The New Conservatism
And why I call myself a Conservative
When asked my orientation on political surveys, my response is always Conservative. But it is not the conservative most people associate with the right side of the Congressional chamber. A rather sinister status quo took over after a revolution full of contradictions. Since then, American political have often wallowed on a level wearing labels that are only a shadow the higher moral level reflected in the original concept of liberty. That is the idea I attempt to conserve in my thoughts and actions.
Politics has a habit of wearing borrowed clothes. The labels remain the same while the ideas beneath them quietly trade places. In that sense, one could argue that the progressive movement has become the new conservative movement—not because it seeks to preserve the present, but because it seeks to conserve the nation's oldest promises.
The founders did not establish a kingdom, a dynasty, or a permanent ruling class. They launched an experiment in self-government, animated by a radical conviction: that ordinary people possess inherent rights and that political power exists to serve the common good rather than private privilege. Their revolution was not merely against a distant monarch. It was against tyranny itself, wherever it might arise.
Over two centuries later, progressives find themselves defending that same vision against the original opposing vision of those who wanted Washington to be a king to whom they could be loyal subjects. So-called Progressives argue that concentrated wealth should not overpower democratic institutions, that citizens deserve a meaningful voice in their government, and that liberty is strongest when people are free not only from political oppression but from the crushing burdens of economic exploitation, and later actually fought a war about that. In this view, expanding democratic participation and protecting the vulnerable are not departures from the American tradition; they are its fulfillment.
The irony is striking. Those called "progressive" are frequently accused of seeking change, yet much of our energy is devoted to preserving enduring principles: equality before the law, representative government, civic responsibility, and the belief that freedom belongs to all rather than a fortunate few. We look back to the Declaration's promise that all are created equal and ask why the nation should settle for anything less.
The true divide is not between progress and conservation, but between competing levels of visions of what is considered the most cherished version of the promise of America. It is like the difference between levels in Kolberg’s or Piaget’s moral and cognitive development. Politics played out on a conventional level, with its left and right, and its winners and losers miss the meaning of the founder’s post-conventional ideals.
If the founders' deepest intention was to create a republic capable of resisting tyranny and advancing the welfare of its people, then the progressive project can be seen not as a break from the American tradition, but as an effort to carry it forward. In that sense, the most revolutionary idea may also be the most conservative: to keep faith with the nation's original promise.
The rest of it all is a diversion thrown into the air like dust. It clouds us in mundane moments of distraction. We cannot know who we are if we don’t understand who we’ve been. The thing about being a new conservative is that there is a morality that connects the past, the present and the future on a path that detractors have called leftist progressivism. Actually it is truest to the founder’s heritage of vision and words, despite their failure to produce viable post-conservative lifestyles.
My conservatism rooted in a trust of those original ideals, of a history of both fulfillment and failure to face those promises, and a present in great need to keep those ideals alive and growing in all aspects of our lives. So, that’s me the not-really-new Conservative.