Should Conservatives Care about CPAC?

T he annual Conservative Political Action Conference opens its doors next week, sure to garner its normally outsized attention from the mainstream media. That’s a shame, because CPAC is now only a shadow of its former self.

This event was once a calendar highlight, as people from all factions and all parts of the country gathered to meet, debate, and network. Now, under the leadership of its embattled chairman Matt Schlapp, it has devolved into a MAGA carnival where only one part of the conservative movement is welcome and dogma has replaced debate.

Should conservatives care? Clearly many elements of the populist wing do, as evidenced by their fervid attendance and the degree to which MAGA stars flock to preach to the faithful. Others, such as Reaganite fusionists or the libertarian-leaning element, look elsewhere for intellectual sustenance and companionship. The movement, once united in ends albeit divided over means or priorities, is now rent asunder.

That doesn’t mean that nobody should care about what happens next weekend. Conservatives who cling to the old verities must reckon with the continued appeal of conservative populists. Eight years after Trump’s shocking ascension, it should be clear that it’s not all about him. His ideas, his methods, and his priorities resonate with a large number of people who in 2010 would have been just another part of the broader movement.

Populists, however, must reckon with the fruits of their apparent triumph. CPAC crowds are smaller than they used to be and think tanks are virtually absent. Leading conservative stalwarts such as Morton Blackwell and Charlie Gerow have resigned from CPAC’s board, and even longtime anti-tax activist Grover Norquist has said that “CPAC stopped being a useful part of the movement long ago.” When you’ve lost Grover, you’ve lost the plot.

The truth is that each side of this conservative civil war needs the other. The old guard needs to recognize that so-called zombie Reaganism is neither the answer to America’s problems nor a solution to conservatism’s perennial political challenge. Populists need to realize that they may hold the upper hand within the Republican Party, but they are far from a majority of Americans. To have a prayer of prevailing in general elections, they need the conservatives who aren’t welcome at today’s CPAC, plus scores of people whom they deride as “RINOs.”

That consideration returns us to CPAC. It began in 1974 as an effort to translate conservative ideas, then in retreat, into successful political action. It did not set a doctrine for all speakers to follow; indeed, speakers openly disagreed with each other on crucial issues. CPAC flourished because it provided a forum for all conservatives to debate their differences and ultimately unite to defeat a common foe.

A reformed CPAC that returned to its roots could play a vital role in conservatism’s renewal and rejuvenation. That’s unlikely to occur as long as the current leadership holds sway, but that simply leaves the door ajar for competition. And that’s what conservatives who want to win should work for.

Imagine a new event in 2025 that seeks to take this path. It could be called CARE: Conservative Action and Renewal Event. It would do what CPAC used to do: Welcome all strains of conservative thought and leadership and directly address our differences with each other as well as those with liberals and progressives. Populists could debate neocons on American support for NATO, social conservatives and libertarians could debate what conservatives should do about abortion post-Dobbs; the list goes on.

Does anyone think such an event would be a failure? Conservatives know things can’t go on as they have. House Republicans are dysfunctional precisely because they have never debated their differences with an intent to achieve unity. Senate Republicans are veering in the same direction and will become another hot mess unless they change course. A CPAC competitor that addresses this challenge would provide a great service to all factions.

This would be true whether or not Trump wins reelection. The conservative conflict would merely intensify if he lost and factions saw the throne vacant for the first time in years. His victory would not obviate the need for a successor to CPAC, as his administration would not be able to govern without input from all conservative factions. That’s the dirty little secret behind efforts to recruit people into a second Trump term: Led mainly by people who were conventional conservatives in 2016, people of disparate conservative dispositions would staff the administration. A reformed CPAC, or a CARE, would prove extremely useful for such efforts by floating ideas as well as personnel for the administration to use.

It is the fate of all institutions to outlive their usefulness as they calcify and atrophy. Just as Amazon has replaced Sears as America’s department store, so too will someone soon topple CPAC from its decaying perch. Conservatives should cheer when that happens, and they should perhaps try to hasten that outcome.