Is Principled Conservatism in Decline?
A recent report from the Heritage Foundation hints at some significant shifts in conservative ideology. The resignation of Robert P. George, a noted conservative scholar from Princeton, is a focal point in this discussion. He has long been influential in shaping natural law scholarship. The way Heritage Chairman Kevin Roberts managed interviews with figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes has further illuminated divisions within conservative thought about its future direction and core values.
The tension among conservatives has grown, particularly after what some see as the “martyrdom” of Charlie Kirk. It seems there’s an ongoing struggle between various factions on the right — some call it far-right, while others just consider it the broader right. Agitators within the movement are being labeled by some as leftist infiltrators aiming to undermine conservative principles. Others think this is a divine reveal of personal intentions.
The criticisms directed at George follow a familiar playbook, often trivializing his life’s contributions. It’s striking how he’s been dismissed with phrases like “OK, Boomer,” despite his steadfast commitment to ideals such as the protection of life and natural marriage.
For context, when I was a grad student focused on natural law at Arizona State University, George took the time to guide me through my research. Later, I had the privilege of being a fellow in the program he founded. One of my professors remarked that George’s work challenged him to rethink his own perspectives.
Now, far-right critics imply that George is willing to engage with figures like Cornel West yet evades collaboration with those on his own side. This allegation, frankly, seems absurd, suggesting he’s merely a token conservative pleasing the elite as long as he stays within certain limits. This leads to unverified speculations about his motivations.
George doesn’t need me to come to his defense. His work speaks for itself — he’s never compromised his beliefs for the sake of institutional approval. He embraces dialogue because he believes in the importance of reason and that constructive disagreement shouldn’t strip away our shared humanity.
Understanding this shouldn’t be overly complicated.
Ultimately, conservatives need to reclaim an essential truth: reason and faith aren’t just optional; they’re the foundation of meaningful discourse. Honest debate is necessary for free individuals to communicate persuasively. If we let ourselves be consumed by conspiracy or tribal allegiance, we risk losing the coherence that defines conservatism.
George cautions against adopting postmodern perspectives. He warns against mimicking leftist identity politics and affirms that reason is crucial — just because some historic thinkers misused it doesn’t mean we should abandon it altogether. It’s fine to reassess narratives, but we should do so with a rational mindset, not through the ideological frameworks that dominate contemporary progressive discourse.
However, principles alone can’t carry the weight. Being principled doesn’t equate to being gullible. Historically, conservatives understood the importance of strategy — balancing long-term visions with immediate actions. I hold that America should publicly affirm the kingship of Jesus Christ. If we view the nation through this lens, it’s our responsibility to actively engage and advocate for a society built on ordered liberty.
This involves rolling up our sleeves. It means facing off against ideologies like Marxism and atheism head-on and unapologetically. We must navigate these challenges wisely while striving to maintain our integrity.
What we must avoid is becoming mere “principled losers.” The opposition thrives on our retreats. The progressive agenda is also about redefining humanity, family, and morality. A political party that endorses late-term abortion and the mutilation of children leaves no room for moral ambiguity regarding which side conservative and Christian values should align with.
George presents a compelling case against liberalism and champions natural law. Disagreeing with him? He’ll engage you in discussion, which is commendable. But it’s clear: a revival of natural law and theology is urgently needed today. We must turn to scriptural truths and learn from historical dialogues that transcend cultural barriers.
We find ourselves in a spiritual conflict. While the battleground is spiritual, the implications are tangible. The stakes are incredibly high.
Better to struggle in the harsh realities of conflict than to remain complacent in comfort.
