What I Saw at CPAC 2013

Having just returned from the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference—CPAC’s 40th incarnation—I’m still recuperating from the thousands-strong convention (I’m not a crowds person) and processing all there was to take in there. In no particular order, here are a few preliminary observations:

• With hundreds of suits passing in and out of my field of vision every minute, this is probably an instance of “counting the hits and not the misses”; even so, the number of three-piece suits, bow ties, and tweed jackets adorning the crowd was impressive.
• The social conservative/social liberal split in the Republican Party was on full display. Predictably, with more high-profile Republicans changing stance every day, the marriage issue was the locus of the clash. Rising star (and not improbable 2016 presidential nominee) Marco Rubio made a point, in his headline speech, of doubling down on his pro-life, pro-traditional marriage stance. (That said, he framed marriage in a states’-rights light, clearly opposing himself to the possibility of the Supreme Court’s national fiat in favor of same-sex marriage, and backing away from conservative attempts at nationwide “total victory” such as President Bush’s ill-fated marriage amendment.) Meanwhile, panels featuring young conservatives showed a profound divide over the issue. I predict that this internecine debate will rage for years to come, even if the Supreme Court “settles” the issue in the next few months.
• Returning to Marco Rubio, his 23% of votes in the highly coveted CPAC straw poll came just short of Rand Paul’s 25%. Although Rubio’s speech was some orders of magnitude more powerful and more comprehensive than Paul’s (which immediately followed it), this shouldn’t be surprising. Paul’s anti-drone filibuster caused his stock to soar among conservative activists, and Paul enthusiasts were patrolling the halls in force, distributing “Stand with Rand” stickers and T-shirts with prodigality. Rubio, on the other hand, has been out of the headlines for a few weeks and didn’t have much of a volunteer operation corralling votes for him. So while Paul supporters may claim an immediate victory, I think the results augur well for Rubio’s standing in the years to come. (Let me say I like both Rubio and Paul, but I think the latter lacks the dignified bearing and rhetorical panache needful in a presidential candidate.)
• As Lee Stranahan points out over at Breitbart.com, the other straw poll questions—which asked attendees to identify their policy priorities—were worded so as to stack the deck against foreign policy “hawks” (and so, perhaps, boost Paul’s chances, since these questions preceded the poll-voter’s final choice of a presidential candidate). While I haven’t been able to find the poll results for these policy questions, their wording and Paul’s strong showing suggest that the paleoconservative element in the GOP is on the rise. This, much more than the insoluble tension between the socially conservative and liberal factions of the party, may be the true revolution taking place in American conservatism.