CPAC 2024: An Analysis

Some on-the-ground reporting about the conservative movement

A report from guest author The Politicrat.

On February 24, 2024, thousands of conservatives gathered just outside of Washington, D.C., for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. Founded in 1974, CPAC is considered the world’s leading summit for conservative voices.

Traditionally, CPAC embraced a “big tent” approach, welcoming attendees and providing a platform for speakers from various factions of the American Right. However, in recent years, there has been a noticeable ideological shift at the conference, largely influenced by Donald Trump’s impact on the conservative movement.

The GOP’s abandonment of small-government and free-market principles in favor of increased centralization and economic populism was on full display at this year’s conference. Instead, a heavier emphasis was placed on cultural issues and economic decline, and how there is only one man fundamentally capable of rescuing America: Donald Trump.

The Many Forms of ‘Pro-Trump’

Nearly all the speakers at CPAC 2024 were pro-Trump hardliners; and while not all of them explicitly emphasized a pro-Trump message, any such individuals were in the minority. In truth, CPAC 2024 was primarily a celebration of the former president, rather than an advocacy of conservative principles. The same was true for the attendees.

Among the attendees, it was hard to find someone who was not a supporter of the 45th president. At least a third of the attendees proudly wore the iconic “Make America Great Again” hat, and many more sported shirts indicating their support for Trump. This marks a significant change from last year, when there were still a considerable number of non-Trump supporters in attendance, particularly fans of then-prospective candidates like Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, both of whom suspended their bids for the Republican nomination earlier this year.

The noticeable lack of ideological diversity, coupled with a smaller turnout, made this year’s CPAC distinct. From MAGA loyalists to moderate conservative pragmatists, it seemed like almost everyone present was, to some extent, a supporter of Donald Trump, who is now projected to be the Republican nominee.

Despite the lack of ideological diversity, conference-goers expressed a variety of reasons for supporting the former president. Many cited immigration as their top issue, while others expressed reservations about critical race theory and gender ideology being taught in schools. There were also those who supported Trump simply because he was Trump, regardless of policy. However, a common thread that seemed to unite them all was a shared set of economic concerns.

“The attendees do all tend to support Trump,” said conservative libertarian journalist Marya Ruth Dunning, who spent the first two days of CPAC interviewing various conference-goers. “Their viewpoints are similar, but at the end of the day they’re not exactly the same. They all have their own reasons.”

When asked why he supports Trump, Charles from Tennessee voiced his concerns about the economy. “Look at our high inflation,” he said. “The costs of goods are way up compared to four or five years ago. I remember when you could just go to the store and everything just seemed less expensive. Gas where I lived was under two dollars. We were doing better in trade. Employment was at a higher rate.”

While Charles admitted that the economy wasn’t perfect under Trump, particularly during the final year of Trump’s presidency, he stated that “things were a lot better than they are now and how they were before [Trump]. We had a struggling economy when [Trump] took over, so whatever he was doing, it was working.”

Sarah Wade, another attendee, echoed similar concerns. “Under Trump, I could just see that his policies were working,” she said. “Before Trump, I could walk outside in my neighborhood, and there were a lot of people just hanging around on the sidewalk, just doing nothing all day, but when Trump came in, they just disappeared. They got jobs. But after Biden was elected, it was back to how it was before.”

“Anyone with eyes can see that the economy is in shambles,” Dunning opined. “Just look at homeownership, something that just a few decades ago a family could do on a single income.”

No Free-Marketeer

There’s no denying that Trump oversaw a booming and robust economy, thanks in part to his tax cuts and deregulatory measures. However, calling him a “free-marketeer” would be a major stretch. During his time in office, Trump enacted a number of anti-consumer policies, opposed the privatization of bloated social services, and offered countless private subsidies. Most notably, he constantly railed against free trade, advocating instead for mercantilist and protectionist policies. In this respect, he is far closer to someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than he is to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s conservatism was a far cry from the small-government views espoused by Robert Taft and the “Old Right,” yet it can’t be denied that he was a passionate believer in free-market principles and limiting the size and scope of federal power; and for many years this was the consensus of the conservative movement.

In his address at CPAC in 1981, echoing the fusionism of Frank Meyer, Reagan defined conservatism as “respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions,” stating that “these civilized ideas must [still] motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace.”

Reagan then went on to say, “We can make government again responsive to people not only by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly.”

This sort of rhetoric was completely absent at CPAC 2024. Talks of limited government and free markets were replaced by attacks against corporations, free trade, and global finance, in addition to platitudes that fetishized democracy and domestic industry. Nowhere did Trump rail against big government; instead, he lambasted individual elites, bureaucrats, and business interests. That’s not to say that such criticisms are misplaced; each of these things is worthy of reproach. However, despite characterizing himself as a “dissident” in his speech on February 27, Trump appeared far more concerned with “reclaiming” government rather than restricting its power.

‘Where Globalism Goes to Die’

One of the major themes at this year’s CPAC was resistance against globalism and corporate influence. This year’s tagline was, quite literally, “Where Globalism Goes to Die.” Many of the speakers emphasized a message that favored economic nationalism and enacting policies that would break up large companies. Many of Trump’s supporters seemed to agree with this message. “Some [people] just don’t play fairly economically,” expressed Sarah Wade. “If we see that there is something really going wrong, it would serve America well if we were to step in.”

However, Wade did not entirely dismiss the value of a market economy: “I think finding a middle ground is important. But I do think there should be a balance. Markets are important, but eventually we’ll see things go wrong, like when big business is suppressing competition.”

Charles expressed a similar view, and conveyed skepticism towards the abolition and/or privatization of public services. “I’m not for cutting stuff, like social security. But I think there’s probably a middle ground, and that could be an improvement.”

When asked why he believes Trump’s economic policies resonate with voters, as opposed to both those of President Biden and the traditional free-market approach, Daily Caller’s Arjun Singh cited employment, inflation, and growth: “Unlike the other Republican nominees, Trump actually has a presidential record he can point to, where the economy was, quantitatively, in a much better place than it is today. Whether that changes based on relative economic conditions is anyone’s guess, but the polls seem to suggest that Trump is winning the argument on economic policy.”

However, Singh also aired skepticism over the possibility of Trump taking a more free-market approach if he were to be re-elected, citing Trump’s apparent ideological commitment towards populism and protectionism. “I can’t see Trump being anything other than an economic populist,” said Singh. “He’s been insistent about protectionism ever since his first term. At the same time, he was also very much a deregulationist. Concerning his economic policies, he can credibly point to his record as a bona fide populist.”

Others disagreed with this perspective. John Berg, who, along with his wife, came all the way from Anchorage, Alaska, to attend CPAC, is not entirely convinced that Trump’s protectionism is rooted in populist dogma. “I actually don’t believe that Trump is a protectionist as a whole,” stated Berg. “His tariffs I feel were more used as a tool in order to bring other countries like China and our European allies to the table.”

Berg continued, “I never got the sense that he was a long-term, ideological protectionist. I think he probably is not. But in order to bring other people to the table, you either need to make an offer or make a threat. The threat of tariffs was a way to get them to sit down and negotiate. Trump’s a businessman; that’s what they do.”

Berg’s sentiment aligns with that of many other old-school conservatives, who claim to support free trade in principle, but believe that temporary protectionism is a necessary evil in order to ensure that other countries don’t exploit American enterprise and, by extension, workers. “I’m a firm believer in free trade,” said Berg, who is a self-described libertarian. “However, I also think other countries need to play more fairly, and we need to bring them to the table, which I think Trump does a good job at.”

Other World Leaders

CPAC, over the past twenty years, has made efforts to broaden its reach by providing a platform for conservative leaders all over the world. This year, there were some heavy hitters. The most prominent of them was, of course, Argentina’s new President, Javier Milei, the Austro-libertarian economist whose electoral victory in the fall of last year brought an end to nearly eight decades of Peronist rule.

Milei was not the only Spanish-speaking leader invited to speak at this year’s CPAC. Another Latin American head of state, President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, who just last year embarked on a controversial campaign against El Salvador’s criminal elements (which resulted in the incarceration of over 66,000 suspected gang members), spoke on the second day of the conference. Despite being a centrist, Bukele received warm applause from the majority conservative audience.

“They say this is ‘where globalism goes to die,’” said Bukele, known for his populist and anti-establishment rhetoric. “I’m here to tell you that in El Salvador it is already dead! But if you want globalism to die here too, you must be willing to unapologetically fight against everything and everyone who stands for it!” Concluding his speech, the president passionately exclaimed, “Fight for your freedoms! Fight for your rights!”

Also in attendance were former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss and Brexit Party founder Nigel Farage. Truss, who served only 49 days in office before stepping down in October 2022 (making her the shortest-lasting Prime Minister in U.K. history), spoke out against the United Kingdom’s administrative state, asserting: “There’s a whole bunch of people — and I describe them as the economic establishment — who fundamentally don’t want the status quo to change because they’re doing quite fine out of it. They don’t really care about the prospects of the average person in Britain, and they didn’t want things to change, and they didn’t want that power taken away.”

The former Prime Minister blamed the United Kingdom’s bureaucratic state and “economic establishment” for allegedly sabotaging her premiership and preventing her government from being able to get anything done. “I wanted to cut taxes, reduce the administrative state, take back control as people talked about the Brexit referendum. What I did face was a huge establishment backlash, and a lot of it actually came from the state itself!”

Farage, the libertarian-leaning ex-politician who is widely considered to be one of the prime architects of Brexit, delivered his address the following day, railing against unethical banking practices and extolling the importance of civic nationalism, and decentralization. “The globalists,” he passionately affirmed towards the beginning of his speech, “by trying to take away our national sovereignty, try to take away our national democracy, and ultimately try to take away our individual freedoms and liberties, have forced us all together into this new movement!”

Farage was not shy about his support for President Trump, despite departing with him on certain economic and liberty-related issues. He also emphasized the need for Western democracies to elect more resilient leaders to stand up against both internal and external threats. “We’ve forgotten who we are, and we’ve allowed an extremist fringe to bully us and threaten our very democracy, and that’s why we need strong leaders; it’s why we need leaders of conviction!”

Shortly after giving his speech, Farage, known for his affable and friendly demeanor, convened in the lobby of the Gaylord Hotel to speak with American conference-goers, discussing everything from his favorite beers to why John Stuart Mill would definitely support Brexit.

Milei’s Speech

The real standout speaker though was, of course, President Javier Milei. Upon taking the stage on Saturday afternoon, the self-proclaimed “philosophical anarcho-capitalist” was met with applause. However, what many expected was probably going to be an impassioned rant against socialism turned out to be a thoughtful, technical exposé into not only the economic consequences of collectivism, but also a critique of neoclassical economics, which he argued was conducive to the advancement of statism.

Milei’s talk more resembled a George Mason University economics lecture than a political address. Addressing the neoclassical dilemma, Milei criticized the overreliance that most mainstream economists have on positive, mathematical models, highlighting their inherent flaws.

In the second half of Milei’s lecture, he discussed the importance of property rights, and how societies that respect property rights yield better outcomes than collectivist systems, such as socialism. He tackled various economic fallacies as well; for example, he addressed the fundamental misunderstandings that some people have about the nature of monopolies, clarifying that natural monopolies are rare and that when they do exist, they only last in the short term.

Over the duration of his presentation, Milei referenced various Austrian thinkers, namely F.A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard (founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute).

Glancing around the room, it wasn’t difficult to notice the confused looks that etched themselves onto the faces of regular conference-goers, who went into Milei’s address anticipating a traditional political speech. However, the fact that it was a lecture instead of a traditional speech ensured that it was the most unique and insightful presentation delivered that weekend. And many seemed to agree.

Not all were so receptive to Milei’s point of view, however. One attendee, while impressed with Milei’s hardline stance on China, described the Argentinian president’s stance on trade as “risky.” Another voiced skepticism towards his laissez-faire approach to regulatory policy, calling it “too radical.” When asked for her opinion, Wade expressed similar views. “I listened to President Milei,” she responded, “and I thought it was very juvenile of him to claim that these [natural] monopolies just have an upside, but no downside, because when corporations become powerful enough on their own, they not only start to influence the economy; they start to buy politicians, and then they start to suppress new, upstart businesses. It’s not fair.”

Others took a far more positive view. When asked what he thought of Milei, Julian S. Weiss, a student at American University, said, “I’m more of a Milei guy than a Trump guy. I like him a bit more than Trump, especially on tax policy. Trump cut taxes, but he spent way too much.”

Weiss elaborated: “We often run into a problem where our leaders will cut taxes without dealing with the actual deficit. If you don’t also cut spending, you’re kind of screwing yourself. During his speech, Trump was complaining about how high the deficit is. Yeah, it’s gone a bit up under Biden, but Trump ran up a huge one.”

While Weiss said that he is a pragmatic supporter of the former president and admired his approach to international relations (citing the Abraham Accords in particular), he also criticized his anti-trade stances. “Sometimes Trump’s reasoning for protectionism comes across as logical, sure, but more often than not it just seems really random.”

Dunning was just as enthusiastic as Weiss and described Milei as a breath of fresh air. “We live in a world where different sides are trying to use the government’s power against each other; and nobody but Milei seems to have figured out that the answer is not a weaponized government, but less government.”

Providing insight of his own, attendee Felipe Etchegoyen, who is himself Argentinian, stated, “I feel like a free-market approach is helpful [for Argentina]; but the truth is that things in Argentina are quite bad right now, so its important for Milei to implement these policies as soon as possible.”

However, Etchegoyen — who studies both business and economics at George Washington University — expressed skepticism as to whether Milei will actually be able to pass such needed reforms. “I think it will be difficult to actually implement any of these policies due to the divide in congress, and roadblocks attempted by the Peronists.”

When asked whether he believes the U.S. would benefit from a more Austrian approach to economic policy, similar to those advocated for by Milei, former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania and CPAC speaker Rick Santorum replied, “I’m generally favorable, though I can’t say I agree with [Austrians] on everything. But I’m generally favorable.” He added: “Between [the Austrian School] and the more conventional approach of people like Friedman, I think a mix is good. One from column A, two from column B. Something like that.” While generally receptive to Milei’s free-market approach compared to the former president’s populist allies, Santorum maintained that he would continue to support Trump’s economic agenda.

John Berg’s view of Milei was also positive: “I think what he’s been doing is amazing. For the past seventy years, they’ve been electing Peronista after Peronista. How he figured out how to unwind seventy years of socialism, it’s just amazing.”

“I’ve been to Argentina,” Berg continued. “I spent quite some time in Buenos Aires, and there was a lot of desperation. Interest rates are insane down there. There was a guy I knew who’d just bought an apartment, and his annual interest rate was 37%. Within three years he paid out more money in interest than what he paid for his home!”

Trump’s Speech

Although Milei was the highlight of CPAC, he was by no means the star — the feature presentation. That role, of course, went to Donald Trump.

Hundreds of people who had not been in attendance any of the previous three days began flooding into the conference about two hours before Trump was scheduled to speak. Some of these new attendees were from multiple states away, and drove all the way to D.C. to pay $50 to watch the former president talk for sixty minutes.

Arriving over an hour and fifteen minutes late, Trump took to the podium and spent the next ten or so minutes giving individual shoutouts to various other speakers and high-profile supporters. As for the speech itself, he pretty much said just about everything while at the same time saying absolutely nothing at all.

Trump’s speech can only really be described as a stream of consciousness. Included within his ramblings were everything from references to the character Hannibal Lecter, comparisons of himself to Al Capone, complaints about President Biden’s dogs, and how Melania never compliments him on his speeches. It was essentially “story-time with the Donald.” At times obnoxious, at times endearing, the speech was mildly entertaining, but otherwise largely unremarkable, and it lasted far longer than it should have.

The most categorically ridiculous part of the speech was when Trump referred to himself as “a proud political dissident.” Yes, Trump is antiestablishment. Yes, he is often the victim of unfair scrutiny by legacy media. But at the end of the day he is still a mainstream politician with relatively orthodox policy positions who is supported by nearly 40% of the country. Trump calling himself “a dissident” is almost as absurd as mainstream Democrats in 2018 calling themselves “the resistance.”

The political messages that Trump interlaced into his act (that’s really what it was) were generic and predictable. At times, he even sounded indistinguishable from an establishment Democrat, regurgitating vacuous catchphrases like “our democracy” and “rule of law”; this was, in turn, juxtaposed with apocalyptic rhetoric, which, while amusing, sounded like it was ripped from the campaign speech of a theater kid running for high school class president.

This was not the Trump who spoke of American Carnage, nor the Trump who eulogized Western Civilization in Warsaw. Where those were poignant, his address at CPAC lacked the same bombast or vigor of his old speeches. But that didn’t stop the audience of MAGA-hat wearing stalwarts from cheering and chanting as he finally walked off stage.

Conclusion

Not everybody was as impressed. Etchegoyen, for instance, described Trump’s speech as being “rather boring.”

“It was the same stuff he’s been saying over and over again for the past eight years,” he said, articulating his complaints. “While I think it was a nice experience, and always a special event to hear him speak, he didn’t say anything he hasn’t already said before.”

Dunning, who covered the speech, did not find it particularly impressive: “It was a bit of a nothing-burger; it felt like he was just trying to give the media one sound bit after another.”

“I think there were better candidates than Trump,” Dunning said, offering her personal opinion. “It’s sad to see them lose to Trump’s cult of personality.”

Dunning, who was a supporter of Ron DeSantis, said of Trump: “He’s pretty wishy-washy on issues until he learns how it will benefit him. It scares me that he’s been a fence-sitter on issues like abortion and gender ideology.”

Etchegoyen voiced some concerns of his own: “I don’t support any of these candidates. I don’t think much will change regardless of whether Trump or Biden wins.”

After Trump’s address, a sizable number of attendees immediately began to vacate the conference; the vast majority of them were those who had only just arrived a couple hours earlier to see Trump speak, caring very little for everything else that the conference had to offer.

Things began to die down noticeably after Trump and then Milei had delivered their speeches. The conference officially culminated with a rousing speech by Steve Bannon, who had previously served as Donald Trump’s White House Strategist during the early days of the administration. Finally, the attendees either went to go hit the bars or returned home.

Even to a person who had never before been to CPAC, it was obvious that this year’s conference was a significant departure from what it was like even as recently as half a decade ago, let alone twenty years ago. One might even go so far as to say that CPAC 2024 wasn’t even CPAC — a long-standing institution whose original purpose was to bring conservatives together in order to foster healthy dialogues, bridge ideological gaps, and promote unity between all factions of the American Right. This no longer seems to be the case.

This was the exact conclusion that Marya Dunning came to once the conference had ended. “I’d always heard about CPAC being this big tent event,” she bemoaned. “This is my first CPAC, and even though I came as media I was looking forward to it, and it was a bit sad to see the lack of ideological diversity.”

But to the thousands of pro-Trump conference-goers, they probably wouldn’t have it any other way.

“This thing I came to cover this weekend,” Dunning mused, “it wasn’t CPAC… it was TPAC.”