The end of the conservative consensus

American workers in a GM factory in Fort Wayne, Indiana on July 25, 2018. (John Gress Media Inc / Shutterstock)

The baseline question for conservatives never changes: “What are we trying to conserve?” Nor does the answer, which always begins, “The things that have enabled our society to flourish.” But that’s where the conversation gets interesting.

People in different times and places have understood “flourishing” differently. That’s because they have faced different challenges and opportunities and have had different religions, traditions, governing arrangements, and economic systems. As a result of these differences, there is no single definition of a society’s success. Conservatism meant something different in 15th century France than it did in 18th century Russia or 20th century Iran. And these differences explain why American conservatism has evolved over time. John Adams’ conservatism was different from Abraham Lincoln’s which was different from William McKinley’s which was different from Robert Taft’s.

For about 50 years, from the middle of the 20th century to the dawn of the 21st, there was general agreement about the contours of U.S. conservatism. Above all, what distinguished it was its commitment to preserving processes over specific things. In other places and times, conservatives have generally aimed to protect specific aspects of society, like the monarchy or the church or the caste system. But American conservatives largely aimed to preserve rules of the road or procedures via a collection of -isms. These included liberalism, democratic-republicanism, communitarianism, capitalism, federalism, localism, and originalism.

This focus on processes made perfect sense given the United States’ unique character. In many other places, society is held together by bedrock similarities, often described as blood, soil, throne, and altar. The people share a pedigree, their families have been in the same place for centuries, they are devoted to the same hereditary head of state, and they sing from the same hymnal. But Americans are spread across a continent, our ancestors come from different places, we have different faiths, and we have very different views. As a result, 20th century U.S. conservatives believed that we must primarily protect the processes that enabled the American people to define and pursue the good life individually while also living in peace together. Our collection of -isms worked together to distribute authority, empower citizens with self-rule, allow for the creation of particular communities, and participate in a vibrant economic system.

We must recognize, however, that our -isms are only instrumental. They aren’t the stuff of the good life; they are, on the contrary, what (hopefully) helps produce the good life. Yet it’s not always exactly clear how our -isms produce the good life; there’s a certain mystery to their functioning. Adam Smith introduced the idea of an “invisible hand” that, in capitalist systems, somehow turns competition, supply, and demand into efficiency and abundance. Friedrich Hayek used the term “spontaneous order” to describe the way people living in liberty produce – without centralized, advanced planning – everything from traditions to institutions to the price system. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at America’s unscripted social entrepreneurialism, its astonishing capacity to create communities and other voluntary associations.

For half a century, much of U.S. conservatives’ policy agenda was dedicated to enabling our -isms to function. We endeavored to keep the tax burden small, regulations light, and trade barriers low so that capitalism could naturally work its magic. We tried to constrain Washington so that federalism and localism could naturally work their magic. We tried to limit the government and appoint Federalist Society judges so that classical liberalism and originalism could naturally work their magic.

Though this approach helped keep the U.S. economy strong and progressives’ centralizing, homogenizing proclivities at bay, the rise of stubborn, systemic societal problems became evident by the early 2000s. Particularly during the Obama era, some on the Right angrily pointed to a set of problems – (seemingly) uncontrolled illegal immigration, cratering male labor-force participation, the opioid crisis and spiking deaths of despair, suffering towns, plummeting marriage and fertility rates, growing out-of-wedlock births, the expansion of online gambling and pornography, and wayward institutions of higher education – and saw a single thread tying these dysfunctions together: American conservatives’ laissez-faire attitude toward social change.

These critics charged that the establishment Right’s focus on process was the problem that had led to all the others. Conservative -isms might lead to good things, but they had produced some very bad things as well.

The rise of the New Right

If American conservatism remains exclusively fixated on procedures instead of things, we will have no way of righting the ship when it goes off course. For decades, the mainstream American Right – indeed, much of the U.S. political mainstream of both parties – lauded liberty, free markets, free trade, and other forces for their supposed contributions to the common good. But we ended up with hollowed-out manufacturing, the loss of national solidarity, shrinking church attendance, vulnerable families, a degraded civil society, and resurgent authoritarian states threatening us from abroad. In the 2010s, these factors led to the rise of a New Right that was no longer going to sit by and wait for the -isms to work.

The two defining features of the New Right – a collection of populists, nationalists, neo-mercantilists, and post-liberals – are a commitment to conserving things and a willingness to use government might to conserve them. Conservative critics of the New Right have often argued that there is nothing conservative about tariffs, trade wars, industrial policy, protectionism, and tough anti-immigration measures. These critics also point to the strains of the New Right that laud nationalism, integralism (the integration of religious principles into the state), and President Donald Trump’s I-alone-ism to argue that the movement is veering toward statism – long the antithesis of American conservatism.

A derelict factory in Kokomo, Indiana on April 12, 2025. (Madeleine Hordinski / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

But it is important to understand what the New Right’s wants to use the state for: to conserve things. The New Right uses restrictionist trade policies to protect American manufacturing and blue-collar jobs. It’s open to child allowances and other government subsidies for parents in order to strengthen families. It’s willing to clamp down on immigration and ramp up efforts to instill national pride in students in order to rebuild American solidarity. Frustrated by the seemingly amoral nature of the judicial doctrines of originalism and textualism, some on the New Right advocate that judges use new methods of interpreting laws and the U.S. Constitution that would allow them to strengthen the hand of the state in pursuing the common good.

As this agenda demonstrates, much of the New Right – indeed, many of today’s conservatives – are less concerned with preserving methods of governing and more concerned with preserving the traditional family, stable jobs, American identity, and social cohesion.

The Right’s right response

This agenda presents traditional conservatives with a major challenge: how to explain why we should continue prioritizing procedural -isms. The ascendant New Right argues that excessive devotion to limited government didn’t work; that free trade and open borders didn’t work; that libertarianism on social policy didn’t work. Stop fixating on individual liberties, federalism, free markets, and other unnecessary limits on government authority, this New Right argues, and use the power of the state to accomplish the things that society needs.

How should the older guard respond? Many of us are tempted to roll our eyes, sigh, and say, “History teaches that your muscular state approach is going to fail.” If pressed for details, we’d happily make a list of the potential problems. They include: Technocrats in Washington trying to tinker with the economy are never as smart as they think. Central governments are always slow, clumsy, self-interested, and expensive. Industrial policy puts the clumsy, self-interested government in charge of picking winners and losers, which it’s not very good at. Tariffs distort economic behavior and cause inflation. America is too big and too diverse to be managed by bureaucrats thousands of miles away. A powerful federal government crowds out civil society and governments closer to home.

Moreover, we might add, America’s longstanding commitment to processes is the product of practical wisdom, not wishful thinking. Traditional conservatism is the triumph of experience over reason, and we believe in the -isms because they have demonstrated themselves to be the best framework helping America thrive. They weren’t pulled out of a hat; they are a time-tested response to the American condition.

This kind of reply might be satisfying and allow traditional conservatives to see ourselves as defenders of Chesterton’s fence, the idea the changes should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is properly understood. (The idea comes from a 1929 book by the English essayist G. K. Chesterton.) As the New Right tries to replace our approach, old school conservatives could explain that they don’t appreciate all of the good our ostensibly dated methods have produced, nor do they understand the costs and dangers of jettisoning what we’ve built in favor of something new and untested.

But conservatives need to do more than just position ourselves to say, “I told you so” if things don’t work out. We need an agenda of our own that’s responsive to the times.

Creating such an agenda should begin by acknowledging the pressing problems of the day. There is a danger and a coldness in simply recounting the upsides of our approach. So we should acknowledge, for example, that the latest technological marvels don’t compensate for the scourges of loneliness, addiction, and polarization. That steady national GDP growth doesn’t compensate for the pain caused by dying towns. That the material abundance of this era doesn’t compensate for the fact that younger Americans have declining interest in marriage and child-rearing. Much of the New Right’s political success was built on its willingness to forthrightly discuss America’s underappreciated struggles. The Old Right must do so as well.

The next step in creating a new agenda for conservatives would be to develop an approach that synthesizes our proper commitment to process and the New Right’s proper commitment to things. Subsidiarity – a principle that comes from Catholic social teaching – holds that different entities of society have different duties and powers. Although the informal understanding of the concept is something like, “Push power down to the lowest capable level,” it also includes at least two other key features. First, authority isn’t pushed; it exists naturally in individuals and groups, and it exists in combination with responsibility. Individuals have inherent duties and powers, as do families, towns, and so on. Those powers and duties are theirs, and they cannot be taken away. Second, subsidiarity recognizes that sometimes an entity or government is unable to do what it should. In such instances, it is the duty of a larger entity (like the state or federal government) to help that smaller body get back on its feet so it can again take up its obligations.

For conservatives, this means leaning on civil society and state and local governments more, while viewing the federal government’s primary role as creating more capacity for smaller entities that are struggling to do their duty. Here are five examples of forms this approach should take.

Two toddlers holding American flags at a Fourth of July parade. (Manny DaCunha / Shutterstock)

First, America’s schools are struggling mightily. The problems include chronic absenteeism, falling test scores, a widening achievement gap, and illiberal behavior on college campuses. So a new conservative agenda should lean into education, but not through Washington. It should, instead, mobilize state and local governments to do much more to improve public educational institutions, while private citizens, alumni, and donors should work overtime to reform private institutions of higher education. The 2015 federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) limited Washington’s official role in K-12 schooling, but the president and other national officials should still use the bully pulpit to agitate for action. Limiting Washington’s interference must be accompanied by energizing states, localities, and the nongovernmental sector.

Second, we need to defend the sensibilities behind the phenomenon known, derisively, as NIMBYism (“not in my back yard”). State and federal officials increasingly aim to override local decisions on housing, transportation, and more. These distant figures think they know best. But citizens know their communities, and they want to preserve their ways of life. We need to prioritize the preferences of families and towns on the issues that affect them the most. “Not in my backyard” should be seen as a rallying cry for those devoted to place, not as a punch line.

For example, too often distant officials reason that today’s housing shortage entitles them to permit the expansion of housing in desirable, already developed, areas, even if that area’s residents are adamantly opposed. But neighborhoods, along with their webs of institutions and relationships, are dear to those who live there. A community should never be seen as merely the means to an outsider’s desired social ends. Policymakers should direct, even incentivize, construction in areas wanting new residents and in lesser developed areas where new housing will not disturb ways of life. New housing stock is unquestionably important, but we should not sacrifice an area’s longstanding identity, its fragile bonds, or its residents’ sense of agency in order to get it.

Third, the libertarian sensibilities of the last half century have made it harder for local communities to create and maintain the living environments they want. Policy and court decisions have eased restrictions on gambling, drug use, and the like. Although such activities are often called “victimless crimes,” they can weaken the social fabric and create conditions that parents want to prevent. A modern conservative agenda should aim to increase the ability of local communities to curtail the types of behavior they believe to be inimical to raising healthy kids and supporting human flourishing. We must respect the duty and power of families and communities to build and protect an atmosphere conducive to the good life.

Fourth, we should return to the pluralist, communitarian view that most social work should be done by the vast array of close-to-home nongovernmental bodies and organizations. Whenever possible, government activity – be it counseling, training, tutoring, housing, or something else – should run through civil society. Such groups know their communities inside and out, and they are able to transmit values and traditions in ways the government cannot.

Fifth, we should not shy away from federal activity, but it should almost always be designed to increase the capacity of others to do important work; it should not enable Washington to do the work of others. Tax incentives and short-term grant programs are the ideal mechanisms for doing the former. For example, tax credits for rural business investment or individual donations to scholarship programs are good ways to encourage the private sector to engage in important local work. Similarly, temporary federal grants to spur urban redevelopment, launch a nonprofit service provider, or replicate a successful initiative would all be worthwhile.

Each of these approaches would respect the state-limiting lessons of conservatives’ -isms while engaging the government in the most pressing issues of the day. Taken together, they would represent a healthy evolution of conservatism – making use of the process-oriented wisdom passed down to us while energetically tackling the very real challenges facing Americans today. Conservatives of the previous era should acknowledge that the New Right was correct to focus more on the protection of ends. I hope the New Right is willing to acknowledge the wisdom of their predecessors’ wise focus on means.