Check out David’s recent NYT piece on JD Vance.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Read Jay’s writing at Onward and Upward.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Read Scott’s writing at The Unfinished Republic.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Hi everyone.

We at Reagan Caucus Action wanted to share some unfortunate news, and ask for your help, regarding one of our friends (and favorite podcast guests): of the Washington Examiner.

The situation is best presented in Kimberly’s own words:

On Saturday, July 18, our lives changed in an instant.

My husband, Ryan Ross, suffered a massive heart attack at home and was rushed to our local hospital. Because of the severity of his condition, he was airlifted to a cardiac intensive care unit where an incredible team of physicians saved his life.

Ryan underwent emergency surgery, during which doctors implanted an Impella heart pump to support his heart while it recovered. He also received two coronary stents to restore blood flow. Over the following days, his medical team gradually reduced his support from the Impella as his heart began taking over on its own.

On Wednesday, July 22, Ryan successfully underwent surgery to have the Impella removed, a major milestone in his recovery.

But the journey is not over.

Ryan remains in the ICU as the doctors work to safely awake him from sedation and remove his breathing tube. While we’re encouraged by each step forward, recovery from such a serious cardiac event is expected to be long and challenging.

Ryan is a husband of nearly 18 years, a father to two boys, 10 and 5, a son, brother, son-in-law, friend, professor, and musician.

We’re creating this fundraiser to help offset the overwhelming financial impact of this medical emergency including hospital and specialist bills, surgery, cardiac care, rehab, medications, travel expenses, and lost income.

Most of all, we ask for your prayers. We are deeply grateful for the extraordinary medical team caring for Ryan and for every message, prayer, meal, and act of kindness we’ve received. Your support means the world.

Thank you for standing with our family.

Kimberly’s a great person with a lovely family. If you feel moved and are in a position to help, any contribution—large or small—would be deeply appreciated by her family (and us).

We thank you for your time and consideration.

Help the Ross Family

A bright young conservative explores how conservatism is understood today. The version below is adapted from the original on his Substack.

The words conservatism and conservative can have many different meanings depending on who you talk to, or better yet, when you talk them. This is the case for my own grandpa, a lifelong Republican voter. He would call himself a conservative both when voting for Ronald Reagan and when voting for Donald Trump. If asked, he would also say both of those men are great presidents and great conservatives. If you know anything about the presidencies of those two men, you would know that they differ widely in both policy and rhetoric. How, then, can they be of the same ideology? As I see it, there are three options: first, conservatism is an evolving ideology whose core principles have changed over time; second, neither Reagan nor Trump is conservative; or third, either Reagan’s conservatism or Trump’s conservatism represents the true meaning of the term, but not both. This article examines conservatism as an ideology and also as a political attitude, in order to determine which definition is correct.

The first possible answer to our question does contain truth. Conservatism has changed over time; but has it changed this much in the thirty years between Reagan and Trump? First, let’s go back to the founding of conservatism, which is largely attributed to the Anglo-Irish politician and philosopher Edmund Burke. Conservatism, as Burke envisioned it, embraced gradual and ordered change toward greater liberty, reflecting the classical understanding of liberalism. Burke supported reforms that strengthened property rights, representative government, free trade, the abolition of slavery, and many other principles associated with the classical liberal tradition. Burke, notably, sympathized with the Americans, as they were not trying to completely overhaul society but to reform it. Because of Burke’s support of gradual reform and support of many political and economic liberal policies, many historians today refer to him as a liberal-conservative. This liberal-conservative ideology has been popular in the Anglosphere ever since. Moreover, it has been the dominant right-wing ideology for most of recent history. But conservative thought has gone through periods of change in these countries, too. The United States’ Republican Party, for example, has repeatedly shifted between protectionist and isolationist tendencies and a more Burkean form of conservatism. This phenomenon helps explain why contradicting policies and historical people are both labeled conservative.

Many people equate being a Republican with being a conservative, but this is not always the case. Taking Burke’s definition of conservatism, there was nothing conservative about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a bill passed by Republicans in Congress in 1930 and signed into law by Republican President Herbert Hoover. On a similar note, there is nothing conservative about the unconstitutional tariffs currently being thrown around by the Trump administration. One does not have to align totally with Burke’s ideas to enjoy the privilege of being called a conservative, but there must be a clear alignment. When the Republican Party has departed from its historical stances, it has been during times when other ideologies have gained influence in the party. Today, right-wing populism and nationalism play a far greater role than they did during the Reagan era. The point is that conservatism itself has not changed so dramatically since the 1980s; rather, the Republican Party has repeatedly absorbed and emphasized different ideological currents throughout its history.

When I first brought up Burke, notice I said that the founding of conservatism is “largely attributed to Edmund Burke.” It is important, I feel, to also mention Joseph de Maistre, another figure credited with the founding of conservatism. Joseph de Maistre was a Sardinian political philosopher, who occupies a more royalist and anti-liberal part of conservatism. This shows that the meaning of conservatism was debatable at its very founding. While de Maistre was said to have held a high opinion of Burke, the two did hold contrasting views on many important aspects of society. Some may believe that the confusion we see today about the meaning of the word conservative comes from this early contrast between the ideology’s two founders. But I highly doubt it, mainly because most people do not even know of these two men. Only political nerds such as myself actually bother to learn these things. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say the issue boils down to this contrast between Burke and de Maistre. If that were the case, I would argue that Burke’s vision of conservatism is the correct interpretation, especially in American politics and politics in the Anglosphere.

As for those who do know of Burke and de Maistre, the ones who hold views more similar to de Maistre’s and call themselves conservatives are wrong, in my opinion. These people, who now often call themselves postliberals, do not even necessarily agree much with de Maistre. Despite being rather reactionary (ahem, not conservative), de Maistre was actually rather friendly towards a more liberal political economy. Yet today, we see most postliberals in favor of economic nationalism to “promote the common good” (see self-proclaimed postliberal JD Vance’s recent negative comments on Milton Friedman). But, again, most people do not know the names Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre, so this cannot be the main issue. We do not see Donald Trump quoting Joseph de Maistre. But this contrast between the philosophies of the founders of conservatism leads us to the next possible answers to the question “what is conservatism?” Perhaps neither Reagan nor Trump is conservative according to either of the two intellectual interpretations of the word. Or, maybe one is, and one isn’t.

By Burke’s definition, Trump is no conservative. He has been extremely critical and oppositional to liberal economics, which, as mentioned, was supported by Burke. Trump is also not so friendly towards modern liberal democracy, especially in his second term. He has lost many Supreme Court cases since taking office again because he has no respect for the separation of powers, choosing instead to legislate by executive order. He has no respect for the rule of law either; he has been involved in crypto scams and has been pardoning criminals left and right for no apparent reason.

Even using de Maistre’s concept of conservatism, Trump still cannot be considered a conservative. Trump eludes classification. Since he was not in politics before running for President, he has treated his political career as a business venture more than anything. His actions often contradict his words. He does what he thinks will be popular and what the last person who approached him with flattery told him he should do. This has led to many contradictions in Trump’s policy (wavering support for Ukraine, tariffs being imposed and then removed, “unconditional surrender” in Iran to a terribly negotiated peace, etc.). He can best be labelled as a right-wing populist.

Yet many of Trump’s political allies and members of his current administration do belong in this de Maistre category. Plenty of his supporters wish he would be President for life. Official White House social media accounts post reactionary images of 1950s America as something to reminisce over and return to. And of course we can’t forget that his Vice President, JD Vance, is a self-proclaimed postliberal. Unfortunately, since these people are all members of the Republican Party, they are all labelled “conservative” despite their opposition to so many conservative values that both Burke and de Maistre supported.

On the other hand, it is much easier to categorize and label Ronald Reagan. He supported liberal economics, liberal democracy, rule of law, and was a social conservative. He fits pretty neatly into Burkean conservatism and does not fit neatly into de Maistre’s more reactionary conservatism.

At this point it is useful to distinguish between political attitudes and political ideologies. Throughout this article, I have discussed conservatism as an ideology, not as a political attitude. As an attitude, conservatism means preserving an existing political order, so its content necessarily depends on the society in question. In the United States, that means conserving a constitutional order founded on classical liberal principles. America's founding documents, including the Constitution, reflect that liberal tradition.

The distinction between political attitudes and political ideologies also clarifies the central question of this essay. To be an ideological conservative, one must either follow the ideas of Edmund Burke or Joseph de Maistre. Although both are often described as conservative thinkers, they represent fundamentally different conceptions of conservatism. Burke defended the preservation of inherited institutions while accepting gradual reform when it strengthened liberty and social order. De Maistre, by contrast, sought the restoration of an earlier political and religious order. If conservatism is understood as an ideology rather than merely a disposition to preserve the status quo, Burke's vision offers the more coherent definition. By that standard, Ronald Reagan fits comfortably within the Burkean tradition, whereas Donald Trump does not.

Make sure you check out the Giving Ventures podcast, hosted by Peter.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Editor’s note: There were some audio difficulties in the recording of this episode. Apologies.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

We here at Reagan Caucus Action were saddened to hear about the unexpected passing of Senator Lindsey Graham. RIP.

Our condolences go out to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

• Watch/listen to Howie’s recent appearance on The Mark Joseph Show, discussing bringing Reagan to the big screen.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

It seemed the human thing to do. When you ask an artificial intelligence chatbot a question, at least in the case of frontier models like Claude or Gemini, it will often write out a description of their process in coming to an answer. It will describe a process like this: locate relevant sources, read, summarize, analyze, and then formulate an answer. I had questions after the reading the encyclical but rather than trying to immediately answer them I sat with them and meditated upon them trying to listen with an open heart and took Pope Leo up on his invitation, “to contemplate, in the face of the Son of God, the grandeur of humanity that shines a light also on the era of AI” (§233).

Through this process of listening, reflection, and contemplation, I kept returning to three aspects of the encyclical: the embrace of secular rather than churchly biblical metaphors to inform a social vision of responsibility in the age of AI, a self-conscious and reflective understanding of the Church’s social teaching as developing, and a renewed emphasis and new application of the universal destination of goods to intellectual property.

Pope Leo XIV opens Magnifica humanitas with contrasting biblical images “the construction of the Tower of Babel (cf. Gen 11:1–9) and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (cf. Neh 2–6).” Both episodes are not just construction projects but reconstruction projects. The first of human civilization after the flood and the second of Jerusalem. Each prior destruction had been the product of God’s judgement. The reconstruction of civilization at Babel is met with God’s judgement, as it “was a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion. […] Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing” (§7).

Nehemiah’s reconstruction of Jerusalem conversely met with God’s blessing, for

He did not impose solutions from above. He convened the families, assigned each of them a section of the wall to rebuild, listened to their concerns, coordinated their efforts, and addressed any opposition. The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones. §8

The age of AI can be one blessed by God or one that meets His judgement depending on whether it puts God and the dignity of the human person at its center for, “technology is never neutral” (§9). Both these images are striking. Both place great importance on God and human dignity but are decidedly civilizational rather than ecclesial, political rather than churchly. On reflection I believe this to be purposeful.

The story of the Tower of Babel and its confusion of languages is usually contrasted with the story of Pentecost when, “everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability” (Acts 2:4). On Pentecost the Holy Spirit descends upon the Apostles and the Church, and its mission of reconciliation is born. Pope Leo XIV speaks from that Church to that Church, but not to the Church alone; he speaks to the broader world:

Founded on Christ, the living stone, we experience the powerful and mysterious action of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that every authentic human effort to cooperate with him for the good will be blessed by our heavenly Father, in whom we place our hope. For this reason, we can diligently contribute to every initiative that builds a more just world, and we can call others to collaborate in promoting the integral development of every human being. We wish to engage in dialogue with all men and women of our time, with whom we share in the events, questions and aspirations of humanity. §2

This broader world is not simply something that the Church stands apart from and renders judgement on but rather that which the Church seeks to serve, stand in solidarity with throughout history, and address through the development of its social teaching:

Indeed, in each era the res novae require that this teaching address historical questions in the light of revealed Truth. In this regard, artificial intelligence, too, should not be considered as merely yet another theme to be studied or a crisis to be managed, but rather as a development that challenges the categories of Social Doctrine from within, calling for their further development in fidelity to the Gospel. §17

The Church “walks alongside humanity, recognizing the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesial and political communities. Indeed, it is for this very reason that she strives to serve the common good” (§18).

One of the new historical realities the Church seeks to illuminate is the fact that the technological power of AI, at least in the West, is now predominantly held by private transnational corporations. Senior figures in the Trump administration have discussed acquiring stakes in AI companies, and Senator Bernie Sanders has suggested giving “Americans a ‘direct ownership stake’ in the country’s largest AI companies by creating ‘a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax’ of company stock.”

In Magnifica humanitas Pope Leo has a different approach centered on the principle of the universal destination of goods, “this principle reminds us that the earth’s goods—soil, water, air and natural resources—are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all” and that, “Today, we are called to recognize that this universal destination applies not only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods” (§65). Immaterial and cultural goods include “new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data” and “when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods” (§67). Equity stakes do not resolve such imbalances, which exist not primarily between private transnational corporations and modern bureaucratic states but between state and corporate actors and human persons.

The Church’s recognition of the great importance of new forms of property in the age of AI has already proven to be more far sighted than political actors on both the left and the right. Intellectual property, unlike physical property or equity, is non-rivalrous, and can be utilized by multiple people simultaneously without depriving the owner of its use. A reconceptualization and liberalization of intellectual property law could open new Nehemiah like opportunities for economic cooperation and coordination not through the initiative of one state or corporation but through the shared responsibility of all.

We are blessed to live in interesting times; we must embrace our own responsibility in them, but most importantly we must wait with open hearts for, as Pope Leo assures us, “What saves humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our history and renews it from within” (§232).

Dan Hugger is Editorial and Research Fellow and the Host of Acton Line Podcast at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty. He is the editor of two books: Lord Acton: Historical and Moral Essays and The Humane Economist: A Wilhelm Röpke Reader.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Note: Make sure you check out Paul’s mentioned book, Choosing Defeat: The Twenty-Year Saga of How America Lost Afghanistan.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Share

Their book is available to preorder at the Acton Institute website!

Share