“What is conservatism?” asked President Abraham Lincoln. “Is it not adherence to the old and the tried, against the new and the untried?” Defining conservatism is not an easy task. Even before the election of President Donald Trump, fierce debates existed within the conservative movement. President Trump’s rise has intensified those debates over what it truly means to be conservative.
President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and America First agenda is viewed by many as a departure from “Reagan conservatism,” or what is now called Freedom Conservatism. Whether the issue is protective tariffs, immigration restrictions, or a more restrained foreign policy, critics argue that these policies run counter to true conservatism.
Those largely supportive of President Trump have embraced what is being called National Conservatism. It is important to note that national conservatism is not a blanket endorsement of every Trump policy. Rather, it is a broader philosophical framework.
Yoram Hazony defined national conservatism as an effort to “return the national interest, or the common good of the nation, to the center of political discourse,” after decades in which individual freedom became the overriding principle in nearly every sphere of life. In the political arena, he argues, conservatism seeks the “recovery, restoration, elaboration, and repair of national and religious traditions” as the key to strengthening a nation over time.
Many conservatives are alarmed by what they see as national decline. Although the conservative movement has demonstrated the ability to win elections, it has struggled to halt the broader cultural and political advance of liberalism. Cultural disintegration, free trade agreements that critics argue weakened sovereignty and hollowed out manufacturing, uncontrolled immigration, and decades of interventionist foreign policy all contributed to President Trump’s rise. Over time, many conservatives supported these policies.
Russell Kirk, often regarded as the father of modern American conservatism, wrote that “conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.” For Kirk and others, conservatism is rooted not in abstract theory but in experience, tradition, and moral order.
Patrick J. Buchanan similarly wrote that conservatism is grounded in the past — its principles derived from the Constitution, history, custom, and the wisdom of those who came before us. Associated with this view is belief in an “enduring moral order,” rooted in transcendent truths and, historically in America, in the Christian faith.
Conservatives also affirm the principle of imperfectability — the understanding that human nature is flawed. This skepticism of human perfection explains the conservative distrust of sweeping ideologies that promise to remake society, whether through democracy promotion abroad, free-market absolutism, or socialism.
Closely related is the principle of prudence. Change is inevitable, but it should be gradual and tested. Public policy must be measured against the Constitution and long-term consequences. As Kirk warned, “Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.” Herbert Hoover expressed a similar sentiment, describing a conservative as one who retains the wisdom of the past while applying it thoughtfully to new challenges.
How should this strain of national conservatism apply to public policy?
First, conservatives must preserve the Constitution. A $39 trillion national debt and the relentless growth of the federal government stand in tension with constitutional limits. So too does the erosion of federalism and the encroachment of Washington into state authority. Limited government is foundational to conservatism.
Second, conservatives should be cautious of free-market fundamentalism. While markets are powerful tools, they are not ends in themselves. Freedom conservatives say protective tariffs violate conservative principles, yet protectionism was supported by Alexander Hamilton and Republican presidents from Abraham Lincoln through Herbert Hoover. Pat Buchanan argued that some free-trade conservatives were “traveling under a false passport,” noting that aggressive free-trade policies were also championed by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The economy is more than a marketplace for cheap goods; it is made up of families, communities, and workers whose stability matters. Critics contend that decades of expansive trade agreements weakened local communities and increased dependence. As Buchanan asked, if we are not conserving neighborhoods, towns, and workers’ standard of living, what exactly are we conserving?
The same thoughtfulness needs to apply to foreign policy. Democracy promotion and nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed the limits of ideological foreign policy. National conservatives traditionally favor restraint and the national interest over abstract global missions.
Immigration policy raises similar debates within the conservative movement. Some freedom conservatives advocate for more expansive immigration provided borders are secure. National conservatives, on the other hand, argue that policymakers must also consider the economic and cultural effects of mass immigration on communities and national cohesion.
Many national conservatives point to the “Old Right” as a model. Presidents such as Calvin Coolidge, Warren G. Harding, and Herbert Hoover, along with Senator Robert A. Taft, combined fiscal restraint, tariff protection, immigration limits, and a restrained foreign policy.
Today’s debates often fall into extremes — either market absolutism or big-government conservatism. Both risk drifting from core principles.
Ultimately, conservatism is not merely a collection of policy preferences. It is a commitment to preserving America’s constitutional system, cultural inheritance, and moral foundation. It seeks to conserve what is enduring while applying prudence to change — retaining the old and the tried in the face of the new and the untested.
John Hendrickson serves as policy director for Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation