This month at Christ Over All we are reflecting on the United States of America and the 250 years that have passed since our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776. We can quibble about this date, but it is much more than a quibble. It is not quite right, or at least it is only somewhat correct, to say that the United States are 250 years old. On July 4, 1776, the original thirteen colonies declared independence from the British Crown (though twelve of the thirteen colonies—excepting New York—had already signaled or expressed their independence from the British Crown before July 4, 1776, and technically New York did not approve independence until July 9). They listed numerous grievances against King George III, who the colonists asserted had violated his word to the colonies. It is the case that in the wording of the first line of the Declaration we read: “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America . . .”. However, at this point the colonists-turned-states were only loosely bound together. There was—as of yet—no Constitution and there certainly had been no granting of limited powers to a constitutional federal government (which did not as of yet exist). A truly united states would have to wait for the Articles of Confederation (1781), and then the Constitutional convention, and the ratification process (1787–1790).
I begin on this note of clarification because just such an issue (the exact nature of the union of the states) lies at the heart, in a sense, of the troubled or confused or fractured state of contemporary American conservatism. For my entire adult life I have read essay after essay on the fractured and divided nature of American conservatism. As a young man I had a steady diet of National Review, The American Spectator, over time Chronicles, and (now defunct) Weekly Standard. I would also regularly read various libertarian literature: Cato Institute material, Mises Institute material, and Reason magazine. I also enjoyed more the various publications related to Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Intercollegiate Studies Review, and Modern Age. And my coffee table featured my other various subscriptions: First Things, its predecessors This World and The Religion and Society Report, Imprimis, and others. In my college years I also subscribed to some left-wing magazines as well: Sojourners and The Other Side. And as a young Evangelical in the 80s, I enjoyed trying to read and understand Christian Reconstructionists like R.J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North, as well as brilliant men like Harold O.J. Brown. I was an original subscriber to The American Conservative. Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Russell Kirk were all on the table next to my reading chair. I would eventually discover a number of penetrating Southern thinkers like Donald Livingston and Clyde Wilson, as well as an Italian friend sympathetic to the South, Marco Bassani.
But for the last forty years or more I have watched and read conservatives discuss the fractured and divided state of conservatism. If you are reading this, there is a good chance you might consider yourself “conservative” in some sense. You might be more or less libertarian. You might have some kind of draw toward Chestertonian and Bellocian distributism. You might be more or less interventionist (in terms of foreign policy). But if are reading this, you likely find yourself more at home in the world of conservative political and social thought, than in the more progressive and radical stream of things.
This can be confusing enough for an “insider” (someone who more or less considers himself or herself conservative). But for an “outsider” the different strands of American conservatism can be bewildering, to put it mildly.
Let us think about the different types of tendencies and groups that are often labeled “conservative.” The following groupings are simply meant to be representative. I make no claim to have created a taxonomy that covers each and every thinker in detail!
Five Strands of Conservatism
Neoconservatives
First, we might think of the Neoconservatives. The Neoconservatives are probably fairly described as persons who have some real interest in seeing the U.S.A. as more-or-less the world’s policeman, a kind of international “sergeant-at-arms.” Perhaps the best archetype here is George W. Bush. If September 11, 2001 had never occurred he might not be the best archetype. But he probably is now. The United States in the years following 2001 invaded both Afghanistan (because Al-Qaeda cells were thought to be there), as well as Iraq (because of the fear of “weapons of mass destruction”). Both “conservatives” and “liberals” generally supported both of these wars. The Weekly Standard (published from 1995–2018) vociferously supported both of these wars. It is probably fair to say that the most principled objection to these wars came not from the left, but from the right, from a group we will consider next, the Paleoconservatives. National Review has published a wide range of writers over the years, and it is probably fair to say that only some of them could actually be considered Neoconservatives.
Paleoconservatives
1. David Frum, “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” National Review, March 25, 2003.
Second, the Paleoconservatives. The Paleoconservatives can be associated with thinkers like Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming (a former editor of Chronicles), Paul Gottfried (the current editor of Chronicles). The Paleoconservatives opposed the U.S. getting into war in Iraq. For at least some Neoconservatives, to oppose the Iraq War was to be an “unpatriotic conservative”—the name of a piece published by David Frum on National Review online (March 25, 2003).[1] For Frum, to oppose the Iraq War was beyond the pale, and made one “unpatriotic.” When one watches Tucker Carlson today admit he was wrong to support the Iraq War, he is—in his own way—siding with the Paleoconservatives on this issue.[2] To grasp the Paleoconservative impulse it is necessary to grasp that they are interested less in the USA being simply a “proposition nation” (i.e., “all men are created equal . . .” or the like), and are more interested in the importance of tradition, one’s land, and one’s people. Paleoconservatives generally think the Neoconservatives are not really conservatives at all, because they are not interested in conserving much of anything. We should note that Paleoconservatives will often claim that Russell Kirk is—at least in general—one of their own. Kirk wrote at least a dozen pieces for Chronicles, and served as a contributing editor for several years.
2. See, e.g., his comments on MSNBC’s The Situation with Tucker Carlson, June 30, 2005; and more recent reflections, e.g., India Today, February 3, 2026.
Southern Conservatives
Third, we should mention what we will call the Southern conservatives (who generally might be seen as a subset of the Paleoconservatives, but who are worthy of their own mention). Preeminently, we should mention Mel Bradford, a true man of letters. Bradford wrote a number of books and also wrote for Chronicles magazine. Some of his key works would be Against the Barbarians, The Reactionary Imperative, and A Better Guide Than Reason.[3] While having no interest whatsoever in defending slavery, Bradford was quite forthright in his criticisms of Abraham Lincoln, which can be like touching the third rail in some conservative circles. Other significant conservative thinkers would be Richard M. Weaver, author of Ideas Have Consequences and Visions of Order. More recently, we should mention Donald Livingston and Clyde Wilson. Livingston taught philosophy for many years at Emory University, and specialized in the philosophy of David Hume. His various essays (e.g., in Modern Age and elsewhere) on the compact theory of the United States are some of the finest in print. He has drawn attention to the issues of “economy of scale”—i.e., when does a political entity just become too big? When does a political entity become so large that representative government really does not exist? Clyde Wilson is also one the finest living thinkers of this tradition. Wilson taught history at the University of South Caroline for many years, and was one of the lead editors of the definitive edition of the writings of John C. Calhoun. Wilson has written a number of guides to Southern literature. Two books which are good introduction to his thought are two collections of essays: From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition, and Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture. Readers beware—these two works might challenge your understanding of what it means to be truly an American and a conservative. Both Livingston and Wilson have been key persons in the Abbeville Institute. One of the central insights of Bradford, Livingston, Wilson, and the Southern conservative tradition is their affirmation of the importance of the decentralizing tradition which was largely lost with the War Between the States. I will suggest below that this loss lies at the heart of the confusion and incoherence of much of contemporary conservatism.
3. M. E. Bradford, Against the Barbarians and Other Reflections on Familiar Themes (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992); The Reactionary Imperative: Essays Literary and Political (Sherwood Sugden & Co., 1991); A Better Guide Than Reason: Studies in the American Revolution (Sherwood Sugden & Co., 1979; repr., New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994).
Classical/Freedom Conservatives
Fourth, we might speak of something like Classical/Freedom Conservatives. This is, granted, slippery terminology. I am thinking here of conservatives who might be not really Paleoconservatives and not really Neoconservatives, and they are not quite Libertarians (see below). We might think of the Reagan conservatives of the 1980s. These conservatives are generally committed to the free-market and limited government (they are not necessarily far from being libertarian). They generally support America’s role in the world, but if pressed they are likely not especially interested in being the world’s policeman (like the Neoconservatives), but they generally do not have a principled opposition to intervening in various places around the world (like the Paleoconservatives). These conservatives were often pro-life and have concerns about the social and moral fabric of the United States. Thought leaders from this group would at times write for National Review, and at times for Chronicles. Some of these folks can at times be pretty libertarian, and are constitutionally averse to the grown of the central government. Some of the persons in this group would resonate with thinkers like Richard Weaver, as well as with Russell Kirk and William Buckley.
Libertarians
Fifth, it is right to say a word about the Libertarians, even though they are not strictly part of the four conservative movements above. There has been an interesting relationship between certain conservatives and standard libertarians. This relationship has at times been one of mockery to one of co-belligerence. That is, some traditional conservatives have no use whatsoever for libertarians. But there has been cooperation and co-belligerence as well. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s Chronicles magazine continued to publish their “own” paleoconservative stable of writers, as well as libertarians like Murray Rothbard. In the twentieth century, key libertarians have been Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, as well as Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul (and we might add Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie). The libertarians have their own think tanks like the Mises Institute and the Cato Institute, as well as Reason magazine. Libertarians are in a sense “purist” classical liberals: All persons should be able to what they like as long as they do not keep others from doing what they want to do. Many conservatives clearly resonate with this “leave us alone” attitude. While Ayn Rand (author the very popular novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged was most certainly not friendly toward conservatives, the happy and joyful Murray Rothbard seemed quite happy to get along with traditional conservatives when he could. Reading Rothbard is a joy. Reading Rand, however, is generally not (though honesty compels me to confess to the guilty pleasure of enjoying Rand’s The Fountainhead). ß
The Present and the Future
A word about the present. I am unsure exactly what to say about present-day conservatism. All four strands above are present, but Donald Trump has virtually single-handedly changed the landscape of the contemporary conservative movement. “Christian Nationalism” is now an element, as well as a kind of (strange to me) racially-tinged “bro” culture which I hope quickly and thoroughly disappears. I am quite happy to see young men wanting to be young men—good for them. But the disparaging of this or that race simply has no place in mature and manly Christian discourse.
But let me offer three somewhat-related reflections or recommendations.
First, I believe the Paleoconservatives and Southern conservatives have been historically correct in arguing that the best of any culture must be more than simply being a “proposition” nation. I am happy to confess that “all men are created equal.” Since the traditional Christian believes in the doctrine of creation, and confesses that all persons are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:28), the traditional Christian of course and by necessity believes in a kind of common humanity and common value shared by all human creatures. If one also believes, as I do, that we have all descended from a first pair (a historical Adam and Eve), there is even more theological grounds for the value of each human person. But what makes a nation a nation cannot be simply a proposition. Different nations have different traditions, different lands, different songs, different literature, different food, different histories. And there is no shame in loving and passing those on to one’s heirs.
Second, there is a deep conceptual division within conservatism (and within the USA more generally) which will likely not be resolved any time soon. And the divide is, I think, between the (1) Neoconservatives on the one hand (as well as other conservatives) and (2) the Paleoconservatives and Southern conservatives (on my read, the Libertarians are divided on what I am about to discuss). The conceptual challenge or division is as follows, as I see it. I suggest that one way of grasping the history the United States since its founding is to see it as the history of two competing tendencies: a (1) centralizing tendency and a (2) decentralizing tendency. For example, on the one hand, Alexander Hamilton wanted, it seems, something like an American version of his British experience—an American central bank, an American central government, etc. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson—at his “best”—generally favored a more decentralized system (not that he was always consistent). When one reads American history, one may constantly hear about the Federalist Papers, but there was also an Anti-Federalist body of literature. The Anti-Federalists argued that if we adopted the Constitution, what I am calling the centralizing tendency would win out, and would eventually crush the liberty that the Anti-Federalists saw as under threat. More recently one commentator wrote:
“. . . the American Republic has ceased to be a nation of states. Centralization of power has reduced the states to a condition little better than that of provinces in an empire.”[4]
4. Russell Kirk, “John C. Calhoun Vindicated,” Southern Partisan 3, no. 1 (1983). Also available at this link.
Is it “left-wing” to express concern about “empire”? Is it beyond the pale to express concern about the centralization of power? The above words were penned by none other than Russell Kirk, arguably the most important conservative of the twentieth century. Would Kirk have a place at Fox News today? Years ago the editor of National Review, Richard Lowry (now Editor-In-Chief) came to speak at Union University (where I am employed). He spoke at length about the conservative movement. I was itching to ask a question: “Would the National Review of today still be appreciative of certain National Review contributors of the past like Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk?” Lowry struggled to be able answer affirmatively, and eventually conceded that, “No, the current National Review has moved a good bit along since the days of Weaver and Kirk” (I am recalling from memory here). But, I think Kirk is right. And even Christopher Caldwell (see my review here) agrees with my basic thesis: We have largely lost the original Constitution in favor of the second constitution of the various legal apparati which emerged in the U.S.A. in the 1960s.[5]
5. Christopher Caldwell, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2020). See also Bradley G. Green, “One Constitution, or Two? Reviewing The Age of Entitlement by Christopher Caldwell,” Christ Over All, July 31, 2023.
Third, I believe that conservatism cannot save itself. I have read the literature of the conservative movement for some forty-plus years. I was at times encouraged to read this or that writer speak of “the permanent things,” or of “the truth of things,” or of the transcendentals such as Truth, Goodness, or Beauty. I have argued elsewhere that a brilliant conservative like Richard Weaver repeatedly bumped up into various Christian themes and principles in his writings (without ever directly or clearly connecting the dots as one might like). The conservative movement, at its best, as done better than it deserves. It has recognized, again at its best, that limited government is wise (and the Christian grounds this, at least, in the sinfulness of man). The conservative movement grasps that property ownership is a good and proper principle worth protecting (the Christian grounds this, at least, in biblical prohibitions on theft; cf. Exod. 20:15). The conservative movement, again, at its best, is happy to recognize that there are many institutions needed in a healthy culture, and not just the state (and the Christian grounds this in God’s creation of institutions like marriage and the family). But if conservatism is going to be worth anything, it must bow the knee to Christ. It must repent and be born again. It must recognize that life is a gift, and all things are to be done to God’s glory. There will be—ultimately—no truly meaningful conservatism without Christ.
