What is Conservatism?

Editor’s Note: The author of this piece wished to remain anonymous.

In our current political climate, conservatism has been confused by many pundits and opponents of conservative causes. Conservatism has been seen as a champion for stagnation, moral grandstanding, and demonizing the most vulnerable. However, these accusations could not be further from the truth.

Let me instead promote a different definition. Conservatism is that which seeks to conserve the finest of human endeavor and toil. To me, it is not about clinging to the past as though our best days are behind us. Conservativism proposes not a society led by a central plan, nor one left to the whims of subjective nature; rather, it is a vision of balance. It is one where individuals are given the responsibility to think for themselves and act of their own volition, but also guided by practical considerations and a preserved stock of moral capital.

Conservatism is balance. This is a contrast to libertarianism, where the dogma is of cut, cut, cut government involvement. That is why libertarian theory and practice are one and the same—there is no thinking. One must remove government involvement wherever possible. Authoritarian communism, the kind we see in China, Cuba, and North Korea, is the inverse—there is no nuance. One must take government and entrench it in every facet of life.

Liberalism is also balance, albeit in the inverse direction of conservatism. While the  conservative asks “Why should the government be involved?” the liberal asks “Why shouldn’t the government be involved?” While the liberal views an individual’s greed for power as the central threat to be mitigated, the conservative sees the government’s lust for control as invariably dangerous—fearing not for the tyranny of the minority over the majority, but the mass’ tyranny over the fringes of society. From my reading of history, the overly-powerful government is more of a threat to freedom than the power of the individual.

At the core of conservative thought is the conviction that the individual is the driver of his own life, the captain of his own ship, the master of his own soul. This principle is why conservatism is not a dogma, but rather an emphasis on shared values that promote, the best we can, this aspiration for individual freedom. This is where the importance of thinking for yourself comes in; the individual forms the indivisible core of the conservative vision. This core is surrounded by concentric circles of importance to the conservative. 

The first circle from the individual-core is the family unit. Families must be conserved because a solid and loving family unit provides a strong upbringing, a strong sense of self, a strong work ethic, and enduring moral character. Stable and supportive families sustain the moral capital of society and enable individuals to pursue happiness, which is why human dignity on the family level is so important—anything that denigrates the family, whatever form that may be, is ostensibly dangerous to society and its survival in the long run.       

The next circle is the local community. Strong communities—built on the value of looking out for your neighbor voluntarily—are important and foundational to protecting human dignity. Local community is the backbone of society. When asked what kind of civic responsibilities a leader has to his/her constituents, Hannah Arendt bases her answer on “spontaneous associations” that happen in the new world between people from all strata of society. These “spontaneous associations” are the informal relationships—between mailman and homemaker, grocer and shopper, businessman and little league coach, butcher and the baker—that are the life-giving brushstrokes of the American landscape. In its preservation of such a landscape, conservatives are not the painters, but rather those who seek to put the blank canvas in front of society, letting individuals paint America with the mastery that only they, in freedom and strength, can muster.  

The next circle is the municipal government. Local problems require local solutions. Conservatives assert that, since the local government is closest to the immediate problem, it is most equipped to solve it. The federal government, if needed, can assist with providing resources, but need not step in unnecessarily.

The question thus turns to what makes this set of concentric circles viable on the macro scale, and how they converge to shape a stronger country. 

The answer is that, in all these circles, there is a shared sense of solidarity. What is this solidarity? It is the belief in the power of the American spirit and, to the conservative, the preservation of American values.

In striving for a more perfect union, do you abandon the finest of human endeavor? The conservative answer is no. For if you negate the American Dream, the American family, the American aspiration for a moral society, you dispose of the framework of the society that has made it work. The lessons from the human endeavor ought not to be for naught. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official or personal position of the Editorial Board, Contributors, or Business Staff of The Georgetown Review.