CPAC, Principles First, and 2 Conservatisms
Two competing visions of conservatism were on display last weekend in Washington, DC.
The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) conference represented a particular MAGA-wing of the right while Principles First represented an opposing conservative view.
Before the Trump presidency, I had been to more CPAC conferences than I can remember, first for my dissertation research and then as a journalist. And I've been active in supporting Principles First since it first began as a CPAC alternative in 2019. I've been a close observer of the trajectories of both of these conferences.
Conservatism can be thought of in two different ways: ideologically or culturally. Ideological conservatism is a set of ideas about the role of government in a Liberal democracy. Both ideological conservatives and ideological (small l) liberals are (capital L) Liberals with competing visions of government, but they all support Liberal democracy.
Cultural conservatism is more like a lifestyle brand. There can be many types of cultural conservatives, but one stereotype would be someone who enjoys guns, rural living, and driving a truck, or at least fantasizes about enjoying those things. The vast majority of voters, on the right, left and in-between, are not ideological but rather more cultural in their political preferences.
There are elements of certain types of cultural conservatism and ideologies at both conferences, but, even though "conservative" is in its name, CPAC is no longer conservative in any ideological sense. In fact, in many ways its not even broadly Liberal and in support of democracy.
On the first day of CPAC, Jack Posobiec, an activist who helped spread QAnon's "Pizzagate" and other conspiracies, declared, "Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on Jan. 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it."
CPAC attendees can be heard cheering when he said that.
He later clarified that he supports a constitutional republic and "We’re not destroying all of democracy, just their [Democrats'] democracy."
Adopting former President Donald Trump's language of "retribution," Posobiec added, "After we burn that swamp to the ground, we will establish the new American republic on its ashes, and our first order of business will be righteous retribution for those who betrayed America."
Neither of these clarifications allayed my concerns about CPAC's authoritarian tendencies.
Another way that CPAC differed from Principles First is CPAC had Neo-Nazis. The extent of their involvement has been disputed. To CPAC's credit, organizers issued a statement rejecting the Neo-Nazis among them. But I do hope CPAC organizers take some time to reflect on why Neo-Nazis would be interested in their conference and would mingle with their attendees in the first place.
For a view of ideological conservatism, I encourage you to watch some of the speeches or panels at the Principles First Summit, which are available on YouTube.
I particularly liked Michael Steele's speech, which begins at about the 7 hour, 15 minute mark here. He made the point that defeating political extremism includes promoting values that made America great.
"Defeating ambition and ignorance with patriotism and intelligence begins with applying a little common sense. As we do so, we must not only embrace but proudly extol our core democratic principles like pluralism and civic responsibility, the rule of law and constitutional order. ... This is how we defeat the tyranny of the illiberal, the destructive behavior that undermines the very value, the proposition, that all of us are free," Steele said.
Join Our Book Club!
The AVC Book Club will meet Mondays, 8pm eastern, on Zoom. Join us on Monday, March 4, for an introductory meeting where we'll pick the next book. Everyone who attends that meeting will get a $15 gift certificate to the AVC Bookshop.
Tell Your Pastor!
Do you know a Christian pastor or ministry leader who has experienced political and cultural divisions in their church and community? Are they concerned about increasing polarization in an election year? AVC has a new project especially for them!
J29 Coalition will help pastors and ministry leaders disciple their congregations through our current challenges by connecting them with experts on these topics and putting them in fellowship with other pastors experiencing the same challenges. Our first J29 Cohort starts in April and is limited to 50 pastors. We'll meet online throughout the year and at an expenses paid trip to Chicago in September. To learn more, sign up on our email list and join one of our online informational sessions on March 8 at 11am Eastern, or March 19 at 2pm Eastern.
What Else We're Reading
"Support for Christian Nationalism in All 50 States: Findings from PRRI’s 2023 American Values Atlas"
Christian nationalists are about twice as likely as other Americans to believe political violence may be justified. Nearly four in ten Christian nationalism Adherents (38%) and one-third of Sympathizers (33%) agree that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country,” compared with only 17% of Skeptics and 7% of Rejecters.
Salon interviews Paul Djupe: "Trump expands Republicans' big tent of Christian nationalism"
Who is the “Christian right?” How do we define this movement? What are its factions?
This has been fluid as the organizations have come and gone, the elites change, and the academic terms come in and out of fashion. I am hesitant these days to use ‘the article’ to indicate “the Christian right” – it’s more amorphous than that. At the same time, there has never been a time in American politics where Christians were more consistently aligned on the right with the Republican Party. The hesitancy comes from a shift in the place of Christian conservatives from insurgents in the Republican Party to the core. As organizations like the Family Research Council appear to have lost their independence, the energy among Christian conservatives has shifted to charismatic entrepreneurs.
Political scientist Napp Nazworth has a nice chapter in our new book about how Christian right organizations once had a measure of power, say, in the George W. Bush Administration to push issues and discipline politicians, but no longer can define their own agenda and the actors they support in the Trump era. At the core of the GOP, they are more concerned with power, which is where the charges of hypocrisy stem from. It is impossible to imagine any organizations or elites on the right calling out Trump for, really, anything.
RNS: "Trump promises a revival of Christian power in speech to National Religious Broadcasters"
In an evening filled with apocalyptic rhetoric, patriotic songs and campaign promises, former President Donald Trump promised Thursday (Feb. 22) that he would make a triumphant return to the White House next year and that he would restore Christian preachers to power in American culture.
“If I get in, you’re going to be using that power at a level that you’ve never used before,” Trump told the annual gathering of National Religious Broadcasters at Nashville’s Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center.
David French: "What Is Christian Nationalism, Exactly?"
To understand what Christian nationalism is, it’s important to understand what it is not. It is not Christian nationalism if a person’s political values are shaped by the individual’s Christian faith. In fact, many of America’s most important social movements have been infused with Christian theology and Christian activism. Many of our nation’s abolitionists thundered their condemnations of slavery from Northern pulpits. The civil rights movement wasn’t exclusively Christian by any means, but it was pervasively Christian — Martin Luther King Jr. was, of course, a Baptist minister.
Anyone may disagree with Christian arguments around civil rights, immigration, abortion, religious liberty or any other point of political conflict. Christians disagree with one another on these topics all the time, but it is no more illegitimate or dangerous for a believer to bring her worldview into a public debate than it is for a secular person to bring his own secular moral reasoning into politics. In fact, I have learned from faiths other than my own, and our public square would be impoverished without access to the thoughts and ideas of Americans of faith.
The problem with Christian nationalism isn’t with Christian participation in politics but rather the belief that there should be Christian primacy in politics and law. ...
Read the whole thing with this gift link.
 | A guest post by
|