Conservatism

1. Conservatism's Genesis: A Reaction to Liberal Modernity

Liberals, to schematize, embraced capitalist modernity. Conservatives responded by opposing the liberal embrace.

A New Political Landscape. Conservatism, as a distinct political practice, emerged in the early nineteenth century as a direct response to the profound societal shifts brought about by capitalist modernity. This era saw unprecedented population and economic growth, rapid technical innovation, and a mass public increasingly engaged in political discourse. These changes disoriented established social forms and traditional authorities.

Opposing the Liberal Embrace. While liberals welcomed these transformations—favoring free markets, social mobility, and critical thought—conservatives viewed them with apprehension. They saw liberalism as a force that fragmented society, spread disorder, and left individuals bewildered. Early conservatives championed closed markets, stable communities, social unity, shared faith, and common loyalties, contrasting their promise of certainty and security with liberalism's embrace of experiment and upheaval.

The "Party of Resistance." This foundational opposition led to conservatism being labeled the "party of resistance or standstill," in contrast to liberalism's "party of movement." Conservatives, however, inverted this accusation, portraying liberals as "destructionists" who threatened order and security. This dialectical relationship, where each defined itself against the other, shaped conservatism's initial identity as a counter-movement to the perceived excesses of liberal modernity.

2. The Enduring Conservative Outlook: Order, Hierarchy, and Human Imperfection

Social order for them depended on stable institutions and social hierarchy with settled ranks and familiar duties.

Foundational Pillars. The conservative outlook is rooted in a vision of social order that prioritizes stable institutions, established hierarchies, and familiar duties. This contrasts sharply with the liberal ideal of order arising from a fluid society of self-possessed, mobile individuals. For conservatives, authority flows downward through recognized channels, demanding unreflective acceptance, loyalty, and faith, rather than doubt or critique.

Venerable Ideas. Drawing on ancient philosophical traditions, conservatives believe that:

• Authorities should be obeyed because they are wise (Plato) or necessary to prevent chaos (Hobbes).
• Rules emerge from custom and tradition, whose origins are often obscure but whose endurance signifies legitimacy (Burke).
• Society is an organic whole, not a mere collection of individuals, and its norms are essential for human flourishing (Aristotle, Müller).

Human Imperfection. A core tenet is a "low expectation" of human nature. People are seen as imperfect, prone to irrationality, and ill-suited for self-government. This unexalted view underpins conservative skepticism towards radical social change, universal equality, and the boundless promises of progress, arguing that such ideals ignore the inherent limitations and vulnerabilities of humankind.

3. The Central Dilemma: Compromise or Resist Liberal Democracy

Conservatives throughout were guided by a wise angel and by a worldly angel. In the perplexing rush of modern change, they have spoken to a universal human desire for familiarity and stability—for tomorrow to be like today.

The Two Angels of Conservatism. Conservatives have always faced a fundamental dilemma: how to reconcile the universal human desire for stability and continuity with the relentless, often disruptive, forces of modern change. This tension manifests as a choice between outright resistance to liberal modernity or strategic compromise and adaptation. The "wise angel" yearns for familiarity; the "worldly angel" recognizes the need to adapt to survive.

Navigating the Liberal Framework. As modern party politics emerged, conservatives had to decide whether to recoup undisputed authority through restoration or authoritarianism, or to engage with and ultimately prevail within the liberal-democratic framework. This meant accepting contested authority, parliamentary sovereignty, wider franchises, and civic equality—elements initially favored by their liberal opponents.

The Price of Survival. The history of conservatism is largely a story of this ongoing negotiation. Where conservatives chose compromise, they often secured political power and sustained liberal democracy. However, this came at the cost of internal divisions and a blurring of their distinctiveness, leaving them vulnerable to criticism from a "recalcitrant hard right" that rejected any accommodation with liberal modernity.

4. The Right's Intellectual Awakening: Turning Reason Against Liberalism

All that bears any semblance of organised thought or system has belonged to the attacking party—he meant the left—which was met from his own side by nothing but “an obsolete dogmatism that cannot even explain itself.”

Beyond Obsolete Dogmatism. Initially, conservatives, accustomed to inherited authority, were slow to develop a coherent intellectual defense. They often relied on "obsolete dogmatism" against the "organized thought" of the left. However, as liberalism gained ground, conservative thinkers realized the necessity of engaging in public argument and justifying their positions with compelling ideas.

Crafting Counter-Arguments. Figures like John Calhoun and Friedrich Stahl, both lawyers, began to use modern legal and philosophical reasoning to defend pre-democratic regimes. They sought to immunize traditional powers against the twin dangers of centralizing government and popular discredit. Calhoun, for instance, argued for constitutional mechanisms to protect minority interests against majoritarian tyranny, while Stahl insisted on the unquestioned final authority of law rooted in a divine moral order.

The Need for a "Clerisy." This intellectual awakening also saw calls for a dedicated body of conservative thinkers. Samuel Taylor Coleridge proposed a "clerisy"—a lay clergy of intellectuals—to sustain the ethical and spiritual values of traditional culture and promote conservative ideas, thereby curbing the "dangers of liberal society" and the "cultural coarsening of mass democracy." This marked a crucial shift towards recognizing the importance of intellectual engagement for the right.

5. Defending Capitalism, Distrusting Mass Democracy

The only means by which the total product of a given population can be increased, is not any new toil on the part of the labouring many but an intellectual direction of the many by the supercapable few.

Elites and Economic Progress. As industrial capitalism reshaped economies, conservative thinkers like William Mallock, William Graham Sumner, and Joseph Schumpeter focused on defending its mechanisms while expressing deep distrust of mass democracy's economic demands. They argued that material betterment and sustainable prosperity depended on the "intellectual direction" of a "supercapable few"—entrepreneurs and talented elites—rather than the collective efforts or demands of the "labouring many."

Skepticism of Social Reform. These thinkers often dismissed socialist and progressive liberal calls for economic democracy as futile or counterproductive.

• Mallock emphasized the "futility" of well-meant social reform, arguing that wealth creation stemmed from exceptional talent, not widespread labor.
• Sumner championed laissez-faire, viewing unfettered markets as the engine of prosperity and state intervention as harmful interference that created "forgotten men."
• Schumpeter, while acknowledging capitalism's "creative destruction," warned that democratic interference threatened its efficiency and survival, proposing stringent conditions for its coexistence with democracy.

The "Rule of Politicians." Schumpeter, in particular, offered a limited view of democracy, seeing it as merely "the rule of politicians"—a competitive struggle among elites for votes, rather than a genuine expression of the popular will or common good. This perspective underscored a conservative desire to insulate economic and monetary management from democratic pressures, fearing that popular demands would undermine the very system that generated prosperity.

6. The Post-War Resurgence: Mainstream Conservatism Embraces Liberal Democracy

For conservatism, 1945 was the year zero. There was nowhere to go but up.

Rebuilding from Ruin. The aftermath of World War II presented conservatism with a stark reality: economic slump and war had discredited many traditional right-wing positions, especially those associated with illiberal or authoritarian regimes. This "year zero" forced mainstream conservatives to adapt, accepting the new liberal-democratic status quo as the common framework for politics.

The Costs of Compromise. This adaptation involved significant concessions:

• Welfare Capitalism: Conservatives largely accepted social reforms and the welfare state, albeit often advocating for more efficient, less wasteful, and less generous versions.
• Multilateralism: They navigated a world of international integration, balancing free-trading internationalism with national autonomy, though often with internal dissent.
• Cultural Shifts: They grappled with the rapid shift towards cultural and ethical laissez-faire, with some acquiescing to winnable battles and others resisting on principle.

A New Center-Right. In Germany, figures like Konrad Adenauer forged Christian Democracy, a cross-confessional party committed to economic recovery, Western integration, and a "Christian-Western" political culture. In Britain, leaders like Harold Macmillan steered the Conservatives towards a "middle way" of social provision and economic growth. In the US, Dwight Eisenhower's presidency consolidated American power while tolerating, rather than reversing, New Deal reforms. This period saw the emergence of a "liberal conservative" identity, anchoring the right within the democratic center.

7. The Rise of the Hard Right: Challenging the Liberal-Conservative Consensus

For three decades after 1980, a self-confident, economically liberal right came to command government office and public argument only to find itself in the trap of success.

The Trap of Success. The dominance of a self-confident, economically liberal right after 1980, exemplified by Thatcher and Reagan, inadvertently created a "trap of success." With the left in retreat and the Cold War ended, mainstream conservatism lacked a clear external adversary, leading to internal dissent and a sense of complacency. This void was filled by a resurgent "hard right" that rejected the prevailing liberal-conservative consensus.

"Bougisme" and Discontent. The hard right's rise was fueled by a backlash against "bougisme"—the ceaseless, unguided change of market society—and the perceived indifference of mainstream conservatives to local and national needs. This discontent manifested in:

• Economic Grievances: Anger over economic hardship, decaying public services, and unchecked global capital, particularly after the 2008 financial crisis.
• Immigration Concerns: Long-standing anxieties about seemingly uncontrolled immigration.
• Cultural Backlash: A rejection of ethical permissiveness and a perceived abandonment of traditional moral values.

A New Political Force. This illiberal hard right, comprising an "odd alliance of hyper-liberal globalists and one-nation conservatives," gained significant electoral traction in the 2010s, challenging established parties across Europe and the United States. It represented a historic strain of unreconciled conservatism, now louder, larger, and more confident, threatening to redefine the very nature of the right.

8. The Hard Right's Rhetorical Arsenal: Decline, Capture, Enemies, and Victimhood

The hard right is vehement, hot, and angry, qualities that cause it pride, not shame.

A Shared Repertoire. The hard right, despite its internal inconsistencies, employs a powerful and traditional rhetorical arsenal to mobilize support and attack the liberal-conservative mainstream. These themes resonate deeply with segments of the electorate disillusioned by the status quo.

Key Rhetorical Themes:

• Decline: A pervasive narrative of national, social, and moral decay, often encapsulated in slogans like "Make America Great Again." This taps into anxieties about lost greatness and a deteriorating way of life.
• Capture: The assertion that politics and government have been "captured" by self-serving, out-of-touch elites who neither understand nor represent "the people." This fuels anti-establishment sentiment.
• Enemies: The identification of internal and external adversaries. Internal enemies are often liberals (right or left), accused of greed, godlessness, or lack of patriotism. External enemies include other nations, foreign entanglements, and international commitments that supposedly undermine national sovereignty.
• Victimhood: The overarching theme that ties these together, portraying "the people" and the hard right itself as victims of these usurping forces. This bridges the divide between privileged and dispossessed supporters, justifying their anger and demands for "deliverance."

Beyond Argument. This rhetoric is often characterized by vehemence, anger, and a disregard for conventional norms of political discourse. When mainstream liberals or conservatives "quail and fall silent" before this "bellowing," the hard right perceives it not as a loss of argument, but as a victory, confirming their belief that they are "telling the truth about a desolate state of affairs."

9. Populism: An Elite's Claim to Speak for "The People"

Populists are for representative government, he noted, so long as they are the representatives.

A Style of Self-Justification. Populism, as manifested by the hard right, is not a mass movement or a form of direct democracy, but rather a political style of self-justification. It involves a contest among elites where one side, the populist side, claims exclusive authority to speak for "the people" against "unrepresentative, divisive elites." This claim is often made by political outsiders who exploit electoral discontent.

The Myth of "The People's Will." Populists present "the will of the people" as single, undivided, and intuitively known by their leaders, rather than as the complex, often discordant outcome of constitutional procedures in a diverse citizenry. This contrasts sharply with the liberal understanding of popular sovereignty, which emphasizes the denial of sovereignty to any single interest or class and the importance of checks and balances.

Characteristics of Populist Governance:

• Bullying Critics: A tendency to silence or dismiss opposition as illegitimate.
• Favoring Cronies: Prioritizing loyalists over meritocratic appointments.
• Attacking Judges: Undermining judicial independence when rulings are unfavorable.
• Disregard for Norms: A willingness to upset familiar democratic norms and institutions in the name of "the people."

While not necessarily fascist, populism poses a significant threat to liberal democracy by undermining its foundational principles of pluralism, reasoned debate, and institutional restraint, replacing them with a potentially illiberal and exclusive vision of national unity.

10. The Unresolved Quest for a Distinct Conservative Philosophy

The right had won. Its old enemies had given in. The left was everywhere in disarray or had run away with the right’s clothes. Conservatives were facing the difficult truth that, as the American scholar Harvey Mansfield put it, they were “no longer the hardy few.”

The Paradox of Victory. The triumph of the economically liberal right after 1980 left mainstream conservatives in a paradoxical position: they had won, but at the cost of intellectual distinctiveness. With traditional adversaries neutralized or co-opted, the right struggled to define itself beyond anti-liberal criticisms, leading to a "lost self-confidence" and uncertainty about its core principles.

Critiques of Hyper-Liberalism. This intellectual vacuum allowed dissenting conservative thinkers to articulate powerful critiques of the "hyper-liberal" status quo.

• John Finnis (neo-Thomist legal philosopher) argued that liberalism's moral relativism undermined the objective "basic goods" essential for human flourishing, advocating for law to promote good ways of life.
• Roger Scruton (philosopher of aesthetics) lamented liberalism's neglect of "lasting things" like beauty, learning, and community, emphasizing the need for "piety" and allegiance to custom and tradition.
• Peter Sloterdijk (German provocateur) challenged liberalism's "cramping moralism" and its inability to provide shelter from modern chaos, urging a rethinking of ethical homes beyond secular skepticism.

A Divided Intellectual Landscape. These thinkers, while diverse, shared a common dissatisfaction with liberalism's perceived inability to provide a robust account of human nature, moral purpose, and social cohesion. Their efforts, however, have yet to coalesce into a unified, counter-liberal orthodoxy, leaving the conservative intellectual landscape fragmented between those seeking a distinct philosophical vision and those content with pragmatic management of the existing liberal-democratic order.

Last updated: March 26, 2026