise "caution" yourself. If a drag show is "speech" (!) and hence protected by the First Amendment, then it is trying to convince, innit? And if it's trying to convince, what is the conviction it's trying to obtain? About 10 minutes of pointed socratic questioning ought to bring that out and it won't be pretty. If communities are enjoined from enforcing standards then you've thrown in the jock.

You seem to have completely missed my point. I do not in any way wish for drag shows to take place, nor do I like what they teach/say. My point is not that this speech in particular deserves special protection, but rather that like all other forms of speech that I find offensive/damaging/disgusting, I would rather not see government act to silence it. We've seen far too much of government choosing winners and losers and bringing pressure to bear on private companies in the name of a specific narrative over the past three years whilst dealing with an infectious disease to think that only those things we don't like will be silenced when the power is granted to governments to determine what kinds of things we'll let people say. If a student group can be prevented from hosting a drag show by government power because it will "harm minors," it isn't much of a stretch to think that the same power in different hands could be used to halt a public prayer meeting by another student group in our secular age, or to refuse a conservative the opportunity to address a student body.

Please indicate where I said you were pro-drag show. But your line OBJECTIVELY, as George Orwell would say, promotes just such activities. Drag shows are not political speech, and a community has every responsibility to protect children from this garbage.

It is an interesting argument, that to permit something is to promote it. That is, if governments permit the giving of a racist speech, they are somehow promoting racism. The idea of freedom is that it permits others to do specifically things I myself do not like - in exchange for being permitted to do specifically the things I do like. If I only permit others to do what I do like, either direct government action or petition to government to use its power, then I am not advocating for freedom. If you believe that government should control all speech, by all means argue in favor of it, but then do not call yourself a conservative who believes in the principles of liberty.
But if we're going to call drag shows dangerous, then we must also come to some conclusion about which drag events would be objectionable. For instance, is the "Sisters" scene in "White Christmas" enough to prohibit showing it to minors, or is it innocent enough that the line is not drawn that far? Who do we employ to make such determinations?
I'm curious, though, if you think the first amendment was created only to protect political speech, and that governments should have the right to control speech provided it is not political. In this totalitarian (i.e. everything is political) age, though, the distinction has little relevance.

JON FRAZIER

Where minors and near-minors are concerned legal precedent allows some judicious abridgment of the "hard" interpretation of normal freedoms-- e.g., we restrict alcohol and tobacco sales to those over 21; people under 18 may only work limited hours, etc. None of that has led to tyranny.
If legislators were discussing banning drag shows in private, adult venues I'd be quite opposed to that. The precedent it would set would be a very dangerous one.

Honestly, a student organization's activity on a public university campus is a bridge too far for me to say that government should put a stop to it. Too often, such restrictions have come down against conservative speakers and religious organizations. When that happens, we rightly howl of censorship. And all this criticism is because a consistently conservative governor chose NOT to use coercive powers that exceed her authority. We're all hooked on power trips now, apparently.

John Phillips

According to South Dakota representatives in the state legislature, Noem tends to take credit for every conservative victory, even though most of the progress has been made by conservative legislatures coming up with the initiatives and pushing it through the legislature. I'm basing that on what some legislators who have called into a Bismarck(which is in North Dakota) radio station over recent years have said. So take it for what its worth, which may not be much.

No, it's interesting.

Fran Macadam

At this point in the arc of the American electorate, you can't get elected without carving out some room for LGBTQ and abortion. Is that true?

Frans

No, at least as far as abortion is concerned. Near-total abortion bans and the politicians that support them are electable in numerous states. The situation’s unfortunately very different in Canada where I live. Noem has been very strongly pro-life, which is definitely a major point in her favor. I’d take her over any premier in Canada, though there are numerous US governors I like better.

The Supreme Court decision that there is no constitutional right to abortion did hurt politicians who lean pro-life in the midterms. No doubt about it, as a majority of the electorate are not pro-life , and a majority support bisexual and homosexual marriages.

Peter Pratt

Noem is a Koch libertarian in conservative clothing. She is just a shill for business interests and should not be trusted on any issue.