A little under two weeks ago the Conservative Political Action Committee held its yearly gala and, once again, it was full of newsworthy stories. It might seem like the ultimate goal of this conference is to strengthen the message that America is the best country on earth and many evils, both domestic and abroad, are trying to change that. As if anyone there thought differently.
The real aim is to crown a victor, a precursor to the presidency, that gets a huge profile bump and gives news agencies a reason to talk about presidential elections that are often years away.
This year’s straw poll winner (for the second time) was libertarian leader and Kentucky Congressman Rand Paul. While not the most wild of outcomes, there is a part of Representative Paul that does not exactly jive with his conservative and republican brethren. But before we get there, let’s take a look at some CPAC history.
Big Tent for Like Minded People:
The conference was first started in 1973 by various groups of conservatively minded individuals. Over the years, it has grown immensely with as many as 10,000 people in attendance. It was originally held every four years but, in 2005, it gave way to annual scheduling. With this switch to a yearly meeting the media hype around the event grew. There have been twenty conferences and, at twelve of those events, the patron saint of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, spoke. I don’t want to say the word cult but I just did. The speeches often remain the same but the accolades are what matter. Besides the straw poll, there are five other awards given out:
- The Ronald Reagan Award: This illustrious award is dedicated to a conservative activist.
- The Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Word (JKAFW for short): This goes to a conservative educator.
- The Defender of the Constitution Award: Awarded to the biggest defender of the Constitution.
- The conservative Blogger of the Year Award
- The Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award: I believe this goes to the person who brings the most guns to the event.
Those awards are great and all, but the straw poll is where real worth is found and, in the twenty event history, there have only been eleven winners.
Mitt Romney has the all time record with four wins. Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp tie for second with three wins respectively. With this latest win, Rand ties his father Ron Paul with two wins each. Most likely Rand will pull ahead next year as his star continues to rise.
According to the official CPAC PDF file, the straw poll voting rules are thus:
- Ballots are collected from Thursday morning up until Saturday afternoon,
- Only registered attendees can vote,
- All 50 states and DC are represented.
With conservative citizens from every state, there is a wide array of similar mindsets, but the amount of votes, and what they represent, is surprising. With 10,000 people in attendance, only 2,459 votes were cast which is under 25%. Why so few? Can these people be that anti-establishment?
Even with a low turnout there are still results. There were only two candidates who garnered more than 10% of the vote, Rand Paul (31%) and Ted Cruz (11%). Eleven other contestants received around 2%..
The amount of diversity is heartening to see. It makes sense that the hero of liberty, Rep. Paul, won the straw poll, but its implications for the 2016 presidential race are worth visiting.
There is almost no correlation between who wins the straw poll and who gets nominated for president, but let’s buck the trend.
Foreign Policy Role Reversals:
The most redeeming quality in Rep. Paul, which his father also possesses, is his stance on war, the military, and the industrial complex therein. The Republican party nominating an anti-war candidate would be a shocking choice. Perhaps anti-war is too strong for Paul but compared to his warhawk republican colleagues, he’s a downright pacifist. One could call Ron Paul an isolationist and it was thought Rand shared these views, but he has softened as the spotlight has shifted onto him and his future. In an interview on Huffington Post about a year ago, Paul waffles back and forth about the abolishment of foreign military bases. He then goes on to despair about American presence in other countries like Afghanistan (after such a long occupation). It is known that the American public grew tired of the war in Afghanistan much quicker than the politicians, but there are still some in charge who never want war to end.
Paul is against nation building which flies in the face of the Bush neocons. To Paul’s credit, his foreign policy seems very selective. He disavows the broad notion of America policing the globe, but are his constituents across the country going to buy that?
Of course, if he does get the nomination he will drift more towards the middle ground as is customary. But the true ideals he believes in will be brought forward and will appeal to many. If he ran against Hillary Clinton, could the Republicans actually be running a candidate who favors peace more so than the Democrats? The conservatives relish any chance they get to call Obama ‘soft’, but what happens if their candidate actually runs as a ‘softie’? Could the unthinkable happen? Would the Democrats tout their candidate as the strong (wo)man and lament about a weak Republican white house? What about the military industrial complex and it’s vast coffers lining the pockets of politicians on both sides? Could such a contingent doom Paul’s semi-isolationist policy?
If any of these questions come near the truth, then the 2016 primaries, and eventual presidential race, will be a referendum on America’s standing in the world. With foreign competition militarily and economically challenging U.S. directly and indirectly, America’s superiority hasn’t been tested this stringently in a very long time.
Lazy Activism 