CPAC Was Right at Home in the Land of Make-Believe

That Donald Trump lost the 2020 election was just so much fake news for panelists and attendees.

By
212

Greater Orlando, Florida, hosts several of the most visited theme parks in the world. At the Magic Kingdom you can dress up like a princess, pretend you’re a pirate, or just act like you’re a kid again. Universal’s Islands of Adventure lets diehard Harry Potter fans pretend they’re students at Hogwarts. At Epcot you can visit Future World or make-believe re-creations of other countries. At the Canada Pavilion, for example, you can let your imagination whisk you away to that fantastical land of romance and adventure to the north.

So, it’s somewhat fitting that the Conservative Political Action Conference decamped down to Orlando this past weekend. The official motto of the confab was “America Uncanceled.” But if you actually followed the conversations, the real theme was the stuff of make-believe: imagining a world where Donald Trump really had won the 2020 election.

On the official agenda there were seven separate “Protecting Elections” panels and two “Save Our Elections Call Center” sessions. Other panels included: “Shining a Light on the Left’s 2020 Shadow Campaign,” “Fraudulent Elections in South Korea and the United States—Lessons Learned and Warnings for the Future,” and “The Voter Files: The Truth Is Out There: Ask Your Questions to the Election Lawyers.” Needless to say, the question for this audience wasn’t whether the election was stolen, but what to do about the fact that it was—and where to place the blame for the cover-up.

All this make-believe was necessary because, as former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway said prophetically in 2017, CPAC would become TPAC, or “Trump PAC,” and it has.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
212
By
Comments (212)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Emma

    I don't understand how one is a republican at all today. What do they stand for exactly? It seems they are against everything, have absolutely no policy ideas whatsoever, and can only agree to cut taxes. No plan for education reform, Healthcare (what happened to replacing ACA?!), infrastructure, etc. Oh, but they focus on voter i.d. laws. The party is a joke and it has been for quite some time.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    A lot of folks are complaining that we're paying attention to the farcical stuff while the serious stuff goes unnoticed. I think we'd all really like to ignore the clown-show but it seems the moment we do it achieves an even stronger foothold in the zeitgeist. While we are all chiding each other to pay attention to the serious stuff it just becomes stronger and crazier and more ubiquitous. And that is serious stuff.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Johntadian

    "...it does tell us what very ambitious politicians think is important."
    At the moment. A windsock doesn't shift as fast as these goomers.
    Wake me up sometime around the end of August, '22 and we'll see how much ink was wasted on also-rans. CPAC, at best, is a Comic Con/AVN version of republican politics. A little bit fantasy, a little bit wishful thinking and WAY more sizzle than steak.
    Now, about poor Dr. Seuss...

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bada Bing

    If Trump announced a pilgrimage to Guyana most of these folks would go.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnF

      Particularly if it was to an "all-inclusive" (all the Kool-Aid you can drink) resort!

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Bel Aves

    For six weeks I have been questioning the continuing hold by Trump on the GOP given the past two years. Part of me thinks it is religious. Then I wake up today and find the left is now banning the most beloved children's book author in the history of the Republic. Even Bump at WaPo, nobodies conservative, who says he remembers the books "fondly." Now he advocates banning. Who is ready to fight these near daily travesties? Romney? Pence? Haley? This is part of Trump. I would not be too dismissive of the statement "he fights."

    Collapse
    1. Shaybult

      "the left is now banning the most beloved children's book author in the history of the Republic."

      Wow could you be more melodramatic? While also being completely wrong on the facts?

      Dr. Suess has not been "canceled." 6 books were taken out of print - voluntarily, by the foundation that owns the copyright. That's all. Get a grip.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Just to be clear, you call any company that decides to do something with one of its products you disagree with, "the left", correct?

      Can I assume "the left" canceled Happy Days after Fonzie jumped the shark? It wasn't a business decision, it was "the left", correct?

      (Dr. Seuss books are surging on Amazon right now because Republican disinformation is convincing millions of idiots that they are "banned" when they aren't. Look for other wily business owners to do the same soon--like taking candy from a baby as they say...).


      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        Bozos is laughing at how easy it is to separate chumps from their money.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          Bezos ***edit****

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      TimNYC

      "The Left" didn't cancel Dr. Seuss. Plenty of people still love Dr. Seuss, myself most certainly included.

      Seuss Enterprises announced that *last year* they had decided to *voluntarily* remove six books from publication because those six books "portray people in ways that [are] hurtful and wrong." They just didn't *publicly announce it* until the other day.

      The books that they are ceasing to publish are "And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street," "If I Ran the Zoo," "McElligot’s Pool," "On Beyond Zebra!," "Scrambled Eggs Super!" and "The Cat’s Quizzer."

      That's six books – and hardly the most popular ones — out of a library of 45; it's a fraction of the total.

      Source: https://www.seussville.com/statement-from-dr-seuss-enterprises/

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Bada Bing

    To be fair no one has proven Ted Cruz's father didn't kill JFK and if Ted isn't upset his wife is ugly why should it bother me?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnF

      Lots of people are apparently asking questions about that whole JFK thing and if people are asking questions there must be something to it after all. I think we need a Special Counsel to look into it.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Logical

    FDR appropriated the phrase "liberal" for progressives. It wasn't appreciated, and the conservatives worked hard, esp during the Gingrich era, to make "liberal" an offensive word. Didn't work well, so they moved on to socialism and more recently to communism.

    Likewise "classical liberalism" was appropriated by WFB conservatives and it became an exclusive purview of the right. Recently I mentioned that the refresher courses on "classical liberalism" were delivered by Schiff and Raskin at the impeachment trials, it was offensive and insulting to some. Just the mention of Schiff was enough to set off 5 alarms. (I wonder how the evangelicals would react if AOC starts reciting the bible)

    Now I am curious with the phrase "American conservative" or just "conservative". Trump clearly stole it, and it's official. Not an easy job to disentangle conservatism from Trumpism outside of George Will op-eds.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Dexember

    My father (a Trumpist) had often sent me articles or tidbits from Newsmax or Lewis Rockwell. But after I kept regularly pointing out the obvious lies and absurdity of what he sent me, he just stopped sending them. He never engaged with any argument or idea I sent him. He just tuned it out, and I'm his son! I know he won't hear some stranger on CNN or even Fox News says he's wrong for having supported Trump.

    My Dad HATES Jonah, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and other "establishment" conservatives. He did start sending me crap from Levin or David Ruben (who started as that "I"m a liberal who can't stand liberals" and quickly became someone who courts all the Trumpicon's craziest people). Everything these types say is negative polarization of how the other side is bad. Just all garbage.

    Anyway, it's the true art of the deal: get people emotionally bought in. Then screw them over and watch them convince themselves they're happy about it because they can't be honest enough to admit they made a mistake. My father is a classic case. Just will NOT engage in anything that's counter to his beliefs. He's always been a party line Republican/Rush-listener for whom politics is entertainment, but now he's off in the deep end. Buying a shit ton of guns, security cameras all around his house. It's a classic case of just constantly consuming scare news. I have to demand that all news be off when we bring the kids over otherwise Hannity is on blast the whole time.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      In the Trump University lawsuit, the "marketing manual" of TU became public and it admonished its salespersons to do exactly that: once you have them emotionally bought in assume they will believe *absolutely anything* you say no matter how absurd.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      TimNYC

      You know, I used to have a lot of sympathy for people like your father, who got slowly, gradually, brainwashed by the media they consumed into becoming paranoid and full of fear and anger.

      But I don't, anymore, not really. Not since I realized that an equivalent section of the left-wing media (Huffpost, Occupy Democrats, etc.) was having a constant anger-stoking effect on me, and I made a conscious decision to cut it out, because I don't much like being an angry person.

      If I can make such a decision, so can they; instead, they're continually choosing, every day, to engage in media that's bad for them. I don't have much sympathy for that.

      I do, however, have a lot of sympathy for you, Dexember. Having to watch that happen to someone you love — and having to deal with that sort of nonsense — must be absolutely exhausting, and I'm sorry you're going through it.

      Collapse
      1. Seth

        The rage-baiting engages a part of our lizard brain that has a similar effect to other addictive patterns. It can be hard to break it (I used to listen to Rush regularly years ago), but once you do, life is so much better. I try to avoid media that leverages that tactic (same at both ends, just different flavoring added).

        Collapse
      2. Ryan

        As someone who has also had to go through the difficult process of weaning themselves off a rage-bait media diet, I completely understand what you're saying. But I am trying really hard not to abandon all sympathy for those who continue to subject themselves to it. It's like a lot of other addictions, in that most people could stop if they wanted, but choose not to. But I also remember what I was going through when I was at that stage in my life, and how it became a sort of crutch for the loneliness and boredom and lack of purpose I was experiencing.
        This isn't to let people off the hook for the poor choices they make in their lives. But I have to try every day to continue to have sympathy for them. And as you rightly point out, sympathy for those who lose friends and loved ones to it

        Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        JimS

        I agree completely. I realized that I was tired of hearing stuff I agreed with, on top of the stuff that I didn't agree with. No sense in getting angry, hence my decision to limit myself to Dispatch comments sections. The rest are too anger-inducing!

        I'm fortunate that none of my family fell for Trumpism. I don't know how I would have handled it.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Bada Bing

      Same here. I had someone close to me hand ne the Epoch Times and say "Read this. They are very fair. No bias."

      Collapse
      1. Ryan

        Somehow I think the fact that The Epoch Times is a physical newspaper lends it a strange form of credence.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bada Bing

          Sure. And when I tell them something I read the first thing he asks is "where'd you read that? Yahoo news? Washington Post? They hate trump." He hates Jonah but oddly won't be critical of David French (I send him his columns). I think he reluctantly respects him.

          Collapse
          1. Ryan

            I wonder if it's because David often explicitly tries to take a very conciliatory and even-handed approach to controversial issues in many of his columns, whereas Jonah very much likes to call it as he sees it

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Chris H

      You are not alone.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Bel Aves

    Hillary lost by a cumulative 110,000 votes over 3 states. Gore lost by about 600 votes in two FL counties. Both were dropped. I used to think that the dems derived power from misguided passion and misplaced compassion, but Republicans derived their authority from rationality. As of today, the GOP is ready to tee up the guy who lost the House, the Presidency, the Senate, and all of this before inciting a riot. This is not politics. Cannot wait for Williamson's next book about presidential following as religion. Obama is Moses (The Promised Land - really?) and Trump is something akin to an old testament prophet sans beard.

    Collapse
  10. JohnO

    "They oppose—often with good reason—left-wing cancel culture. But Trump himself is among America’s foremost would-be cancelers. And pro-Trump cancel culture is alive and well..."

    Most times with very good reason IMO, and I don't entirely accept that comparison. Once we focus on just Trump, it tends to go off on a tangent-often with good reason-on his serious personality disorders. Let's instead focus on the related but different issue of why otherwise generally or formerly reasonable people go so far in accepting untrue stuff Trump says (Matt Schlapp for example never struck me as the sharpest tool in the TV talking heads shed but at one time did not seem unreasonable). There are various explanations for that, ranging generally from unflattering to more unflattering to those people. But 'cancel culture' to me has the important connotation of extending politics to every corner of life through pseudo-moralizing about policy and cultural differences. 'We must lobby for you to lose your job, outside politics, because you hold immoral socio-political views'. Saying you want to defeat the politician Liz Cheney in the next primary election is not 'cancel culture', nor is it for progressives to say they want to primary Joe Manchin. Going after people in your party this way (downsizing your party's 'tent') may not be wise politics, but it's within the realm of normal politics. I think it plays into the false argument of the 'moderate' left that cancel culture isn't real to apply it to normal political disputes among politicians. I would probably vote for Liz Cheney in the GOP primary if I lived in WY, but if I didn't I would not be 'cancelling' her.

    Collapse
    1. GregS

      So you're saying that lobbying to have someone lose their job in politics is OK, but lobbying to have someone lose their job if it is not in politics is not OK? I don't see why you make this distinction. I'm not necessarily arguing that firing Carano or McNeil was appropriate (each such situation needs to be discussed individually, you can't generalize).

      Collapse
      1. JohnO

        I don't see why anyone would question making that distinction. If 'cancel culture' includes the electorate voting out politicians they like or agree with less in favor of politicians they like or agree with more, or electioneering urging them to do so, then 'cancel culture' is and has been a standard feature of all democracies always and the term loses any meaning. Again, I can see why 'moderate' left people like that idea since they often seem more comfortable pretending there's no such thing as cancel culture (mainly though not exclusively coming from their friends further to the left), so giving it a silly meaning, like including voting out politicians, would accomplish that.

        OTOH assuming we're looking for a serious definition of a relatively new thing we believe actually exists, then hard to see why anyone include voting for particular politicians or electioneering for/against voting for politicians. And no we don't have to debate the particular merits of either case you mentioned, the actress Gina Carano or NYT reporter Donald McNeil to see the difference in kind between those cases vs. Republicans or Democrats urging primary voters not to vote for Liz Cheney or Joe Manchin in future primaries. Those people were not in elected political positions (or even appointed by elected officials), their jobs did not directly involve politics, the body deciding to force them was not the voting public, but pressure on institutions from activist members of the public moralizing that their socio-political attitudes or expressions made them 'unfit' for jobs not directly related to those views. That itself is not 100% new or 100% easy to define as such in each case, but IMO it's silly to conflate it with supporting one politician over another for elected office.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          JohnF

          There's a subtle thing here that I don't think you're addressing. Liz Cheney is not experiencing cancel culture from Democratic opponents who oppose her policies. Instead, she is being censured by people within her own party explicitly for putting forth a view that they don't agree with. Because she said that Trump was complicit in the insurrection (which seems to be something that she firmly believes) she is being shouted down by some members of her party who would just prefer that she STFU. These people may or not take it one step further to try to silence her permanently by primarying her with someone who will just say what the Trump hordes want them to say.
          That's very different from the electorate just deciding that they prefer another candidate in the next election.

          Collapse
        2. cb76

          "cancel culture' is and has been a standard feature of all democracies always and the term loses any meaning"

          Now you're getting it

          Collapse
          1. JohnO

            Like I said I know the left's view, as long at least as they think cancel culture is to their advantage, is to say there is no such at all new thing, or IOW no reason to use that term . It's still silly to say that voting and electioneering for one politician rather than another is 'cancel culture'. If you want to say there's no such thing as cancel culture, then you'd comment directly on Jonah's statement that Trump/followers are engaging in cancel culture to want Liz Cheney voted out with 'Jonah, there's no such thing as cancel culture'.

            Collapse
        3. GregS

          Politicians have a job that they are hired into by their voters.
          Other people have a job that they are hired into by their employers - their employers.
          If a voter chooses to vote against a politician, or an employer chooses to terminate an employee, these are equivalent.
          If a person chooses to exhort voters to vote against a politician (or to recall them from office), this is like a person choosing to exhort employees to terminate an employee.
          I agree with you that the two things *feel* different, but I don't have an intellectual understanding of why politics should be this completely different realm where exhorting people to remove politicians is fine and dandy, but it's not allowed anywhere else.

          Collapse
          1. GregS

            And, I will hasten to add, I would feel even more so that the two are different if people were calling for my ouster/firing from my (extremely non-political) job.
            But just because I feel that way doesn't mean I'm right.
            My wife was in elected local government, and when people attacked her, it was very much personal, unfair, uncalled for, and dishonest. I didn't like it one bit. Why is that sort of cancellation OK?

            Collapse
          2. Chris Exantus

            More importantly, Companies have always exercised the ability to fire people base on their outside activities if they feel that it might hurt their brand. This is nothing new.

            Collapse
          3. GregS

            "choosing to exhort employeRs to terminate an employee" #editbutton

            Collapse
        4. Chris Exantus

          "the body deciding to force them was not the voting public,"

          And how exactly did you come to that conclusion? Because, unless I'm mistaken, "activist members" are very much part of the voting public. There is no nefarious scheme involved; it's a cultural shift, a shift large enough that companies believe that it is within their financial interest to try to alleviate these problems.

          Collapse
Load More