The Real Story Behind Trump’s CPAC Absence

In a recent episode of MS NOW’s “The Weekend Primetime,” host Catherine Rampell offered a biting critique of former President Donald Trump’s decision to skip this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Rampell suggested that Trump’s absence was strategically calculated to avoid the unfavorable comparison between the sparsely attended CPAC and the globally massive No Kings day protests. This narrative, while appealing in its simplicity and its adherence to popular perceptions of Trump’s character, warrants a closer examination of the facts and implications surrounding the decision-making processes and the actual power dynamics at play.

Decoding the Decision

Firstly, it’s imperative to recognize that the decision for a former president to skip a significant political event like CPAC is not trivial and likely involves a complex calculus beyond mere vanity about crowd sizes. Trump’s absence from CPAC, an event that has historically served as a sounding board for conservative leaders and a barometer for their influence within the movement, might hint at deeper strategic repositioning within the Republican Party or personal branding considerations post-presidency.

Evaluating Institutional Power

While Trump remains a towering figure within the GOP, his direct influence over the event’s organization and attendance is limited. CPAC’s agenda and speaker lineup are determined by the American Conservative Union. Thus, while Trump’s presence might boost attendance, his absence doesn’t necessarily indict him as the principal architect behind the lower turnout. It’s crucial to challenge the narrative that places undue emphasis on Trump’s personal choices while overlooking the broader organizational and political shifts within the conservative landscape.

Framing and Responsibility

Rampell’s commentary on MS NOW cleverly employs a split-screen visual juxtaposition: the bustling No Kings day protests versus a subdued CPAC. This stark contrast is visually and rhetorically effective but potentially misleads the audience about the root causes of the differing crowd sizes. The implication that Trump skipped CPAC solely due to a fear of poor optics simplifies and somewhat misdirects. It underplays other factors such as logistical decisions by CPAC organizers, the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on public gatherings, and perhaps a shifting conservative base that may be diversifying its allegiance away from Trump-centric narratives.

The Larger Picture

Furthermore, the commentary by GOP delegate Warner Kimo Sutton, as reported by Mother Jones, describing the turnout as “sh----,” could be reflecting broader dissatisfaction within the party or logistical failures by the organizers, rather than just a reaction to Trump’s non-attendance. This kind of dissatisfaction could be a more telling barometer of the conservative movement’s current state and its future direction, which merits more substantial discussion than it’s given.

Conclusion: Beyond the Obsession with Optics

In summary, while it’s tempting to attribute CPAC’s reduced turnout directly to Trump’s decision to abstain, such a narrative oversimplifies the complexities of political influence and organizational dynamics. It’s essential for political analysis to go beyond the surface-level interpretations of events to explore the underlying institutional powers and decisions shaping these outcomes. Only then can we truly understand the shifts occurring in America’s political and social spheres. By focusing solely on Trump’s personal quirks and decisions, we might be overlooking more significant, systemic shifts that deserve our attention.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com