You’ve probably seen the hats, the rallies, and the fiery debates on cable news that make it seem like conservatism in the US is just one loud, monolithic block of voters. It’s not. Honestly, if you put a libertarian from Austin, a traditionalist Catholic from Ohio, and a populist worker from a Pennsylvania steel town in a room together, they’d spend half the night arguing before they ever agreed on a policy. That’s the reality. It is a messy, complicated coalition held together by some shared instincts but divided by very different priorities.
Defining it is tricky. At its core, the movement focuses on preserving what it sees as the foundational "good" of the country—things like individual liberty, the nuclear family, and the original meaning of the Constitution. But the way those ideas are applied has shifted massively over the last century.
The Three-Legged Stool is Wobbling
For decades, the standard definition of the movement was the "three-legged stool." This was the Ronald Reagan era. Basically, you had the fiscal hawks who wanted low taxes and small government, the social conservatives who cared about religion and family values, and the "hawks" who wanted a massive military to fight the Cold War. It worked. It won elections.
But that stool is looking pretty shaky these days.
You see it in the way the Republican party talks about trade and foreign policy now. In the 80s and 90s, being a conservative meant you loved free trade. Period. You wanted the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). You wanted global markets. Now? A huge chunk of the movement is deeply skeptical of globalization. They see what happened to the Rust Belt and they aren't interested in the old-school corporate version of the economy. They want "America First" policies, which actually looks a lot more like protectionism than the free-market purity of the past.
Then you have the foreign policy shift. The old guard—think John McCain or George W. Bush—pushed for "democracy promotion" abroad. Today’s conservatives are often much more isolationist. They look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and say, "Never again." They’d rather spend that money at home or just stay out of it. This isn't just a minor disagreement; it's a fundamental rewrite of what it means to be a "right-wing" politician in America.
💡 You might also like: The Garfield High School Shooting: Why Things Had to Change in Seattle
The Intellectual Roots: From Burke to Buckley
If you want to understand where this all came from, you have to look past the Twitter fights. It starts way back with Edmund Burke, an 18th-century philosopher who basically said, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't burn everything down just because we have a new idea." He watched the French Revolution turn into a bloodbath and decided that change should be slow and organic, not radical and violent.
In the US context, this evolved through people like William F. Buckley Jr. He started National Review in 1955 with the explicit goal of "standing athwart history, yelling Stop." At the time, liberals dominated everything. Buckley’s job was to take a bunch of scattered groups—anti-communists, free-marketers, and traditionalists—and give them a single intellectual home.
The Social vs. Secular Divide
We often talk about the "Religious Right," and for good reason. Ever since the late 1970s, when figures like Jerry Falwell and organizations like the Moral Majority stepped into the spotlight, evangelical Christians have been the backbone of conservatism in the US. Their influence is why the Supreme Court looks the way it does today. The overturning of Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision was the culmination of a fifty-year project.
But there is a new brand of conservatism emerging that isn't particularly religious.
Call them the "Barstool Conservatives." These are younger, often secular voters who don't care much about church or traditional morality in the biblical sense. They are, however, deeply annoyed by what they call "woke culture." They hate cancel culture. They think HR departments have gone too far. They value free speech above almost everything else. They aren't voting for a candidate because of their stance on prayer in schools; they're voting against what they see as a stifling cultural progressivism.
Economic Reality and the Working Class
One of the biggest shocks to the system has been the "class inversion." For years, the GOP was the party of the country club and the CEO. The Democrats were the party of the union hall.
That has flipped.
Recent data from the Pew Research Center shows that voters without a college degree—regardless of race, though primarily white—have been moving steadily toward the right. This has forced conservatism in the US to change its tune on things like Social Security and Medicare. While the "tea party" era of 2010 was all about cutting the deficit and entitlement reform, the modern populist wing is terrified of touching those programs because their base relies on them.
It’s a weird tension. You have the "Wall Street" wing that still wants deregulation and capital gains tax cuts, and the "Main Street" wing that wants the government to protect their jobs from automation and outsourcing.
The Judicial Philosophy: Originalism
If there is one thing that almost all conservatives still agree on, it’s the courts. This is where the movement has been most successful. The philosophy here is "Originalism."
Basically, it’s the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted based on what the words meant at the time they were written. It’s the opposite of the "Living Constitution" theory that many liberals hold. Justice Antonin Scalia was the poster child for this. He argued that if you want to change the law, you should pass a new law through Congress, not ask nine judges to "interpret" it into existence.
- Originalism: Stick to the text as written in 1787 (or whenever the amendment was passed).
- Textualism: Look at the plain meaning of the legal text, not the "intent" of the lawmakers.
- Judicial Restraint: Judges shouldn't be making policy from the bench.
This focus on the judiciary is why the Federalist Society became so powerful. They built a pipeline of conservative lawyers and judges that eventually populated the federal courts under various Republican presidents.
Common Misconceptions
People often think conservatism is just "racism" or "hating progress." That’s a lazy take that misses the actual intellectual framework. Most people who identify as conservative see themselves as the "brakes" on a car that's going too fast. They believe that institutions—like marriage, local government, and civic clubs—are fragile. If you change them too quickly, you break the social fabric that keeps people safe and connected.
Another big myth is that all conservatives want a small government. Honestly? Not anymore. While libertarians still hold that torch, many "National Conservatives" (or NatCons) are perfectly fine using the power of the state to achieve their goals. They might want the government to subsidize families, ban certain types of technology, or use trade tariffs to support domestic industry. The "small government" era is, in many ways, over.
Why Localism Matters
If you want to see conservatism in the US in its most authentic form, look at local school boards or county commissions. There is a deep-seated belief in "subsidiarity." That’s a fancy way of saying that problems should be solved by the people closest to them.
Don't let Washington D.C. decide what your kid learns in school.
Don't let a federal agency decide how you use your land.
Don't let a distant bureaucrat tell you how to run your business.
This localist streak is why you see such a massive pushback against federal mandates. It’s not just about the specific policy; it’s about the principle of who gets to decide.
The Future: A Movement in Flux
Where does it go from here? The movement is currently in a massive "civil war" between the old-school Reaganites and the New Right populists.
The New Right is much more comfortable with "culture war" combat. They don't want to just "agree to disagree" with progressives; they want to win. They see the media, academia, and large corporations as hostile forces. Because of this, they are much more aggressive in their tactics.
Meanwhile, the "Never Trump" or "Institutionalist" wing is worried that the movement is losing its character. They worry about the debt, they worry about the rule of law, and they worry that the focus on personality over policy is a dead end.
Actionable Steps for Navigating the Landscape
Understanding this movement isn't just about politics; it's about understanding your neighbors and the future of the country. Here is how to engage with it more deeply:
Read the Source Material
Don't just watch the news. Read Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind. It’s the book that basically defined the movement in the 1950s. If you want to understand the populist side, look at the writings coming out of the Claremont Institute or American Compass.
Look at the Data, Not Just the Rhetoric
Check out organizations like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or the Heritage Foundation. Even if you don't agree with them, they provide the white papers and the data that actually drive policy on the right.
Distinguish Between Populism and Conservatism
They aren't the same. A populist might want to tax the rich and spend it on a border wall; a traditional conservative might want to cut taxes and balance the budget. Learning to spot the difference will help you understand why the Republican party often seems like it's fighting with itself.
Engage Locally
Because conservatives value local control, the most impactful debates happen in your own backyard. Attend a town hall or a school board meeting. You’ll see that the issues are often much more practical—and less partisan—than they appear on social media.
The landscape of conservatism in the US is changing faster than ever. It’s moving away from the country club and toward the construction site. It’s moving away from globalism and toward nationalism. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing depends on who you ask, but one thing is certain: the old rules no longer apply.