Once suspect, Trump now a hero at conservative 'Woodstock'

Conservatives have moved toward President Trump – and to a certain extent, vice versa – since he met with silence and scattered boos at CPAC a few years ago.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
President Donald Trump is welcomed prior to addressing the American Conservative Union's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Feb. 24, 2017.

Donald Trump has not always been a hero at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering that’s something of a Woodstock for the right-leaning faithful. In years past he’s faced polite applause, silence, and even scattered boos from a crowd that suspected he wasn’t truly one of them.

What a difference a victory makes. On Friday President Trump was welcomed to CPAC 2017 as a conqueror home from the political wars. More than a few pundits remarked that given Mr. Trump’s reception the group should be renamed “TPAC,” with Trump’s name in the title.

“Big thing Trump proved with his unlikely wins is that ideology doesn’t matter anymore in politics. #CPAC2017 speech proving that,” tweeted ABC Political Director Rick Klein as Trump addressed the crowd at the Gaylord National Resort and Conference Center in Oxon Hill, Md.

How conservatives moved toward Trump – and vice versa

In truth, CPAC has never been as doctrinaire as its reputation. It has always had a range of speakers, in the sense of ranging from Ronald Reagan-like small government conservatives to more moderate Republican political figures. And in some ways conservatism and Trump have been moving in each other’s direction in recent years.

Take immigration. In 2013 the Republican National Committee produced its famous “autopsy” that recommended immigration reform and more outreach to women and minority voters. That year a number of CPAC speakers hinted at a bipartisan effort to craft immigration reform glittering in the near distance.

That was an attitude the conservative faithful did not go for. They bolted from the establishment view toward Trump’s tougher, more nationalistic immigration position.

In 2013, Trump decried a path to amnesty for undocumented immigrants because “every one of those 11 million people will be voting Democratic.” In 2017, as president, Trump thrilled the crowd with his promise to kick out undocumented “criminals ... gang leaders, drug dealers” and others who deserve it while, yes, building the wall.

“We’ve defended other nations’ borders while leavings ours wide open,” Trump said.

Trump’s also moved toward CPAC consensus on entitlements. Or at least, he has if his past CPAC speeches are compared to Friday’s version. In 2013, Trump surprised the audience by defending the nation’s big, expensive social programs from cuts.

“As Republicans, if you think you’re going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in any substantial way and at the same time you think you’re going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen,” Trump said four years ago.

That was then, this is now. One of Speaker Paul Ryan’s visions is turning these programs into block grants to make their budget effects more predictable – and cheaper. A Medicaid block grant might be a big part of the forthcoming repeal-and-replace effort on Obamacare. This year, Trump didn’t bring up entitlements at all. Instead he replaced it with a sure applause line about red ink.

“We inherited a national debt that’s doubled in eight years,” Trump said.

Next year's speech

Trump promised to come back to CPAC in 2018 – and the year after that, and so forth down the line.

It will be interesting to see how next year’s speech compares. By then, Trump and the congressional GOP may have had to make hard choices on repealing Obamacare, tax reform, and other tough issues. Not all of those choices may meet with conservatives’ approval.

But for now Trump was still able to make a speech that overall was simply an extension of his 2016 campaign – or a preview of his 2020 effort. He could promise a fabulous Obamacare replacement, an end to illegal immigration, rebuilt inner cities, and jobs “pouring back into our country.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.