Conservatism is not a cult of personality. The Party of Lincoln carries a rich legacy of political philosophy, scholarship, and practical achievements, shaped by pioneers and legends, including Edmund Burke, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, Barry Goldwater, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Antonin Scalia, to name a few. We should be proud of our intellectual roots. Historical conservatism — or, more broadly, good, old-fashioned American values — can continue to guide us, just as effectively as they did 40 years ago during the Reagan Revolution.
I do not mean to whitewash historical conservatism. We have not always agreed. And we have not always been right. Conservatives are not excluded from Madison’s aphorism about men and angels; our past luminaries argued for external and internal controls on government precisely because they knew that they were imperfect, and as such, should not be trusted. Nevertheless, we stand on a centuries-old foundation of collective Western experiences, and it would be foolish of us not to learn from it nor let it counsel our politics.
I’m only 22, but I have followed politics since I was at least five. In that time — but especially from before 2016 to the present — I have witnessed a dramatic shift in how we talk about politics. Pre-2016, newcomers were thoroughly ensconced in the cardinal virtues of the Reaganite tradition: limited government (“It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people”) and emphatic opposition to Communism (“Let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness — pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world” [emphasis added]).
Both, it seems to me, have since fallen by the wayside. Young conservatives stopped talking about limited government. Disillusioned with the American cause, we retconned the past century of foreign relations, recasting ourselves as the villain, all while cozying up to the Evil Empire’s successor. Moreover — and, perhaps, most concerning — we did not replace the central, movement-binding doctrine of a limited government whose primary concern was to protect us from the enemies of freedom abroad with, well, anything.
At the heart of this new Right exists a terrifying void, an existential crisis barely masked over by the fact that, for the time, we have all either embraced or acceded to Trump’s headship. But we need more than that. Over the past four years, instead of offering the American people a unifying, forward-facing, values-based vision and worldview, we have instead devolved into frenetic, ill-defined randomness. We have split over abortion, Ukraine, Israel, and the speaker of the House: the very fact that we now host pro-choice, pro-Putin, and anti-Israel voices within the upper echelons of the party would have been unthinkable not two years ago. What happened?
Easy. We’ve lost sight of the historical meaning of conservatism. Unmoored from our heritage, we lack a clear compass for the future. Whims, passions, and vacillating personalities now shape our every stance, which is why, for those with more than eight years of history, it can often feel like we’ve betrayed the dedicated, conscientious conservative leaders of the past.
Thirty-seven years ago, the great American philosopher and author of “The Conservative Mind,” Russell Kirk laid out what he called the “Ten Conservative Principles.” Below, I lay out four of the ten, all of which are still relevant:
- “First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.”
- “Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.”
- “Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.”
- “Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.”
Kirk understood conservatism perhaps better than anyone. Based on decades of scholarship, he defined the movement thusly. And yet, I fear his propositions have become almost entirely foreign to young conservatives.
Who amongst us can answer why order, custom, community, and prudence are still relevant in 2024? Will future generations of leaders remember Burk’s insights on institutions, Madison’s theories on ambition, and Reagan’s beliefs about self-rule, or will their only guiding principle be the nebulous “MAGA doctrine”? Don’t get me wrong: I’m not criticizing MAGA, per se. I’m simply pointing out that we cannot afford to abandon historical conservatism in exchange for a more newfangled but (as of yet) kaleidoscopic trend.
We must educate the next generation in the time-honored tradition of Lincoln, Coolidge, and Reagan. We must show them why “the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.” The American people are desperate for such structure amidst the chaos of the failures of radical progressivism. We can offer it to them if we first order ourselves and define what we believe. That is the great question that lies before us and the one we must look to our forebears to answer.
