For the rising generation that came of age during the Trump presidency, there has been no compelling alternative to National Conservatism. There have been no groundbreaking works of free market economics and, other than George Will’s Conservative Sensibility, no major text making the case for ordered liberty. Intellectual activity has run in the opposite direction—toward the state, toward planning, toward tribal identity, toward arbitrary power, toward personalist rule.
That is why Freedom Conservatism matters. The statement isn’t perfect. Hugh Hewitt observes that it ought to mention property rights. Andrew T. Walker notes that it departs from the 1960 Sharon Statement by neglecting transcendent values and the existence of God. My own manifesto—yet to be written—would include additional language on human rights and democracy and the mediating institutions of family, community, vocation, and faith.
The point is that, after spending years on defense, conservatives who believe in political and economic freedom have drawn a line. They have taken a stand. They have offered the Right a choice, not an echo of Trump. One path leads away from the Founding and toward marginalization and contempt. The other builds on the American political tradition and resonates with public aspirations for advancement and growth. Choose wisely.
[This hits on the problem facing the Reaganites (and I count myself among them). We spent too many years just assuming we had won the argument, even after situations changed and contexts shifted. When other currents began swirling, especially conservo-populism, too many articulated cases against it rather than effective cases for what Continetti calls “freedom conservatism” now. Let’s see a robust argument *for* that approach and see whether its adherents can make a sale for it. — Ed]
Join the conversation as a VIP Member