Inflection Points for Movement Conservatism: Part 1 – Circumscribing American Conservatism

There is room in movement conservatism for many different emphases in the American tradition, but there are boundaries that, if breached, constitute a departure from the conservative project.

A conservative word-cloud, created by Kevin Smith. Uploaded from Flickr.

There is no such thing as “pure conservatism.” Conservatism is, largely, a sensibility far more than it is an ideology or a fluid and consistent philosophy. At its most basic, conservatism is simply the word we use to describe the basic human instinct to hold to the tried and true and to be wary of the new and untested. So, before conservatism can become anything resembling an ideology or philosophy, there must be a context. Saying that you are conservative can mean just about anything, across the entire socio-political spectrum. The operative question is: what are you trying to conserve? 

In 1980s Russia, conservatives were old-guard Stalinists clinging to a fascistic single-party outgrowth of Communist philosophy collapsing under the weight of economic destitution. For centuries in England, conservatives were the “court party” (Tories) that clung to the vestiges of empire and monarchy and their opposition was the “country party” (Whigs) that stood for sovereignty and classical liberal values. In the 1930s, national socialists came to power in Germany largely based on the promise to conserve and restore German honor and heritage. For much of modern European history, in fact, conservatism is the defining term for an old-world revanchism that pines for the cultural and political pummels of totalitarianism and/or for “blood and soil” cultural homogeneity.  

The value of being a conservative, then, varies greatly depending on a host of different socio-political, cultural, and economic factors. A conservative in one era and locale can be a radical in another, ideologically and philosophically speaking. And conservatives can be both positive forces for order, societal continuity, and good governance or destructive forces that uphold unjust and tyrannical entrenchments or slouch backward into oppressive establishments. 

My own political philosophy and personal theoretical leanings, for example, are best described by such monikers as classical liberal, republican, federalist, and constitutionalist. Defining these persuasions as conservative only makes sense in certain very unique contexts. Specifically, the American context. For it is only here that we have traditions uniquely built upon these forms of political thought. In almost anywhere else in the world, I would not be a conservative but a reformer, a discontent, and a radical. I would be challenging the status quo of arbitrary power and centralized authority rather than seeking to maintain and reassert the norms and values of a constitutionally limited federal republic. 

This is where we can define, with some specificity, American conservatism. It is a philosophy, reflecting a mixture of and a dialectic between certain ideological persuasions, that values American history, western culture, and the written and unwritten precepts of American constitutionalism. It is a project and a movement that seeks to conserve and renew these things. It is a political tradition traced from Lincoln to Coolidge to Buckley to Reagan. The goal of an American conservative is the conservation and restoration of the founding vision.  

But, clearly, within this context there is still no such thing as “pure conservatism.” There are many different schools of thought when it comes to understanding and championing the founding vision because the founding project was itself a fusion of different ideas and emphases. Long before Frank Meyer gave voice to the notion of fusionism in the context of the Cold War (a natural kinship between libertarians and traditionalists against Communism abroad and central planning at home), a perusal of the founding era demonstrates that the notion of fusionism was at the heart of the creation of the American project. 

The early American thinkers are easily categorized into groups that either emphasized sovereignty, virtue, or liberty. While value was often given to each notion, the founding era had champions for each who viewed the others as lesser considerations.

The miracle of the American revolution is that the refining fire of the struggle for independence and the establishment of an enduring union forged both a lasting Constitution and a coinciding political culture that found a working tension between all three concerns. And part of allowing this tension to work and endure is to value the truth found in the tension, in the ongoing and often rancorous dialectic, of the various champions of each.  

Understanding American conservatism, then, is less a project of discerning its purest principles and more one of circumscribing its limits. When does the reflex to push against the new and untried slide away from wisely holding to the tried and true into angry and destructive reaction? When does the prudence that comes with valuing tradition and cultivating a calm, steady demeanor slide into soulless pragmatism, hesitancy to give offense, and weak apologetics? 

It can often be challenging to clarify these boundaries, especially when the very word conservative has become, in recent years, such a loosely used and loosely defined term. But two recent events have provided us with valuable inflection points that allow us to define instances of demarcation from which, I contest, former conservatives are choosing to abandon the conservative project even broadly considered.  

Tomorrow, in part 2 of this series, I’ll discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson and make the case that those who cannot at least appreciate the constitutional propriety of the court’s decision are hard pressed to claim an ongoing commitment to movement conservatism.

The next day, in part 3, I’ll discuss the Lost Not Stolen report on the 2020 election. I’ll lay out an argument that lies, grift, conspiracy theorizing, non-factual and unhinged challenges to the will of the people, and a refusal to value and respect the proper processes of government not only abandon any definition of conservatism in the American context but are backward, destructive, and hostile to the founding vision at the core of American conservatism. 

The goal of this series is not to define down the conservative project to ideologically narrow stridency, but to hedge in the margins of the effort. America needs a conservative vision. And it desperately needs intellectuals, grassroots activists, and gate-keepers who can properly articulate what the conservative vision is, not only in terms that guide, direct, and inspire its adherents but that can persuasively make a case to the broad American electorate.

Today, the Left is increasingly unhinged and the Democratic Party has been captured by hard-left progressives and cultural neo-marxists. This has pushed away growing swathes of the American electorate, across almost every demographic, from the Democratic coalition. And, a desire is rising among a majority of Americans for something more grounded in the traditions of American politics and governance (Biden’s victories in both the 2020 Democratic primary and in the general election, for example, signalled, oddly enough, conservative moments in that he ran as a “return to normal” candidate. However, this is not how he has governed).

But these political realities may very well end up getting squandered by the Right even in the face of likely electoral victories. The conservative coalition is scattered, bickering, and dangerously poised to let the opportunities of the political moment slip away. What strength the Republican Party has is largely based on Democratic weakness not in any deserved ascendancy or demonstrated strength coming from the GOP.

Just as the conservative movement is poised make major gains in a multi-generational effort, the movement itself has ceased to operate as a coherent political project. We must rebuild that project, and the first step must be to properly define the boundaries of what conservatism is in America. Not because we need to condemn or belittle those holding, espousing, or bending ear to wayward doctrines but because most conservatives are still very much conservative but are being driven by every wind of loose and irresponsible rhetoric instead of being told their strength lies in their convictions rather than their fears.

Read Part 2 here.