Bio
A prodigal Southern Belle, Adrienne recently returned to her hometown of Chattanooga, Tenn. after living in the DC Metro area for several years. A re...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Inside the Conservative Political Action Conference

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 4
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Each year, conservatives converge on Washington, DC for the Conservative Political Action Conference. Started in 1973 by the American Conservative Union (ACU), the event has grown to be the largest right-of-center conference of the year. This past weekend, more than 11,000 people attended and set a new record.

Even though the event is closely affiliated with President Ronald Reagan, it's not without controversy. And controversy reigned from numerous corners this year.

In many ways, CPAC is a gut-check for the state of the conservative movement. Since there's no official gatekeeper or organization deciding who is allowed in the movement and who isn't, there's always some strange partnerships at work, and people who are upset at those partnerships.

Highlights from the Conference

The best parts of CPAC always happen behind the scenes and away from the cameras. When so many grassroots conservatives, prominent politicians, aspiring politicos, presidential front-runners and a handful of celebrities converge into one space, interesting things always happen.

A few gossip sites picked up the true story of my friend who refused to admit New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd into the FreedomWorks Blogger Lounge because she lacked the right credentials. Citizens United had a huge Ronald Reagan birthday cake made by the famous Cake Boss bakery. I had the opportunity to meet actor Richard Dreyfuss and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld within a 2-hour period. I also realized how tall and pretty Congresswoman Kristi Noem is in real life, and sadly missed both the Sarah Palin impersonator and the cameo appearance of The Rent is Too Damn High guy.

Amidst these fun memories and highlights, one can nearly sense the trouble that is brewing in the future of the movement. While liberals may rejoice to hear that, I do believe that conservatives will remain united overall on the issues of spending and government growth.

As long as President Obama continues to send budgets to Congress that increase spending and government programs and refuses to face the seriousness of our fiscal crisis, the movement will fight with a united front.

The GOProud Dilemma

Since conservatives took over the Republican party at the 1980 convention, the movement has existed on Ronald Reagan's three-legged stool ideal: social conservatism, fiscal conservatism and strong national defense.

Most of the time, we can work together, but what happens when social values are no longer so clear?

Last year, CPAC allowed GOProud, an organization of gay Republicans, to have a booth in the exhibit hall. CPAC went on as planned with only a few groups protesting. Nothing major happened, and the controversial group hardly made an impact.

Fast-forward to 2011, and more groups, including the Heritage Foundation, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Media Research Center, Senator Jim DeMint and others publicly and loudly boycotted the event.

While I'm still baffled over what spurred the increase in boycotting organizations, I personally had no problem with them appearing at CPAC. As I heard a friend explain it to a liberal blogger this weekend, it's best to follow Reagan's 80/20 rule. If we agree 80% of the time, can't we work together?

As I stated earlier, CPAC serves as a gut-check for the conservative movement and the issue of gay marriage is going to be an ugly battle. It crosses numerous issues including generational outlooks and states' rights issues in addition to the morality issues.

As a Conservative Millennial, I personally believe that homosexual behavior and lifestyles are wrong due to my religious beliefs. However, since we don't live in a theocracy, we should still respect the civil rights of individuals who choose this lifestyle. Yet, as a states' rights advocate, I strongly believe that marriage should be under the purveyance of states, not the federal government or judicial system.

Do you see the dilemma facing conservatives like me? Until the president of GOProud started publicly trashing members of the ACU board, they had my respect. However, given the comments of the president, I think the organization lost much of the goodwill held by libertarians and undecided members like me.

At this point, who knows how this debate will end. All I know is that it will likely be a long and divisive battle. However, the media has been proclaiming wars among the three legs

  • 4
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Centerist Cynic 5 pts

I understand your concers about the social programs and have the same feelings about defense spending.

A follow up question I have though is where do you believe the bigger potential for savings can be found in social programs or in defense spending?

I believe the bigger savings can probably be found in defense spending simply due to the size of the budget. I'm wondering how you feel about this. If liberals and conservatives can agree there is significant savings to be gained in defense wouldn't it make sense to start with the defense budget?

It seems to me both sides of the aisle have been working at the issues that they have fundemental differences on instead of tackling the things they can agree on that can make a big difference.

This weeks defeat of the F35 alternative engine program really made me think about this. In concentrating on the an issue Congressmen agreed on, we saved money and brought members together who normally don't agree. I just wish we could see more of this. If we did we might even make some real progress on the budget deficit.

Centerist Cynic

www.whatweshouldknowblog.com ( http://www.whatweshouldknowblog.com )

My Ex- Life 5 pts

Adrienne, I like to read your post as I am a conservative and you keep things on the level for me. Thanks

www.juliemooreonlife.com ( http://www.juliemooreonlife.com )

AdrienneRoyer 5 pts

I view social engineering programs to be federal funding for Planned Parenhood, education programs on tolerance, multiculturalism and diversity, and even some aspects of welfare. (There are many, many more.)

For example, in the 60s, when marriage suddenly became a liability to be eligible for aid, that directly destroyed the two-parent family for the building block of our society, especially in African-American and Latino communities.

Was it intentional? Mostly likely not. However, liberals usually create bigger headaches and bigger bureaucracies through well-meaning legislation. Rather than repeal the bad laws, they just pile more federal programs on top to fix the already bad program.

We need to realize as a society that one-sized federal legislation does not cure social ills. Those needs have to be met at the state and local level.

Regarding spending: I absolutely support cuts in federal spending. The DOD budget has pork and a lot could be cut. I can't remember where I read this, but apparently each branch of the military has it's own system of base commissaries. Even though they mostly sell the same items and provide the same services, the bureaucracy is duplicated over and over again. Streamlining this process would save $12-20 million each year, but it's been nixed.

There are ways to eliminate defense spending that doesn't harm national security or hurt the lives of military men and women and their families.

Personally, I'm all for a 10% cut across every single government program. Would it be painful? Absolutely. Some people would probably lose their jobs. However, the benefits of financial solvency far outweigh the temporary pain.

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative. ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )

Centerist Cynic 5 pts

It is good to get a view from the ground on CPAC. I'm always curious about how Rep. Paul is viewed by conservatives.
I hope that your version of social conservatism catches on. If it does it would create a lot more room for liberals and conservatives to come together and work on the real issues of the country.
In your post you point out "We understand that traditional values will be upheld when we cut the government programs funding the liberal social engineering that we disagree with."
I would like a definition of liberal social engineering programs. I do not want to assume I know what they are. Given the seriousness of the deficit and the debt, it is undeniable that spending will need to be cut. My hope is there is enough common ground to work on that real differences in the deficit can be made. I hope conservatives do not wish to confine deficit reduction to discretionary non defense spending. If that is the case, not only will deficit reduction fail due to idealogical differences but because there is not enough spending there to cut.
I am concerned liberals and conservatives are spending way too much time in talking about what divides us.
We can not afford to waste valuable time in trying to prove the superiority of our positions. We must seek the common ground. I'm hoping you can help identify where that ground may be.
Centerist Cynic

www.whatweshouldknowblog.com ( http://www.whatweshouldknowblog.com )