Conservative means what?

The types of conservatism are many. These include varieties of conservatives ranging from social conservatives to fiscal conservatives and small-government conservatives, among many others. No one person or organization can claim the authority to speak definitively for all of conservatism. Conservatism is, at its root, a constellation of broadly aligned ideas that, when working together, constitute a general cultural and political orientation.

That broadness, however, should not be construed to mean that conservatism is endlessly elastic. At some point, even the most generous understanding of what passes for conservatism should reach a breaking point. For without some core convictions, the label “conservative” will become a wax nose, shaped and driven by whatever the spirit of the age pours into it. Without clarity about what conservatism consists of, conservatism cannot conserve itself. The term would die the death of a thousand qualifications to the point that it no longer means anything at all. Conservatism, at some point, needs to be defined.

The occasion of my writing this is that, of late, headlines and social media stir-ups have drawn attention to several conservative organizations and media outlets employing transgender-identified persons. For example, the Dispatch’s recent hiring of a transgender-identified scholar has sparked justified confusion among conservatives who still believe that human nature is based in reality—not a social construct. Now, if you are anything like me, the idea of persons who identify as “transgender” working at “conservative” institutions seems an example of profound contradiction. To embrace transgenderism is to deny the fixity of nature, the authority of creation, and the reality of human embodiment—three pillars without which conservatism collapses into expressive individualism. Historically, conservatism as a philosophical concept has paid homage to the idea of givenness, order, and immutability—the notion that the moral order and the persons within it are defined by fixed realities (i.e., “nature”) that obligate them to obey this horizon, not resist it. The very notion of men identifying as women and undertaking great effort to live accordingly seems at odds with any semblance of even the most thinly defined conservatism.

This is where the conversation begins to get interesting. Up until now, I am not aware of most conservative institutions having a confession-like statement that defines or stipulates their understanding of conservatism. Sure, movement statements are occasionally released, but such statements are usually little more than re-articulations of historic conservatism fitted to present needs and current events. It is not customary for conservative organizations to formally “adopt” statements.

I’ve worked at three professional “conservative” institutions myself. None of them, to my knowledge, have ever had any shared “statement of principles” that defines the organization’s understanding of conservatism that binds the employee to the employer’s brand of conservatism. Sure, there were generalized sentiments and an organizational ethos that one would customarily pick up on if one were intuitive, but none that I am aware of have gone so far as to precisely define the concept in the form of “this,” and “not that.”

Compare the non-confessional nature of conservative institutions with that of confessional religious institutions, such as churches, denominations, or even nonprofit organizations that adhere to specific statements as guidelines for employment. These have become legally obligatory in our day and age, as conflicts over religious liberty and non-discrimination laws have necessitated that religious organizations define who they are for their legal protection.

Conservative institutions can learn a valuable lesson from Christian institutions. They must begin articulating and incorporating conservative belief statements—however defined—for themselves and their employees. Now, to be generous, I am not saying that these institutions should define conservatism as I would define it. As a believer in the freedom of association, I am willing to admit that there could be, and most likely will be, definitions of conservatism that, in truth, undermine conservatism as I see it. If an organization or institution wants to adopt an aberrant definition of conservatism that would embrace transgenderism, it is their prerogative to be wrong in their freedom to do so. And likewise, I am free to never work for them, donate to them, or even consider them conservative.

And here is the problem: Unless conservative institutions undertake this approach of adopting “statements of conviction” to guide their organizational portfolio, the arc of institutional history bends toward compromise, accommodation, and eventually, a total lack of recognition that the institution was ever “conservative” to begin with unless proactive action is taken to prevent such drift.

“Conservatism” is not a self-executing concept. It requires articulation.

The issue, as I see it, is not the merit of the work from the transgender-identified individuals in question. The issue is what “conservative” institutions will legitimize in the long run as the term remains undefined. The question is whether a growing number of conservative institutions now see transgender identities as a legitimate extension of the conservative label. To be clear, the point of this column is not on the sins of the sexual revolution alone. At minimum, institutions need to define what their conservatism entails in the areas of the human person, the family, moral order, the purpose of government, the ideal common good, and economics. These statements should be clear, binding, and public. Institutions should have the freedom to be as extensive or minimal in their articulations. But they need to articulate, nonetheless.

What’s more, clarity is courtesy. For employees to know, on the front end, what their employer’s brand of conservatism aligns with prevents untold problems from occurring in the future.

My friend Erick Erickson likes to say, “You will be made to care.” What Erickson meant is that the progressive dominance of society does not allow Christian institutions to adopt a studied indifference to the most urgent and pressing cultural matters of our day. No, you must declare who you are and what you believe as a Christian institution. The same must be said, now, for conservative institutions. In other words, you will be made to confess if you hope to conserve.