Robin Burk was accredited to this year's Conservative Political Action Conference as a member of the Winds of Change.NET team. She covered CPAC as a private citizen and maybe a "citizen journalist" (if she could figure out what that means), as an academic studying new media trends, and as an ordinary voter interested in national & international affairs. Robin is not affiliated with the organizations who sponsored CPAC.
Well, the booths are all dismantled, the floors swept and the CPAC attendees have all gone home (or are off visiting monuments and museums with their families). I took Amtrak down to DC and back, which gave me some time to reflect on the conference and what it all means. In this post I'll think out loud about the conservative movement as seen at CPAC. I'll use a second post later today or tomorrow to talk about the media, including my brief foray into the previously uncharted (by me) territory of radio and TV interviews.
Impressions. (Thoughts about the impressions below.)
How do you sum up several days, dozens of speakers and crowds of attendees?
I could start with the surprising number of young people who were in the thick of things there. Many who looked to be college age or in their early 20s, a fair number of teenagers too. They were everywhere: listening to speakers, waiting to get books signed, working the conference or manning booths. One young woman spent half an hour talking with me about flat consumption tax regimes. Lots of young people talking to other young people about campus organizing. Special sessions for young people on how to talk to the media, how to organize a Campus Republicans chapter, how to canvas opinion in your home town, how to work on a political campaign.
They were energetic, upbeat and in some cases intense. They feel enfranchised, a part of the political process. The Clare Booth Luce Institute mentoring session for girls and young women was very popular.
If the conference is any indication, conservatives identify with certain values and ideas, not with race or economic class. One of the more interesting tax-related groups at CPAC is the one founded by African-American corporate CEO Herman Cain. The key person manning the booth for Cain's New Voice Foundation was a slender 50-ish midwestern white woman in jeans and a T-shirt. She's pretty enthusiastic about the ideas and leadership of this dynamic Southern black man. For all that the conference attendees were more white than the country as a whole, minorities who attended appeared to be matter-of-factly an integral part of things. True of the younger people, but also of the older ones.
One of the newly-elected directors of the American Conservative Union is an impressive black woman who got herself off of welfare and has a lot to say about its impact on the Black community. I'll post an entry about her later in the week. The announcement of her election was greeted with strong applause.
Books. Books and videotapes and pamphlets everywhere. (Not surprising, given the nature of the conference, but noticeable nonetheless.) People buying 3 and 4 different books at a time. The lines for book signings were very long. Young people excited to meet Zell Miller.
Half a dozen or more booths with red, white and blue elephant pins, bumper stickers etc. Some items were quite nice, many were fun, cheesy things and a few left me uneasy - more about that later.
Tax code reform. I must have counted 6 or more groups with booths who are focused on specific tax proposals. Eliminating the estate tax. Flat taxes. Consumption taxes rather than income taxes.
Didn't see much devoted to specific cultural values issues. I wondered if I'd see any anti-abortion booths. Didn't. No anti-gay-lifestyle groups that I noticed either. The NRA had a booth, but not a dominant one and it was in a peripheral location.
In theory, the main sessions followed one after another, so a single person could cover it all. In practice, it was hard to cover all or even most of the sessions as a blogger. The main hall had poor lighting, no power outlets and no WiFi. So we pretty much had to blog from Blogger's Corner, a few tables in one corner of the noisy booth area with power strips and a monitor to follow the talks and panel discussions. It was hard to hear sometimes, especially when people came by to watch the wild bloggers in their natural habitats (smile). So my apologies if I didn't write anything about the topics you asked for. More than once I had to give up trying to follow the session being broadcast.
Thoughts About It All
The conservative movement in the U.S. doesn't seem to be monolithic. Some emphasize fiscal conservatism and tax reform. Others care deeply about social issues like abortion but the energy now is in particulars like the bioethics debate about stem cell research. And contrary to impressions you might get, not everyone likes or approves of the Ann Coulters and Pat Buchanans or their rhetoric. I talked with a number of young people who were unimpressed by both of them.
There are some deep commonalities among the people who came to CPAC, however. You couldn't miss the fact that they all feel the U.S. is a great country. There must have been a half dozen political parties and interest groups out there - Libertarian Party, Conservative Party, Alliances for this and that - and nearly all of them had things like copies of the Constitution to hand out. Videos of Zell Miller talking about our troops and what he feels this country stands for played in several places around the hall. And there was quiet emotion in the banquet room on Friday night when a small color guard brought in the U.S. flag. Attendees sang the national anthem and Phyllis Schafly led the Pledge of Allegiance from the podium before the color guard left the room.
This may sound cheesy to many of our readers and in some ways it was. I'm no stranger to military and patriotic ritual and I get to see it done impressively well from time to time. The production values, as it were, were a lot more amateur at CPAC.
But these rituals were an important symbol that tied together most of CPAC and they matter, I think, precisely because they were a reflection of the people there. Zell Miller wasn't wildly popular at CPAC because he is so critical of his own Democratic party - or at least that's not the deeper reason. He was wildly popular because he speaks out for America and the ideals the country was built on. People were glad to be able to wear a flag pin on their lapel, to talk about their country with pride and to feel as if they belong to an honorable and valuable tradition.
I commented at length (in the entry that upset Joe and which is now here) about my talks with John O'Neill and Bill Franke, and about Rear Adm. Hoffman's comments at the award banquet for the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth. Although Hoffman bashed John Kerry, he wasn't doing so to make a partisan point (even if the enthusiastic reaction he received was among partisans). He was contrasting Kerry's behavior with the behavior and values he and the other CPAC attendees think are important. This difference in values as played out in behavior explains, I think, why the Swifties generated so much grass-roots support (including from people who don't all necessarily share the same political beliefs otherwise).
Loyalty to those you follow and those who follow you. Honesty. Courage. Sacrifice. And a certain modesty that says, "I'm no war hero, but I know people who are."
Which is not to say that this is all peachy keen. A sense of belonging to a community can degenerate into small-minded meanness or a more dangerous 'us v. them' mindset.
There were a few signs of that at CPAC. The conservative movement needs to decide if they want to continue to see themselves as a minority under attack or if they want to govern from a majority. Ann Coulter is effective for rallying the troops and railing at liberals. But a new McCarthyism isn't going to sit well with many centrists who voted for Bush this last election. There needs to be a positive vision for what conservatives want to accomplish and killing off liberals or liberalism doesn't cut it IMO.
On a smaller scale, there are some other people and attitudes that should be marginalized in the conservative movement. One of the booths at CPAC specialized in T-shirts and sweatshirts with snarky slogans. Now, I can appreciate snark as much as anyone and I admit I'm tempted to put one of those "Keep honking, I'm reloading" bumper stickers on my car after a long drive on, say, the NJ Turnpike.
But I took exception to the shirts in this booth that showed an Abrams tank, dead bodies and the slogan "Iraqi Roadkill". I tried to have a respectful conversation with the proprietor of the booth about it, but he just didn't seem to get the fact that that sort of thing might be counterproductive to our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere.
He's stuck in the old posture of reveling in nasty rhetoric. Understandable for a minority out of power. Not a solid basis for governing the country. Bush seems to understand that. Whether the conservatives among his supporters all do remains to be seen.
Does this mean that rhetoric from the Democratic Party that is mean and nasty when ACCURATE is a correct policy for a party out of power? Or what I believe will happen is that the Republicans will argue it is not civil politics and therefore should be dismissed? If you are going to have a political discourse what are the rules you suggest?
I'm not entirely sure I understand the first part of your comment. But here's what I care about: that the parties to debate about policy and political issues care about the country before they care about short-term partisan advantage.
I don't like nasty rhetoric from the minority party. But the same rhetoric from the party in power is significantly more damaging to the country IMO.
Years ago I had the interesting experience of getting to know the late Herman Kahn. Kahn could say some pretty provocative things. But they were never meanspirited and he backed his comments up with considerable expertise and a demonstrated interest in serious policy issues. Can't say the same about Coulter, or about her equivalents on the left either.
Did the Republican Party not put it in plain English that they are for everyone and not selected groups of individuals?
Not quite sure how to read that statement. Other than I understand the feeling of a non-diverse atmosphere. A Mexican in Boise Idaho stands out like a sore thumb. None the less the people there were just as friendly and helpful as many of the other places I've visited throughout the US. What I find surprising though is those in the Democratic Party keep coming back to this issue of race and diversity and trying to define a Republican Party based on those lines versus political agenda and beliefs. If I may be so bold Robin in my opinion you are coming awful close to this. Maybe I'm reading it all wrong and maybe it's just me but it is the way I'm reading it.
This surprises you? Doesn't surprise me in the least. Not all of us care for Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage or Sean Hannity either.
You might want to check out Marine Corps Barracks 8th & I - Sunset Parade which is guaranteed to send a tingle up your spine. I recall spending the 4th of July on an Alaskan Cruise. The crew had set up a party atmosphere for dinner with red white and blue decorations etc.. About half way through the meal the crew started a rendition of America the Beautiful. Practically the whole mess hall was standing and singing. The wife asked me if I was going to stand up and sing. My answer was simple. It's not my national anthem. As for the amateur performance, as long as it followed protocol that is all that matters. I'm just as proud to sing the National Anthem at a minor league ball game as I am to sing it at the local race track.
Could this be what is possibly wrong with the Democratic party?
I don't believe the Republican Party is trying to kill off liberals or liberalism. The Republicans have visions of what they want to accomplish socially, economically and politically. Be they positive or negative depends on ones point of view.
USMC, at least one liberal blogger at CPAC made rather a point of noting what she called the "uniformly white" makeup of the crowd. I was making the point that the crowd wasn't uniformly white and that those present who aren't white were a natural part of things, not token representatives of their race or ethnic origin. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I've worked for 3 non-white entrepreneurs in my earlier career; all were politically conservative and good businessmen. And of course now I work for the most diverse and thoroughly integrated organization in the world. These are Good Things.
Re: patriotic ritual, I suspect that there are some on the left who find it uncomfortable to sit through.
Again, the point of mentioning young people who don't much care for Coulter and Buchanan is not that I was surprised but that some have made a point of saying Coulter was the star of the conference. I wanted to say that she wasn't uniformly respected among young conservatives.
The "kill liberalism" comment is a paraphrase of things Coulter and others like her have said. I agree she doesn't necessarily speak for the Republican party -- but then the conservative movement and the Republican party are two different groups that only partially overlap.
Thanks for the follow up and the clarification Robin. Now, at least, I feel much differently and better about what you have written.
I am worried about so many young people being indoctrinated into what you describe as a mean-spirited community. Is there not something that we liberals can do about this? I was hoping that school curriculum changes over the past few decades and the preponderance of liberal minded people in the professoriate might steer more young people toward more tolerance.
Liberals are certainly more intelligent than conservatives, so it is worrisome to think that our political future may be in the hands of people you indicate may not be the right kind.
Are you trolling or serious?
It should be clear to a careful reader that I by no means wrote that the conservative movement as a whole is a mean-spirited community. And don't get me started on the effects of education over the last few decades.....
Hmmm, I'm guessing 'troll'.
Definitely could fit the "troll" template, but the last sentence just screams "satire" to me.
For those who are pondering the first sentence:
This is certainly a bipartisan risk, given the polarization we are seeing in the USA. And yes, there is stuff people can do. In order of importance:
Joe, I think you're right about the satire. Apologies, Richard!
You got it all wrong concerning your last paragraph condemning my booth that I own, Freedom Gear.com You must have spoken with my artist Bryan and not me Chris Green.
First of all the t-shirt "Iraqi Roadkill" is a celebration of a swift relatively bloodless (on our part) military campaign only matched by the German invasion of France May 1940 (commemerated in our "Frech salute you shirt")
It's a knocked out Russian tank not one of our abrams with an apache helo going by. I got the design idea from Ollie North's war stories where the Marines advancing on Baghdad called the burned out armor and vehicles they passed road kill.
Big news for you, NO DEAD BODIES NO ABRAMS AND NO CREDIBILITY FOR YOU!!!!! Feel free to challenge me on that visit this blog http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/
to get an unbiased photo not from me but taken of the shirt on display!!!! Where are the dead bodies... Sounds like a CNN Dan Rather we're making up the facts as we go job here!!!!!
sincerely,
Chris Green,
Freedom Gear, Inc.
As a proud owner of an Iraqi Roadkill Tshirt, I can confirm that there are no dead bodies anywhere in the picture, and while being no soldier, I can tell it isnt an Abrams thats destroyed.
I dont know what it was you were trying to talk to Bryan or Chris about exactly, but I had some good conversation with both of them on two seperate days, so perhaps you were intimidated by their "In your face" approach with their shirts and attitude? I dont take myself seriously enough to be offended by their "I only see Red" shirts (being a Democrat), and I certainly see humor in the rest of their designs. Quite frankly I think people need to lighten up more, and not get offended at the drop of the hat for the sake of starting crap with someone just to get them in trouble just because it makes you feel better.
Okay, sorry for the delay in responding. I had to get home, unpack my camera and find the photo I took at the booth.
a) Chris, you are right about the tank. I should have remembered which model it is.
b) My photo is unclear. I thought I saw an arm sticking out of the sand near the tank. I followed your link and I don't see that on your site. Apologies for getting that wrong.
So that's what happens when I write about something days later without checking my notes or photos to make sure the details are accurate.
That said, I stick by my wider point about the tone of some things I saw at the conference, including (sorry Chris) some of the slogans and art at Chris' booth and a few other places there. And no, I'm not claiming "fake but accurate". This is an editorial comment, not reporting:
Andrew calls Chris' shirts (or at least the Iraqi roadkill one) "in your face". He suggests that I might have been trying to get someone in trouble for their attitude. But here's the point:
I did try to talk with someone running the booth. In fact, I would have been happy to set up a time when we could talk for however long about that shirt slogan and other issues.
But - perhaps because of an 'in your face attitude' and the fact that my pass said "media" and not "friendly-to-conservatives-blogger" - I was brushed off dismissively.
And that's exactly where "in your face" becomes counterproductive to conservatives if you want to wield power and influence in the country rather than to congratulate each other for being right.
Look: I'm a military wife, the daughter and niece and cousin of military, the niece and goddaughter of a highly decorated WWII hero. I'm not exactly unfamiliar with military slogans and I'm pretty Army friendly. (And yes, I'm a gun owner and I shoot, too.)
But there's a time and a place ... and nearly 2 years after major combat operations ended, when there's been an election in Iraq and we're trying to help them form a stable government that will be friendly to us is maybe not the time to be pushing "Iraqi roadkill" shirts. Not if you support those efforts, anyway.
That is what I said to whoever I spoke to at the booth. I wish I could tell you his name and his side of the story, but since he was happier to flaunt an "in your face attitude" than to discuss it, I can't.
Thank you for your response. Especially I'm appreciative of your comments about the behavior of people and parties in power and then your explanation about the effect of the shirts Iraqi roadkill even though your recollection was inaccurate(the ability to acknowledge a mistake is a powerful weapon for gaining crediblity).
This comment is to try and get a handle of what you said about McCartyism and contrast it with Joe Katzman's piece and its comments.
I read you comment about Ms Coulter as follows: It was not an attempt to start a debate about whether McCarthy was correct in his analysis and outing, if you will, supporters of the USSR. It was a call to not engage in the politics of personal destruction by confronting those whom you disagree with by branding them with a scarlet letter. It was an understanding that McCarthy let his power go to his head and created an environment where no dissent was to be tolerated under any circumstances. An understanding that the moral authority that comes with being correct about an issue will disappear if being correct means destroying those whom disagree with you with a policy of the scarlet letter.
Reading and rereading all the comments reinforced how correct your analysis is. Every discussion was either an attack on Democrats, members of the loony left and liberals, an attempt to defend McCarthy or tear him down or attempts to support Ms Coulters thesis about McCarthy. Never was there a discussion ofthe issue(s) you raised
The comments continue my disappointment in the right and/or conservatives(r/c). All they did was dance at the bonfire of the vanities. It's as if the r/c has never learned anything from history.
Too many members of the r/c are like a broken clock. Being correct on two issues of the day does not give them carte blanche to denounce and destroy all that has come before the r/c came to power by excercising power through the politics of the scarlet letter.
You read my comments correctly, Robert. The only think I'd add is that I endured the same behavior by those on the left for a good while after the mid-70s. Which led to Newt Gingrich's Congress. Which led to ....
Well, you get the idea. At some point if the discussion doesn't turn to the issues, it no longer serves a positive purpose. IMO Coulter passed that point a while back, as have her counterparts on the left.
I think we face some serious threats and opportunities over the next few years. We will do badly on both counts if we don't get serious ourselves, in response.
Last night on PBS-the nightly report?-there was an interview with two commentators from Russsia. One decrying the lack of freedom and democracy and the other supporting Putin. The latter had in the end the more interesting comment. He said Russia was not a Western democracy(paraphrase) but it was on the pendulum to being one and that like a swing in motion it should come back to the center,i.e. a Western style democracy.
I agree with the analogy totally and I'd like to explore it further in relation to this ongoing discussion about "McCarthyism." The factor he misses is time. Time has become the operative factor for everything. Domestically time in the United States is compressed for everything. Much of the compression is a result of technology and especially information management technology. Technology and its resultant output even appear to be affecting natural cycles like the weather.
What time has not affected is human beings memories. Memories consist of three types. The first is the ones that allow us to get my day to day as adults(where did my husband leave his tie, is the kids underwear washed, is the light a Krensaw still out by the Wal Mart). The other two are more problematic as they carry huge emotional content. They are about our everyday events but are remembered as joy, pleasure and euphoria or bitterness, bile and despair.(The simplest way to get a handle on this is think about your children: the first step, word graduation from school balletstep made or the teacher whom didnot make the effort to deal with your child in school, the coach whom wouldn't let your child play at 6 when you thought your child was there to learn the game not concern them with winning). Each in turn retains a tinge of the other. Time hardens the memories as well for both good and bad.
In the political arena now as the pendulum swings back in forth in a continually compressed time frame we have the "War Rooms" and perpetual election cycle. These cycles harden the process of equilibrium because each side wishes to institutionalize their program and as a consequence operate for maximum short term gain. The short term gain requires that the pendulum defy gravity and stay on the extremes of the move at the outer edges. When it swings through to the other side again gravity will be held in abeyance.
What is causing this abeyance is memory. The conviction of the outs of being "wronged". The convictions of the ins of losing their "natural order". So each lose/win is not seen as a progression toward equilibrium but a destruction of the joyful memory and retained as the bitter/despairing memory if you lose and the reverse if you win. This is what has happened to both sides.
The challenge is to some how reexpand the political time frame so the issues can be looked at for long term purposes, i.e. let the pendulum swing more freely. I can think of simple things like more transperancy, e.g making each bill/amendment be posted in full so everyone can read it in its entirety and lengthening the terms of Representatives(at all levels) to diminish the everlasting campaign cycle. What are your thoughts?
So if I follow Ms. Burkes philosphy that two years after a historic military victory we can not have a t-shirt to commemorate the event nor the Coalition Forces that executed it?
I guess a t-shirt recognizing the Normandy invasion is inappropriate? That was quite a long time ago, and yes, we need to start the "healing" process with the french by not reminding them of the double payback of our "blood assistance" in WWI and WWII.
I am sure your point is all Iraqi's will take offense and maybe some will, but the one's with common sense enough to know that it took a battle to topple Sadaam Hussein will know that it was republican guard units and others loyal to the dictator we threw out manning those tanks. I bet they are crying a pool of tears for them, not!!!