The case for a broad conservatism

There’s a growing demographic shift that will shape the American electorate for decades to come. Millennials and Gen Zers, a voting bloc that is now poised to dominate U.S. elections, are only just beginning to exert their electoral clout in a landscape that has long catered to the preferences of baby boomer voters. Notably, younger voters are more racially and ethnically diverse than ever.

This growing bloc not only brings its racial diversity to the ballot box, but also its perspectives on family, education, immigration, and religion. So, how should a winsome and stout conservatism rise to meet this next generation of voters and engaged citizens?

In a recent Washington Post interview, incoming Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts made an appeal for what he calls “movement conservatism.” According to Roberts, movement conservatism begins with Christianity and excludes those who are “weak and wrong on the social issues.”

This is a marked shift from the right’s long-held coalition of big tent or “ecumenical” conservatism, which didn’t apply a religious litmus test. For decades, social conservatives and classical liberals found points of common ground on essential policies related to life, liberty, and private property, which includes entrepreneurial endeavors, while allowing for latitude on an array of matters that moved beyond this scope. Much of the coalition’s philosophy was rooted in the doctrine of “subsidiarity,” which is a belief that most political and social issues should be handled at a local level, whenever possible.

But as the culture war and growth of government have worn on, the pressure to loosen the ties that bind the right has grown. Good faith disagreements have devolved into suspicions and accusations. The entire enterprise of big tent conservatism has become further exacerbated by partisan purity tests and a cult of personality.

Yet, the changing voter landscape will not wait for conservatives to settle their differences. The next election will be on our doorstep sooner than we realize. Progressives, currently lacking in both a coherent vision and fit leadership, have spent their first year with control of Congress and the presidency unable to foist their “FDR-style” policy agenda upon Americans, thanks to the mulish Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. Even with power, they’re floundering.

This is a moment that the right can, and should, capture to bring younger voters into our orbit, providing them with a compelling framework of limited government and strong civil society. If we double down on our internecine differences, we’ll miss the opportunity. By refusing to relegate every sector of society to government, the stakes for disagreeing about issues like critical race theory and vaccines become less politically charged, because the threat of one group wielding legal, punitive authority over another recedes.

If we want to protect private institutions from government intrusion and ensure the church can continue her work of evangelism and discipleship, we will look for ways to welcome more Americans to the conservative fold. It is in conservative interests to think twice before alienating potential allies who might share our convictions about limited government and a robust civil society solely because they have different reasons for doing so.

Christian conservatives should approach politics with a deep respect for the image of God in others, bulwarked with a knowledge of the common grace that is accessible even to those who don’t share our faith. Because of this, we can keep our political tent wide, finding common ground on the three “solas” of a free society: life, liberty, and property. We also recognize that the domain of the church is healthiest and most effective when it is free of excessive government fetters.

Critics of the broad conservative coalition, like political theorist and scholar Yoram Hazony, assert that there is no separation between public and private life, therefore there is a mandate for the government to intervene decisively on issues that go well beyond the scope of these three free-society “solas.” This is a dangerous conclusion that edges out the critical role that churches, communities, and companies play in society and cedes to the government far more power than it can manage on behalf of such a diverse populace.

Conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives, must be wise in how we navigate the changing electoral landscape. By finding common cause with our fellow Americans on essential policy issues, we will be better positioned to advance freedom-oriented legislation that ensures churches, businesses, and communities have the space they need to make decisions that advance the common good in their “little platoons.” E pluribus unum—out of many, one—must continue to guide us as we reach the next generation of Americans.