The reactionary CPAC bigots and bandits hijack the national agenda

In a world where political ideologies seem to traverse borders more freely than ever before, the latest cavalcade of conservative harlequinade took centre stage in Sydney. As the Conservative Political Action Group (CPAC) presented its annual conference with its usual fare of soiled and sad brand of divisiveness, it’s important to ponder the implications of importing an American-style conservative agenda to an Australian political landscape that is more receptive to a unique blend of progressive policies and traditional values, rather than reactionary bandits who are only too happy to hijack the national agenda for their own self-serving interests.

The timing of CPAC’s Australian foray couldn’t have been more poignant, coinciding with the National Labor conference – an event that typically garners attention for its focus on workers’ rights and social justice. The stark contrast between these two gatherings highlighted the ideological divide that has become increasingly pronounced in Australian politics.

CPAC, an American-born event, has in recent years expanded its horizons beyond the borders of its home country. Its Australian incarnation, however, has sparked controversy, with critics arguing that the imported agenda doesn’t align with the nuanced socio-political climate of the nation. CPAC promotes itself as “a values-based organisation that espouses the best of Howard, Reagan and Thatcher”, but its values are more aligned to creating division, creating conflict, punching down on people, and manufacturing divisive issues that simply don’t exist in the community.

At the heart of the opposition to CPAC’s presence is a concern about the conference’s alignment with certain issues that have long stirred debate. The denial of climate change, a fervent embrace of extreme libertarianism, racism, and opposition to the Voice to Parliament all feature prominently on CPAC’s agenda, all of which are out of step with the majority of Australians who tend to favour policies that promote environmental stewardship, social equality, and recognition of the rights for First Nations people.

The conference has also raised eyebrows for its lack of intellectual rigor, with many instances of misinformation and sensationalism that have emanated from not just this conference, but CPAC events from the past. In an era where the importance of expertise and factual accuracy is more important than ever before, the conference’s cavalier approach to facts and the disparagement of experts have left many questioning its credibility and integrity.

For example, the prominent right-wing “shock-jock” media figure, Alan Jones, kick-started this rhetoric by claiming: “They feed into the propaganda taught in the classroom. It feeds into the propaganda of kids. They put kitty litter in girls’ toilets, because some girls want to be cats. I mean, you can't who is who has opened their mouth on a single sentence about any of this, where we have indoctrination rather than education.”

Perhaps no-one has opened their mouths about this because none of it actually happened. And this is what this fringe group of so-called conservatives is reduced to: debates about kitty litter in girls’ toilets, because this is what is important to them.

The roster of CPAC speakers, which included a mix of former politicians and right-leaning personalities, also suggests a high level of irrelevance. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price received 3 per cent of the vote of the last federal election; Pauline Hanson received 0.8 per cent of the vote in Queensland; Senator Alex Antic received even less at the 2019 federal election – just 0.06 per cent of the vote, or 687 of the 1.1 million votes cast in South Australia. Warren Mundine was first rejected by the Labor Party, and rejected by the electorate as a Liberal Party candidate in the 2022 federal election.

Then there’s other former politicians who have long retired from politics, or rejected by the electorate: Barnaby Joyce, pantomime retail populist politician; Amanda Stoker, rejected by the voters of Queensland; Tony Abbott, rejected as Prime Minister by his own party and the voters in the seat of Warringah; John Anderson, out of politics since 2007; Bronwyn Bishop, a political has-been. And on top of this, there’s the Australian Christian Lobby, and the Institute of Public Affairs.

Many of these figures hold views that are extreme and on the fringe, and have little relationship with mainstream Australian values.

However, the debate surrounding CPAC’s presence in Australia isn’t confined to its ideological differences alone. Of course, a healthy democracy thrives on a diversity of viewpoints, and while the conference may represent a minority perspective, it is crucial for robust political discourse to encompass a range of opinions. This sentiment underlines the broader challenge of striking a balance between preserving freedom of expression and preventing the spread of misinformation or divisive rhetoric.

In a world where populist movements and polarised politics are on the rise, CPAC’s brand of conservatism is unlikely to find a home in Australia, and the future of conservatism – if there is one – needs thoughtful engagement and an appreciation for empirical evidence, rather than outright hostility and abuse of people and the issues that it doesn’t approve of.

A desire to humiliate people is an unacceptable brand of politics

Aside from the many fringe issues that were adopted by CPAC, it’s also a brand that is based on offensiveness, humiliation and belittling people and marginalised groups. The lowlight was the closing address by the hoax comedian Rodney Marks, who appeared as “Dr Chaim Tsibos”, a fictitious United Nations diplomat.

Marks’ jokes, laden with innuendos and racially insensitive remarks, commencing with a welcome to “traditional rent seekers” and mocking Indigenous Australians, to the howls of laughter from the audience, epitomised the propagation of derogatory stereotypes and the normalisation of offensive content in this context.

What is the point of this humour? What kind of people gain enjoyment from this brand of humour? Why is it necessary for CPAC to humiliate the people who have been historically marginalised and abused by the white political system since 1788? Why are these types of conservatives so happy to promote the disease of racism that most of the world is trying hard to eradicate?

The incident involving Marks is not isolated, but rather emblematic of a broader debate about the values espoused by CPAC and their compatibility with Australian principles. The event’s alignment with certain extreme viewpoints and its promotion of divisive rhetoric has no place within Australian society: it’s a racist agenda that represents an outdated and exclusionary version of conservatism that stands at odds with the nation’s progressive direction.

However, amidst the controversy, there are those within the conservative ranks who are challenging the narrative. Senior Liberal figures such as Senator Andrew Bragg and NSW MP Matt Kean have distanced themselves from CPAC’s agenda, emphasising that it does not reflect the true spirit of conservatism or the Liberal Party’s values – although this message is at odds at the high number of current and former Coalition MPs who attended the conference – but it is this internal division that highlights the difficulties for moderate Liberals and the efforts to redefine themselves in a changing world.

Trying to achieve political success through ignorance

Beyond the conference’s ideological struggle, another contentious issue emerged at a Liberal Party rally organised in Perth by Senator Michaelia Cash, who ramped up the rallying cry of “don’t know: vote no” against the Voice to Parliament – no surprises here: it was, after all, Senator Cash who organised the preference deal with the racist One Nation in the lead-up to the 2017 WA election.

Of course, this conservative brand of politics needs to appeal to the ignorance of the electorate if it is to achieve its political goals. But it’s counterproductive, undermines the democratic process, and a focus on emotional appeals rather than substantive discussions echoed broader concerns about the role of misinformation in contemporary political discourse.

An informed world is not the friend of the modern Liberal Party, so it can’t do the hard work of trying to appeal to the electorate with the facts of the day – that is the road to political oblivion – so, as it was for CPAC, it needs to fan the flames of racism, bigotry, ignorance and misinformation, and show a paucity of intellect, if it is to survive.

As CPAC and its associated events continue to stoke debates about Australia’s political future, it remains uncertain whether their brand of conservatism will resonate with the changing demographics and values of the nation. The controversies surrounding the conference’s content and messaging underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of conservatism that is both reflective of historical values and adaptable to a diverse and evolving society.

In a world marked by the proliferation of misinformation and the intensification of political polarisation, there will be more events such CPAC which will attempt to shape public discourse in a destructive manner, events which are devoid of respectful dialogue and critical thinking, and nor can they contribute to the greater good of society.

As the dust settles on CPAC’s controversial conference in Australia, the broader conversation about the intersection of global ideologies and local values will continue. Whether the imported conservatism of CPAC can resonate with a nation known for its pragmatism and commitment to progress remains to be seen. The clash between these contrasting worldviews serves as a reminder that, in an age of increasing interconnectedness, the preservation of national identity, decency and values remains a complex and delicate endeavour.