There is a great confusion plaguing American politics today: What does conservatism stand for? The label is ubiquitous, yet its substance grows increasingly elusive. We debate endlessly about policy outcomes while neglecting a far more fundamental question: By what standard do we judge whether a policy is truly conservative?
This question matters because conservatism, properly understood, is not a mood, party affiliation, or identity. It is a framework of reasoning, a set of enduring first principles that guide judgment. Without these principles, “conservative policy” becomes whatever happens to be popular on the Right at a given moment. When that occurs, conservatism loses both coherence and credibility.
Years ago, I spoke with a former United States senator about how he navigated difficult votes, moments when political pressure, donor expectations, or party leadership pulled in conflicting directions. His answer was strikingly simple: He voted based on first principles. If a bill aligned with them, it earned his support; if not, he voted no. This clarity is rare today.
So, what are these conservative first principles?
At their core is the belief that rights do not come from the state but from God. From this foundation flows a consistent set of commitments: the right to life, limited government, law and order grounded in moral truth, economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, federalism, patriotic education, the primacy of the traditional family, peace through strength, and a steadfast commitment to standing with allies such as Israel. Conservatism also insists on virtues of character, civility, and statesmanship — virtues essential for the endurance of any free society.
When these foundational principles are understood and consistently applied, conservative policy becomes coherent rather than reactive. More importantly, they provide a standard by which we can critique the progressive Left and hold those who claim the conservative label accountable. Principles, by definition, bind even when inconvenient.
Across the political spectrum today, support for policies is too often driven by partisan loyalty or personal allegiance rather than principled reasoning. This failure is especially damaging for conservatives because conservatism has historically defined itself by its commitment to enduring truths rather than transient passions.
For example, conservatives have opposed policies such as national industrial planning, centralized economic control, and protectionist trade regimes for decades — not simply because Democrats supported them, but because these policies conflicted with a conservative understanding of human nature, knowledge, and political power.
Conservatives have long argued that markets allocate resources more efficiently than bureaucracies because information is dispersed, local, and often tacit. Governments cannot “manage” an economy from the center, no matter how well-intentioned their planners may be. Friedrich Hayek famously described this as the “knowledge problem.” Conservatives rightly applied this insight to energy policy, transportation, and industrial planning under the Obama and Biden administrations. Our critique was not merely that these plans were inefficient or costly — though they often were — but that they fundamentally misunderstood the limits of government competence.
Now, as conservatives endorse national economic management, industrial policy, and sweeping protectionism, they are not merely adjusting tactics; they are abandoning first principles. In doing so, they forfeit the moral and intellectual authority to critique the progressive Left for pursuing the very same approaches. Selective principle is no principle at all.
This is why the current drift within parts of the conservative movement is so troubling.
Institutions once guardians of conservative thought now too often chase populist sentiment or partisan advantage. The continued exodus from The Heritage Foundation to Advancing American Freedom exemplifies this trend. While still trading on its reputation as a conservative think tank, it has increasingly abandoned the principles and policy commitments that defined conservatism for the past 75 years, particularly regarding limited government, free markets, and constitutional restraint.
MR. TRUMP, TEAR DOWN THE KENNEDY CENTER
Conservatism does not need reinvention, as so many now claim. It needs remembrance. If we recover our first principles and apply them consistently, we can govern wisely, critique effectively, and persuade confidently. Without them, “conservatism” risks becoming just another banner waved in the service of power, empty of meaning and unworthy of trust.
Greg Schaller serves as the director of the Centennial Institute, the conservative think tank of Colorado Christian University. He has taught politics at CCU, Villanova University, and St. Joseph’s University. He holds a B.A. in political science and history from Eastern University and an M.A. in political science from Villanova University.
