The Conservative Political Action Conference, the behemoth of a conference that serves as a gathering place for a certain brand of right-of-center politics and a bellwether for the conservative movement broadly, wrapped up over the weekend. The event brought plenty of criticism and, given the persistence of bizarre and uncomfortable moments, it was warranted. From President Trump embracing the American flag, to South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham saying that Kim Jong Un might “not be anywhere much longer,” to a call from the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee for more right-wing grifters in the mold of Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, the event was not a model of robust policy discussion or an attempt to offer a conservative policy vision.
But if CPAC isn’t a good model, and it’s definitely not, than what is?
For conservatives looking for substance over soliloquies and facts rather than farce, the Niskanen Center’s conference hosted last Monday offers a useful counter-example. The event, organized under the theme “Beyond Left and Right: Reviving Moderation in an Era of Crisis and Extremism,” nominally focused on moderation. Although, it was perhaps better characterized as a debate about the future of right-of-center politics.
And debate was definitely the optimal word, even if it wasn’t the moderation or centrism its organizers had in mind.
But to be clear, by debate, I don’t mean 40-second, made-for-television partisan potshots, viral tweets, or disagreements that are more about dunking on an opponent than hearing what they have to say.
Instead, what I’m talking about is thoughtful questions aimed in inquiry rather than “gotcha” moments, healthy discussions among attendees who disagreed but still wanted to hear each other out, panelists who talked policy and recognized the need for a solution rather than merely stating what was disagreeable about a different proposal.
Indeed, perhaps the only thing that the speakers — including New York Times columnist David Brooks, former British Prime Minster Tony Blair, host of the PBS’ “Firing Line” Margaret Hoover, and several professors — agreed on was that something was broken about our current political system. Beyond that, everyone seemingly had a different diagnosis of the problem and, consequently, a different answer.
Brooks, who opened the event, for example, as his column echoes, preached the politics of “Love thy neighbor.” Blair, the final speaker, was more pragmatic, arguing that the problem is that moderation “is not on offer at the moment” — not that it has been flat-out rejected.
But it wasn’t just the problem or potential solutions that were the subject of disagreement: The whole idea of moderation and centrism and what such terms even mean were all up for debate.
Jacob T. Levy, a professor at McGill University, pointed out that perhaps it wasn’t moderation at all that we need but better partisanship. As he put it, “Moderation treated as a banner unto itself, as a label around which to organize political activity not only to quality how we do political activity, tends to be much more dangerous and sometimes pernicious.”
He emphasized that partisanship is part of democracy, telling the crowd, “Part of the reason we face our current crises is because of the deinstitutionalization and weakening of political parties, their hollowing out.” He warned we should not stave off partisanship in the name of fighting extremism, which he characterized as the true opposite of moderation.
Aurelian Craiutu, a professor of political science at Indiana University, spoke on the same panel as Leby and offered a different view of moderation: accepting the complexity of political problems. “Deeply ingrained in moderation,” he said, “is the refusal to simplify reality.”
For Hoover, the problem was the lack of a coherent conservative vision. As she explained, “There isn’t an organizing principle on the Right.” Later she added, “Often my experience on the Right is that the Right spends its time articulating and fighting what it doesn’t like on the Left rather than coming up with constructive solutions to counter them.”
These ideas, as well as passionate questions on the treatment of disinformation, a dedication to considering solutions to mitigate climate change rather than attacking the fact that it is happening, and a real effort to embrace productive disagreement, are what the great American experiment of democracy is all about.
The Niskanen Center, of course, is not unique in offering a forum for robust discussion of policy and, indeed, disagreement. There are dozens of think tanks that excel at producing just such events on a range of individual topics. But Monday’s conference was refreshingly different in that it aimed to bring policy discussions back into the mainstream of politics and organizing them around a cohesive vision.
That’s an ambitions goal and a thorough rejection of the grandstanding that so often dominates televised and nonpolicy specific events such as CPAC, which lacked both moderation and substantive debate.
In the end, I think that Levy is right: It’s not moderation that is missing among the range of political ideas on offer but true partisanship and a healthy debate within and between parties. That’s exactly what the Niskanen Center’s conference on moderation provided, and that’s what is clearly missing from mainstream American discourse.
