What is Conservatism?
Using Russell Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles as a Guiding Light
(This essay is adapted from a four-part opinion series distributed to local media in the 18th Michigan Senate District in 2023.)
When I first entered the field headed toward public office, I was asked, “What does conservatism mean to you?” I must admit, I did not have a solid answer. To be fair, it is not an easy question. Unlike progressivism, which has very rigid viewpoints, the philosophy of conservatism is a more difficult to pin down.
After seven years in public office, I will attempt to revisit the question of conservatism and provide a clearer answer. I will begin by dispelling the idea that conservatism is tied to party politics. While many conservatives identify as Republicans, the political philosophy and party are not synonymous. Even in recent history it was common for conservative Democrats to win elected office.
Arguably the best definition of conservatism is from H. Stuart Hughes who said, “conservatism is the negation of ideology.” In a sense, this means a conservative will not accept a given political or theoretical assertion while ignoring contrary or inconvenient information. The conservative will look at all of the facts and weigh the most prudent strategy for the good of both the individual and society.
There is no checklist for conservatives to run through when making these determinations. However, in the latter half of the last century a great Michigan intellectual thinker, Russell Kirk, gave us 10 principles in which conservatives chiefly align. His insights had a massive influence on a conservative awakening which culminated with the Reagan Realignment of the 1980s. Since that time conservatism has been pulled in many ways, and it is worthwhile to reexamine the principles laid out by Kirk so we can all rediscover the essence of true conservatism.
The first principle of conservative thought is God’s relation to human beings. Before diving too deep into this principle, it is critical to point out that there is no single denomination or theology that one must adhere to. Many great conservatives of the past have varied greatly with their views on God. There were great differences between Presidents Washington, Lincoln and Reagan, but they were all similar in the respect that they believed in a divine creator who established a certain moral law within our nature.
Those with a conservative outlook on humanity do not believe it is good or even possible to alter human nature. One would sooner teach a cat to bark than change the moral laws which are our foundation. To a conservative, murder and theft are morally wrong because they violate the order established by God, not due to a majority position of society.
In many ways the ideas of the French Revolution are still echoing in western civilization today. At that time those revolutionaries contended the human race was capable of establishing a new moral order. They first set about tearing down institutions which existed in their country, and aimed to rebuild society on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. While noble principles indeed, in practice the defects of manmade moralities were laid bare at the guillotine.
In response to these revolutionaries an 18th century English Parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, responded with the following: “By this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often and as much and in as many ways as there are floating fancies or fashions… men would become little better than the flies of a summer.”
Conservatives believe there to be wisdom in adhering to a higher power rather than often mistaken human judgements. They believe in the wisdom of a divine potter who is the molder of human clay. For this reason, conservatives are wary of the morally relativistic dogmas of the modern progressive.
The second conservative principle recognizes great value in variety and diversity. Modern progressives look at variety and diversity through a lens limited largely to race, ethnicity and gender. Conservatives recognize not only these diversities but many others. Historical experiences and local circumstances will influence development of local institutions, traditions and what one aims to “conserve.”
This is most easily illustrated by looking at conservatives from different geographies. For example, conservatives from West Michigan vary in their priorities from those in Northern Michigan. Both regions have diversity in both their local customs and industries. These differences magnify when comparing bigger regional differences like the United Kingdom or Japan.
Juxtapose progressives from locations around the world and you will find the political platform of the left is relatively uniform. The conservative, however, does not push conformity. Rather they believe an individual, and society as a whole, will flourish when one contributes to their community using their unique talents.
The third conservative principle outlined by Kirk is the belief that each individual is to be ensured justice. This applies in many areas of life, but most prominently in having equal rights before the law. There cannot be one set of laws for one faction of society and a second set for another. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to use their talents to improve their station in life. This protection in our Constitution is the driver behind America being home of unprecedented opportunity for individual upward mobility and rapid growth in prosperity as a whole.
It is critical to emphasize the massive difference between equal rights and equal condition. Government attempts across the world to implement schemes aimed at equality of condition have repeatedly failed over the past hundred years. The Former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and numerous other countries have undertaken this endeavor and the outcomes are conclusive. Any government constructed with a goal of equality of condition has led to a totalitarian state ruled by a few resulting in misery for the masses.
The fourth conservative principle recognizes how private property, and more generally a free economy, is directly related to individual freedom. Arguably the biggest tenant of Marxist Socialism is that private property is to be abolished. In some ways Marx’s goal was accomplished – everyone was prescribed a condition of privation. Heroic stories of individuals fleeing oppressive regimes in hope of freedom are not in short supply.
It is pure folly to believe an all-powerful and benevolent government can centrally plan an economy which will construct perfect equality of condition. The only way such a program could be undertaken is to remove personal freedom and squash a population into compliance through coercion. The conservative understands an economy which is centered around private property and a free society is the only method to achieve liberty and prosperity.
Variety, justice and freedom are core principles in which a true conservative forms their political philosophy. They believe that God has made us all different, entitles us to an equal set of rules, and that a free society is one which recognizes the dignity of each individual.
The fifth principle common to conservatives is one that will be reminiscent to anyone who has taken a high school civics class. In order to prevent any individual or group from becoming too powerful it is prudent to divide the functions of government. This is achieved by a clearly outlined constitution with separation of powers and a federalist governance to support decentralization.
Separation of powers is achieved in our country by dividing the legislative, executive and judicial functions. The person enforcing the laws must not be the same person writing them. Additionally, the person making judgments on the validity of laws must be insulated from outside influence.
On top of that, federalism allows the federal government only certain powers prescribed in the Constitution, while reserving the remaining governance to the state. The more power is decentralized to local institutions the better. Tyrannous rulers cannot manifest if power is prevented from centralization.
The sixth conservative principle recognizes the wisdom which is gained through experience. Arguably the best explanation of this principle is “Chesterton’s Gate.” G.K. Chesterton wrote about two men who walked upon a gate in a road. The “modern” reformer saw no use for the gate and wanted to tear it down. The “intelligent” reformer said he would only let it be torn down after its original use was discovered. This position was justified by explaining that, among other things, it was highly unlikely a person escaped from an insane asylum and erected a gate. Chesterton was illustrating the point that in the past the gate was determined useful, and there is wisdom in that past experience.
Popular culture today takes great effort to undermine our past traditions, customs and institutions. Only a fool looks to dismiss the past because certain actors or actions fail to meet our current standards of perfection. The opposite extreme of blindly continuing on a certain path because one did so yesterday is equally as foolish. There is wisdom in understanding our American experience and applying lessons learned as we go forward.
The seventh conservative principle acknowledges the importance of local institutions in forming a community. The institutions in which we spend most of our time are where we develop relationships and a sense of togetherness. This is most easily exemplified in churches, but there is no shortage of local associations to which this could apply. Through these connections people can better identify the needs of individuals to make a more vibrant community as a whole.
The conservative understands that the greatest threat to local community is centralization. Russell Kirk summarized this best when he wrote, “[conservatives] know that collectivism means the end of the real community, substituting uniformity for variety and force for willing cooperation.” When one thinks of a socialist community an image comes to mind of the dreary apartment buildings behind the “Iron Curtain.” The uniform cement monstrosities were designed for utility, not for fostering community.
The eighth conservative principle relates to foreign affairs. In domestic matters a conservative does not value uniformity, and the same is said at an international level. Each country has unique circumstances which have contributed to the natural development of its governance. For instance, the United Kingdom has developed into a constitutional monarchy, which fosters the same liberties we hold dear in the United States.
It is critical to recognize the many differences between different various regions and cultures. It would be impossible to supplant the conservative policies from one place to another. General principles may apply but not a rigid and uniform standard. Life would be quite boring if all cultures were required to be the same.
The ninth conservative principle is an acknowledgement of our fallen nature. It was through this realization that the drafters of our Constitution thought it wise to divide the powers of government. As Lord Acton wrote, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is this sentiment which supporters of utopian societies fail to accept.
To the conservative, people are created in the image and likeness of God, and what God has created is good. However, they also understand God gave us free will and we are all guilty of using that freedom to sin. There is a tension that exists between good and evil and we must not gloss over that when structuring government.
Lastly, we come to Kirk’s tenth conservative principle. It is the belief that reform is good when necessary, but not to change purely for the sake of change. As time moves on and circumstances alter, it is both necessary and good to make reforms. But the conservative will reject wholesale the innovators constant push to expand government and intrude on personal liberty. Compare this to the progressive philosophy which is best summarized by President Obama’s 2008 one-word campaign slogan “Change.”
While the progressive folly is easy to see, in a true twist of irony it is less obvious to see how many self-professed conservatives today miss the mark. They often will reject any reform outright and seem to follow an ideology that if they are a “no” more frequently than everyone else, then they are the most conservative. I fully admit it takes judgement to understand when a reform is worthwhile, but to outright be opposed to reform is in fact to be opposed to conservatism itself.
As one can now see there is great meaning behind the philosophy of “conservatism.” On both sides of the aisle the term is often misapplied or overgeneralized today. Even if one does not wish to ascribe to this set of beliefs, I hope one at least sees the value in understanding where conservativism is coming from.
It is an honor being able to participate in this great republic as the voice for our local communities in the Michigan legislature. Through my experience in Lansing, I am now better prepared to answer the question I was asked when I entered the field for public office, “What does conservatism mean to you?”
But this deeper understanding was not gained through experience alone. Michigan is blessed to be the home of the distinguished Russell Kirk, whose writings on conservatism have had a crystalizing impact not only for me but for generations of conservatives.