Conservatism is really an anti-ideology. Modern conservatism emerged as a reaction to the French Revolution. And today, conservatism is on the decline.

Conservatism is a mysterious, eclectic bundle of beliefs. Because conservatism itself has such an abhorrence of ideologies, it cannot really be called an ideology but perhaps the "anti-ideology." The word itself comes from the Latin verb conservare, which means to preserve, keep safe, maintain, keep intact, guard and observe. If conservatism can be summed up in one phrase, it is "the respect and preservation of tradition." There is much wisdom in this proposition. If things have functioned up until this point in time, it is much more prudent to maintain our current tradition without changing it, for if we do change it, we know not what tomorrow holds. The preservation of tradition ensures the continuity of political, religious and cultural institutions - which have guaranteed our existence hitherto. Why tear down that which has thus far ensured our very survival? No prudent man would.

Perhaps the most influential summary of conservative thought, which served the Roman Empire for a thousand years, can be found in Cicero's Republic. Cicero recognizes a higher order, that is natural law (lex naturae), and sees its substantiation in the traditions and customs of the Roman people. Natural law and Roman traditions seem somehow to correspond to each other. If one has created the best possible form of government on Earth, then it would be consistent with natural law. The best form of government for Cicero, consistent with natural law, was the maintenance of the tradition of republicanism, especially as it was practiced during the time of the Scipios. The Roman preservation of tradition was central to the their conservative mindset. The Roman concept for conservatism was the mos maiorum, i.e. "the tradition of their ancestors." It was the maintaining of this tradition that was the source of Roman authority, justice and legitimacy. Only by actively preserving the mos maiorum could they ensure their own survival.

Modern conservatism comes about largely as a reaction to the French Revolution. Long-standing customs were violently being overturned, and conservatives saw the need for protecting these traditions if stability and civility were to be maintained. Perhaps the greatest work written on conservatism in the modern world is Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke realized that by radically altering society, by making change for the sake of change, or even for the sake of progress, the results would be worse than the protested wrongs. He predicted the horrors of the French Revolution, and was right. You cannot destroy institutions and erect others in a vacuum. Institutions grow out of the customs and history of a civilization.

The French Revolution violently overturned much tradition, but already with the Enlightenment tradition had lost ground to progress. The ancients had no notion of progress. They lived according to cycles or the opposite of progress: everything is becoming worse. With the Enlightenment, however, science somewhat supplanted older mores and a new religion was born: the religion of progress. In any Western government today one could get away with saying before Congress that "Christianity is nonsense," but what if he were to say "progress is a myth; let's do nothing"? Although there have been some advances in science that certainly have helped the human condition (most notably penicillin), human nature has not changed. Our basic desires, fears, ambitions and lusts are no different from those of the Greeks and Romans. We love and lust just as intensely as Ovid. We can desire power as much as Caesar. Our ability to slaughter or murder has not been abated. People do not change. Only naive utopianists think they can alter human nature.

Throughout most of history human nature has been perceived as immutable. One cannot and should not try to change human nature. Recent events have shown us that when one actively tries to change human nature, bodies begin to pile up (20 million in Russia, 60 million in China, etc.). This drive to change human nature, called by some "an experiment against reality," always will fail. The natural lots of life are distributed unequally - whether they be intelligence, aptitude or eloquence. And people also have historical conditioned beliefs and customs, and any attempt to change these will have devastating results. The conservative happily recognizes that human nature is flawed. The true conservative would be content with Sir John Falstaff (Henry IV) and not want to change him. Falstaff is who he is - you can take him or leave him. The liberal, however, would attempt to "educate," "enlighten" and "reform" him. So much for Falstaff's charm and the variety of human characters! At the heart of much disgust of modern liberalism is its insensitivity toward an aesthetic appreciation of life.

Conservatives have long been the real patrons of the arts and learning. The traditional role of the educator has been to hand down the wisdom of his ancestors, not to reform or enlighten society. Modern education, apparent in the "social sciences," has failed to do this by expanding public education, when it needs to be contracted. By making education mandatory, we have done nothing but lower standards and vanquish seriousness. "Universal education" is the single worst thing ever to happen to learning. Most of what is taught today is banter, and the vocational skills taught in universities (e.g. business schools) should be relegated to apprenticeships in the workplace. Modern society prescribes a one-size-fits-all education, while conservatives recognize a real diversity of needs. The primary place for education should not be a cookie-cutter school, but in life and the household. A son of a farmer primarily needs education in the ways of farming, a son on an accountant in the ways of accountancy, and the daughter of a florist in the ways of floristry - all of which can be acquired at home. Education, unique to peoples' circumstances, helps them to learn what it is that they need to function in their station in life. Education, as educatio in Latin suggests, should have a taming effect; it should not foment unrest, but tame unruly desires.

While most of society only needs a practical education in the form of an apprenticeship in the industrial arts, conservative gentleman should make certain that their children receive a gentleman's education. This includes not only training in self-defense, swords and guns, but also much serious book learning, which can often be procured better via home-schooling and tutors. A gentleman should be well versed in Latin, Greek, classical music, philosophy, history, poetry, grammar, literature and mathematics. The class of the gentleman's education, however, should not be closed. If one feels that a talented son of a baker should have a gentleman's education, then it may be more appropriate. Natural mobility in the type of education one receives will occur. Education in some ways should facilitate this as it traditionally has done.

The present state of conservatism:

In recent years, however, conservatism has been on the decline. As many have noted, conservatism barely exists today in the United States. Since the 1960s the political climate in America has moved so far to the Left, it now would almost be impossible for a real conservative to hold public office. The only debates taking place are among conservative liberals (Republicans) and other more leftist liberals (Democrats). The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, in Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, sums it up succinctly when he says:

So-called conservatism and so-called radicalism in these contemporary guises are in general mere stalking-horses for liberalism: the contemporary debates within modern political systems are almost exclusively between conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals. There is little place in such political systems for the criticism of the system itself, that is, for putting liberalism in question.

Because America is a "new country," Americans have been less impressed with tradition and more taken by fancies of progress. Many American "conservatives" seem to have forgotten that institutions are historically situated - largely from traditions passed down from Ancient Rome and the British, and seem to argue for an unbridled notion of freedom that somehow mysteriously exists in a void. The British conservative philosopher Roger Scruton, in The Meaning of Conservatism, argues that a misleading notion of "freedom" has arisen that is:

advocated by the American Republican Party, the freedom of pioneering dissenters struggling for community in a place without history, the freedom which is connected in some mysterious way with free enterprise and the market economy. It is a specific personal freedom, the result of a long process of social evolution, the bequest of institutions without whose protection it could not endure. Freedom in this sense (the only sense which matters) is not the precondition but the consequence of an accepted social arrangement. Freedom without institutions is blind: it embodies neither genuine social continuity nor…genuine individual choice. It amounts to no more than a gesture in a moral vacuum.

The more thoughtful Republicans, however, are aware of this fact and thus call themselves libertarians or free-market conservatives. In America, free-market conservatism, which is really just a variant of classical liberalism, has largely supplanted conservatism. Free-market conservatives are a product of the Cold War.

During the Cold War many in America and Europe began to conflate capitalism and conservatism, almost to a point of speaking of the two synonymously. Conservatives acted justly by supporting capitalism over the dreadful system of communism, but then the mission of supporting unbridled capitalism became an end in itself. The historical reality, however, is that capitalism is predicated on and grew out of the principles of English liberalism: individualism, a pro-business government, thriftworthiness, right to contract, and an unfettered belief in progress. Capitalism, as an economic system, is much closer to liberalism than conservatism. Capitalism, like liberalism, is very "forward looking"; it is always looking toward the next business cycle. Conservatism looks toward the past for wisdom. And wisdom rightly showed conservatives that it was more just to support capitalism than communism.

Conservatives take from the classical liberals the belief in the superiority of the free-market system, but they should not promote the free market at the expense of everything else. Free-market conservatives, however, have taken this further, and many now support a position of economic reductionism. Many have preached that laissez-faire economics is conservatism, and attempt to explain normatively politics, culture and justice through the lens of economics. Justice Posner, who is considered one of the more "conservative" judges in America, bases many of his rulings on economic principles of efficiency. One should be skeptical of calling anything to do with economics as "conservative." The very practice of dissecting politics, the law or society with principles of economics is in many ways closer to Marxism than to conservatism. Economic reductionism - explaining events primarily via economics - is an invention of Karl Marx, who thought he could explain all the forces of history by means of economics and failed miserably. Any type of reductionism (whether economic, racial, or gender-based) is bound to be much too simplistic for the complexity of the real world. It is an absurdity of the modern world that many so-called conservatives justify their very policies with a method invented and promoted by Marxists.

Is there a future for conservatism in America? It is difficult to be a conservative because it takes much wisdom to discern the immutable character of human nature and to see the necessity of maintaining tradition. If conservative thought is to survive in America, the first and most important battle is against political correctness, which at every turn has sought to undermine a historical understanding of our situation and erase any respect for tradition. Despite popular perception, the real battle is not one of economic policies, but of ideas. If conservatives are to survive, then, like the secret societies in Medieval Europe, they must pass down the wisdom of our ancestors, even if in secret and behind the backs of political-correctness Czars. We need a leader. We need a Charlemagne to upset the crass paradigm of the last fifty years and offer a more beautiful vision of order.