What Is Conservatism?

Definitions of conservatism vary widely, not only between the political left and right but also within each side. Who, if anyone, is right?

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.