By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a press conference, Governor Doug Burgum highlighted Venezuela’s surging oil production, projecting a 50% increase within three months, which directly benefits American refineries and lowers gas prices. However, former President Trump interjected, dismissing the economic impact and humorously inquiring about the potential for a statue in Venezuela, a nation he previously referred to as a “liberator.” This exchange, though seemingly lighthearted, underscored Trump’s tendency to prioritize personal aggrandizement over critical domestic issues like fluctuating gas prices, a pattern observed throughout his presidency.
Read the original article here
It seems that attendees at the recent CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) are experiencing a rather peculiar, and perhaps telling, form of disorientation. Reports suggest a notable confusion amongst the crowd regarding when to express their approval or disapproval, particularly concerning former President Donald Trump. This isn’t just about a slight misstep in audience participation; it points to a deeper disengagement and a possible disconnect between the rally’s intended messaging and the attendees’ actual comprehension or conviction.
One of the most striking examples of this confusion occurred when American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp attempted to gauge the audience’s sentiment on impeachment hearings. He asked, “How many of you would like to see impeachment hearings?” The response was a chorus of cheers. Schlapp, clearly taken aback, clarified, “No… That was the wrong answer. Let me try it again.” He posed the question a second time, only to be met with the same enthusiastic cheers. This repeated, incorrect reaction, even eliciting a chuckle of disbelief from Schlapp, highlights a significant disconnect. It implies that the audience, despite having Trump impeached twice, either doesn’t grasp the concept of impeachment or, more likely, is so accustomed to responding with applause to anything that sounds like an anti-establishment or anti-opponent sentiment that they react without fully processing the question’s implications.
This inability to differentiate between positive and negative cues was also evident in another instance involving White House border czar Tom Homan. When discussing immigration policies and comparing the “Biden years” to Trump’s, the host, Melody Schlapp, waited for the expected boos at the mention of Joe Biden. Instead, she was met with silence. Her exasperated plea, “I’m not hearing a boo when I say Joe Biden, people! Come on! We do audience participation here!” perfectly encapsulates the situation. It suggests that the intended emotional response – a visceral negative reaction to the current administration – simply wasn’t automatic. This implies that the usual cues for outrage or disdain were either absent or ineffective, leaving the crowd in a state of passive confusion.
The underlying issue seems to be a growing performative aspect within these political gatherings, where genuine conviction appears to be overshadowed by a need to conform to expected reactions. The sentiment is that the whole experience feels hollow, a charade where prompts are necessary for basic audience engagement. There’s a sense of embarrassment that such direct scripting is required, as if applause signs and musical cues would be the next logical step to guide attendees on how to behave. This reliance on external prompts points to a concerning lack of independent thought or emotional resonance.
This disarray at CPAC can be seen as a consequence of a prolonged period of ideological whiplash, where the very foundations of political belief seem to have been shaken. When the audience’s reactions are so easily manipulated and misdirected, as seen with the cheers for impeachment, it suggests a crowd that is less driven by deeply held principles and more by an instinct to follow cues. This mirrors the infamous “please clap” moment, indicating a cult-like atmosphere where members wait for direction rather than expressing spontaneous sentiment. The hosts’ transparent attempts to elicit specific reactions, like the explicit instruction to boo for Biden, only underscore this point.
Furthermore, the suggestion that the attendees are “robots” with no capacity for rational thought captures the essence of the criticism. The idea is that they’ve been so conditioned to react blindly to certain phrases or figures that when faced with a nuanced question or a situation that requires independent judgment, they freeze. This is presented as a characteristic of a “hive mind,” where critical thinking is absent, and individuals struggle to articulate arguments or form opinions without external prompting. The contrast is drawn with individuals who can thoughtfully articulate their beliefs, even if those beliefs are disagreeable.
The notion that this confusion stems from being “ideologically whipsawed so much they have no idea how to behave” is a compelling one. It suggests that the constant shifts in messaging and the often contradictory narratives have left the base disoriented. When the very actions and policies of their favored figures are no longer easily defensible or are met with unexpected complications, the automatic responses falter. The mention of issues like the war in Iran, airport deployments, and government shutdowns, alongside suspicions raised by the Epstein files, hints at a base grappling with complexities that don’t fit neatly into pre-packaged narratives.
The implication that this is a “cult” is frequently made, with the impeachment cheers being cited as prime evidence. The argument is that genuine followers would instinctively know how to react, and the confusion indicates a lack of true belief or understanding. The idea that attendees are “replacing their entire political ideology with the demented whims of a single old man” suggests a transfer of agency that leaves them adrift when those whims become convoluted or lead to unfavorable outcomes.
Ultimately, the observation that CPAC attendees are confused about when to boo or cheer is more than just a critique of rally etiquette. It’s a commentary on the state of a political movement that appears to be struggling with internal coherence and intellectual grounding. When the most basic forms of audience engagement become a source of disarray, it raises questions about the depth of conviction and the capacity for independent thought within that segment of the electorate. The scene painted is one of a rally where the energy is misdirected, the responses are unthinking, and the very act of political expression has become a performance devoid of genuine sentiment.