Conservatives are not Populists.
Far from it.
Liberals aren't Progressives.
Liberals and Conservatives have more in common, than they do to the other categories noted above
Populists and Progressives share many common traits.
Confused?
We hope to clear that up. But let's start with this. A lot of commentary, particularly of an uneducated type, keeps referring to Donald Trump as "a conservative", and sadly, a lot of true conservatives fall right into line with that fallacy. Populists right now continually refer to themselves as conservatives, which is because they don't know what conservatives actually are.
They'd likely be horrified if they did. And indeed, occasionally they are.
Donald Trump is not a conservative. He's a populist, or is appealing to them. There's a world of difference. People who figure he stands for conservative values are deeply misguided on this point. He doesn't. But in the right/left thin gruel political world we live in, it's slightly understandable how people could be misguided on this linguistic point.
But it's wrong.
Let's take a look at it. More particularly, what are conservatives, liberals, populists and progressives, the four main branches of what we have around in terms of political philosophies right now.
Let's start with this. What is a conservative?
What is a conservative?
Logo of the British Conservative Party.
At the core of their Weltanschauung, conservatives believe that human nature is essentially fixed, and that it's been fixed by an existential external. Religious conservatives believe that the existential external is God, but not all conservatives are religious conservatives.1 Those who aren't, like George F. Will for example, would hold that the existential external is essentially our evolution.2
Because this is the core belief of conservatives, conservatives are strong advocates for the application of Chesterton's Fence, which holds:
Chesterton's Fence:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton, The Thing.
This is why people tend to think that what conservatives stand for is not changing anything. This isn't really true, but they are very cautious about it. Conservatives do not have any real faith that human nature is set to improve, and therefore have a large degree of caution regarding the changing of anything that's substantial until it can be determined why that thing came into existence in the first place.
And they believe that certain things, human nature, as noted, is essentially unchanging. Given this, they hope we all do as well as we can, but they don't have any view of remaking humanity or creating Heaven on Earth.
I'll note, I am, on most things, a conservative.
In most societies overall, except in cultures that are deeply conservative, conservatives are a minority. They may be a large minority, but they are usually a minority. The reason for this is that conservatism is, by its nature, somewhat pessimistic. Conservatives hope things get better, but more than that hope they don't get worse, and often hope that the better is a return to some status quo ante that was less messed up.
Conservatives are nearly always a minority, which is one of their weaknesses, but they are also generally intellectual by nature, which is part of the reason that they are a minority and are comfortable being one. Conservatives suspect most people instinctively agree with them, but don't know why, and they're comfortable with that as a rule.
A strength and weakness of conservatives is that they are reluctant to change things until its proven they need to be. Conservatives believe that Chesterton's fence should have a pretty strong latch, or maybe even a keyed lock on it. That's also a strength, however, as they're much less prone than others to whims of any kind.
Because conservatives do not feel that humans are in control of their natures, conservatives tend to be somewhat pessimistic as a rule, but they also don't except a lot of humankind in general. They generally feel that people are left best to their own devices, but they are not anarchists or libertarians, as they believe that order is necessary and a good.
To give a few examples of recent, more or less, conservatives, we have the following. Probably, William F. Buckley is the supreme example of a post World War Two conservatives. George F. Will would be a close second. George Weigel, must less well known, would be a third.
In terms of politicians, we have, currently, Mitt Romney. Ronald Reagan was a conservative, but imperfectly so. Margaret Thatcher was another. Herbert Hoover, who was a much better President than he is credited as being, was a conservative. Winston Churchill was a conservative, as was his nemesis Éamon de Valera.
To look at some illustrative issues, in the abstract, as politicians and individuals both vary and compromise, we'll take some more or less contemporary examples, and carry them through.
Abortion. Conservatives oppose abortion as they believe in an external, and therefore don't have the right to destroy a human life without just cause. This view, I'd note, is not limited to religious conservatives.
Death Penalty. As a rule, conservatives have tended to support the death penalty, as it's always existed. They are clearly capable of having their minds changed on the topic, slowly.
Gender issues. I'm lumping this all into one category, but conservatives as a rule feel that homosexuality is a person's own business, but it shouldn't change institutions like marriage. They don't believe transgenderism is real, as the science isn't there.
Climate Change. Early on a lot of conservatives were skeptical on climate change, but few would outright dismiss it. Many were cautious in accepting it, however, consistent with their general reluctance to immediately accept something new.
Economics. As a rule, conservatives tend to be in favor of a free market, with as little government interference in the economy as possible, basically taking the view that the best economy is one in which people get to decide things for themselves and that overall, the economy is really too complicated for human micromanaging.
Immigration. Conservatives have been for restricted immigration, believing that excessive rates damage the economy, impact national culture too rapidly, and impact sovereignty.
Defense. Conservatives are for a strong national defense, as they support sovereignty. Prior to World War Two they were opposed to that extending overseas, but since the war they've applied the lessons of history and are very much in favor of extending defense beyond the seas, if not necessarily always intervening in foreign wars. Two give to contemporary examples of this:
- The Russo Ukrainian War. Conservatives are for supplying aid, and a lot of it, to Ukraine as Russia is a demonstrated enemy of the West and if not addressed will have to be at some point.
- Hamas Israeli War. While conservatives were actually very reluctant to support Israel in 1948 when it became independent, they've come around to it as it's the only substantial democracy in the Middle East and, accordingly, they feel it should be given the ability to defend itself.
William F. Buckley, who intellectually defined the modern conservative movement.
What, then, are liberals?
What is a liberal?
Logo of the former British Liberal Party, with its color expressing its middle of the road nature.
We don't hear much about liberals anymore. Progressives, which we will deal with below, have sort of taken over the political "left" in recent years, and liberalism, in a modern context, has weakened, which is a tragedy.
Liberals actually hold the essential core value that conservatives do, that being that there is an existential external that has set human nature. They believe, however, that human nature can be improved, and that it requires collective effort to do that. Unlike conservatives, who hope we all do as well as we can, liberals feel that we can all be made better. That's the real difference between traditional conservatives and traditional liberals.
Liberals see the world much the way that conservatives do, but have a very optimistic view of human nature and are certain that it can be improved. The early GOP was a liberal party and therefore, when you consider that, Lincoln appealing to "the better angels of our mercy" makes a lot of sense. Conservatives would appeal to angels as well, but not "ours", and for help.
Because liberals believe that human nature can be improved, they see government, and the organs of government, as vehicles that can do it. Therefore, liberals have a lot of faith in the organs of government to basically drag the mass along into an improved state, as they see it.
Right now, however, real liberals and real conservatives are few and far between. That's because we have populists and progressives dominating the field.
In most societies, liberals are the majority. To some extent, that's because they are optimistic, and tend to believe they can make everything better than it currently is.
Looking at our issues, we have the following.
Abortion. Liberals generally support allowing abortion up to a certain number of weeks, although this isn't universally true. The intellectual underpinning of this is weak, but is based on the concept that by doing this they're supporting the rights of women.
Death Penalty. Liberals are pretty uniformly opposed to the death penalty, believing that it achieves no real purpose and is inherently barbaric.
Gender issues. Liberals, like conservatives, generally used to hold that homosexuality was a person's own matter, if they were subject to it. They've come to support regarding homosexuality as equating with heterosexuality in recent years on the belief that this improves the living standards of everyone.
Transgenderism is a new thing, but generally liberals lean towards supporting transgender "rights" on the concept that as it seems to occur, it must be natural, and society shouldn't hurt people who express it.
Climate Change. Liberals fully accept that this is occurring and is a grave crisis, and they want governmental action on it.
Economics. Contrary to what people like to imagine, conservatives and liberals really have very similar views of the economy. The difference is really at the margin in how much governmental action there should be in the economy, and what the tax rates are. If viewed from the abstract, however, tehir views are essentially the same.
Immigration. Liberals generally believe that all people are the same or can be the same, so they dismiss cultural issues regarding immigration. They are for controls, but having a desire to improve things for everyone, they're generally in support of a much higher immigration rate than conservatives.
Defense. Traditionally, contrary to what people like to imagine, liberals have been in favor of a strong defense and also have been quite interventionist. There are exceptions, but the "improve things for everyone" viewpoint resulted, throughout the 20th Century, in a much higher inclination by liberals to intervene in foreign wars than conservatives have had. Since Vietnam, this has been much less the case, however.
- The Russo Ukrainian War. Liberals are very much in favor of aiding Ukraine for the same reason that conservatives are, and also as Ukraine leans towards the west in culture and values.
- Hamas Israeli War. Most real liberals support aiding Israel, as they've always had a strong desire to support the Jewish state since the end of World War Two.
In terms, again, of recent examples, Robert Reich, who teeters on the edge of progressivism, is one. Bill Clinton was another. Nancy Pelosi is another example, as is Chuck Schumer. Going back a bit further, both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were liberals. Frankly, Richard Nixon was as well.
A controversial example would be Theodore Roosevelt. While his breakaway political party was The Progressives, he was a pretty far left political liberal, as was his cousin Franklin Roosevelt.
Franklin Roosevelt, arguably the most clearly Liberal of American Presidents.
What is a populist?
Emblem of the former Populist, or People's Party.
This has certainly been the Age of Populism.
Populists believe that the good is determined by the collective wisdom of the masses. So unlike conservatism and liberalism which believe that an existential external had defined what human nature is, populists believe that the collective common sense of the people defines that, and that's an existential collective internal.
Because populists believe that, it's a particularly shallow political theory and particularly subject to the storms of the time. Populist can be, and have been, on the radical "left" and the radical "right". Indeed, when Trump was coming up in 2016 so was Bernie Sanders, and they both appealed equally to populists. A lot of the same people who now worship Trump, worshiped Sanders.
Right now, people confuse populism with conservatism as populism in the US stands, as it often has in the past, for an Evangelical variant of the American Civil Religion. Protestant in its view, it basically holds a very shallow version of Christianity which is mostly focused on sex, and mostly focused on homosexual sex being bad. Beyond that, it longs, just as it had in the mid to late 20th Century in the South, for a mythic version of American history in which everyone supposedly did really well economically and there were no problems (no drugs, no alcoholics, no mentally ill, no violence, etc.).
Populism has been an occasionally strong current in the American political stream from time to time. There was, at the turn of the prior century, a Populist Party that existed from 1892 until 1909, and which we should note did very well in Wyoming's elections of the period. It was, we might note, regarded as a left wing party.
Populism is only popular in a society during times of extreme economic or social distress. Massively pessimistic in its outlook, Populist always have the belief that they are under siege and are therefore extremely given to conspiracy theories of all type. They are, accordingly, very easy to manipulate. They also tend to be given to ignorance, which plays into this, as they believe folk wisdom is the ultimate source of knowledge on everything. And what it says, is that they're swimming in the shallow end of the pool, quite frankly.
The strength of populists is mass. They tend to be numerous, when conditions give rise to them. They also tend to be extremely strong-willed in their beliefs, even fanatically so.
Indeed, that's a weakness.
More than any other group, populists are prone to raging hatred. As their beliefs arise from a collective mass, anyone contesting them is regarded as a lunatic enemy of the people. Populists are, therefore, highly prone to tribalism and fanaticism
An additional weakness is that they're highly prone to being led by others. In Weimar Germany, for example, populists sentiments were heavily reflected in the German Communist Party and the Nazi Party, with some people whipping back and forth between the two. Rank and file Nazis were essentially populists, even if the leaders were not. The same is true of rank and file Reds during the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War, as well as with the Greens. Communism and Anarchy were mass movements as they were shallow, and made up of "common sense".
As this demonstrates, populists generally actually lack a philosophy, but don't realize it. They "sense" or "feel" rather than think, and therefore are easily led by those who can tap into that.
A good example of how populist can be easily manipulated into something extreme. We never "treated" viruses with soup, and we aren't treating them now with "communism". But the anti-scientific anti-vax movement has attracted populist with the concept of a pass that looked like this, that never existed.
Because of this populists are very easily led by other movements, when a savvy leader comes along and can manipulate them. And often, but not always, those leaders are quasi populists themselves. Both Lenin and Hitler were. Franco was not. Nor was Mussolini. All were able to lead the masses.
Turning to our set of issues, we have the following.
Abortion. This is actually hard to say as Populists vary on this to a fair degree. They all, right now, oppose abortion, but are prepared to compromise on some vague number of weeks if for no other reason that makes it easy.
Death Penalty. Populists are for it, as its always existed, and for its extension, as the people who get executed seem to be part of an evil "them".
Gender issues. Populists are very much opposed to homosexuality and transgenderism as they sense its not party of the collective norm. They share this view with Conservatives, but tend to be nasty and virulent about it, rather than thoughtful.
Climate Change. Populists just don't believe its real. The collective group of them doesn't, and therefore individual ones don't, evidence to the contrary aside. As populists engage in a sort of group think, that's what they think.
Economics. Populists say they are for a free market economy but have no real understanding of economic issues. They're for protectionism as that protects us against a foreign them.
Immigration. Populists are radically opposed to immigration as the people who come in are part of a foreign them, and are not part of us. They believe that immigration problems are the result, in some instances, of a conspiracy.
Defense. Populists support our troops, but appear to have the old William Jennings Bryan view of things, and he was a populist, that troops shouldn't leave our shores. They are radically opposed to intervention in any war overseas in the belief that none of them matter to us, almost.
- The Russo Ukrainian War. Populist oppose aiding Ukraine. Being prone to be led around, some of them oppose the war as Donald Trump is a fan of Putin, and therefore they are too. Others oppose it as its overseas and they don't think it matters.
- Hamas Israeli War. Populist are oddly in favor of Israel, which is contrary to their general political alignment. This is for an odd reason, which is that a lot of populists are Evangelical Christians who have an apocalyptic view of the Jewish state, so they tend to believe that God has commanded us to support Israel.
Giving really outstanding example of populists is a bit hard to do, to some extent, as they tend to fail over time, and then be forgotten. But there are some notable examples. Louisiana's Huey Long was a populist. Fr. Charles Coughlin was as well. George Wallace was for much of his life, but he became a conservative in his final years.
Huey P. Long, Depression Era populist.
What is a progressive.
Poster of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party. Like populism, progressivism has existed in the United States for a long time, and perhaps just about as long as populism.
Progressives believe, like populists, that human nature is controlled by an internal existential, but in their case they radically believe that it's controlled by an internal individual existential. So, unlike progressives who believe in a sort of mystical will of the people, progressives believe that each and every individual has a radically individual reality that's a supreme existential good.
Progressives are convinced of radical individualism while at the same time having very low faith in people in general.
Because of their world outlook, progressives tend to share some odd traits with populists, and indeed historically they are both left wing in their political, and they tend to exist at the same time. Progressives tend to be radically opposed to human nature, and therefore given to conspiracy theories of a type. They tend to be anarchic in their expressed views, just as populists tend to be, but they favor autocracy in reality, just as populists ultimately tend to be. Societies that essentially degrade to a struggle between populism and progressivism, usually spectacularly fail, with late Republican Spain and late Weimar Germany being distressing examples.
In terms of Progressives, for reasons that we'll explain below, popular examples are often associated with other movements. Having said that, figures like Noam Chomsky, AoC, Henry Wallace, are good examples. Much of current academia, for peculiar reasons, is made up of Progressives. There aren't, however, any countries current governed by them, unlike Populists.
Progressives in recent decades have tended to lurk under the surface of liberals, so they don't erupt into existence the way Populists do. Being opportunistic, however, they've done so very much since the Obergefell decision, and then in reaction to Trump.
On our issues, we find the following:
Abortion. Progressives are radically in favor of abortion as they are radically in favor of any one human deciding their own fate, and the fate of an unborn person doesn't matter, as they are not yet born.
Death Penalty. Progressives are opposed to it, but mostly on a knee-jerk level. This is borrowed from the Liberals, and it's been adopted without much thinking. Having said that, termination of a life does radically end that person's ability to decide anything, so this is overall consistent with their views.
Gender issues. Progressives believe that this can and should be radically determined by the individuals, so basically they don't really believe that genders, science notwithstanding, really exist.
Climate Change. Climate Change impacts everyone, so Progressives are for immediate government action to address it.
Economics. Progressives lean towards radical economics, so concepts like Universal Basic Income and whatnot, that seem to be capable of individual use, are heavily favored. They like state intervention in the economy and society, to the extent it seems to free up anyone individual.
Immigration. Progressives, like liberals, don't believe that culture really matters, so they're heavily opposed to restrictions of significance.
Defense. Prior to the recent wars it would have been hard to say what a Progressive position was on defense, other than that Progressives like to use the Armed Forces as a petrie dish for social change. Given the various world crises right now, however, things have become clearer.
- The Russo Ukrainian War. Progressives favor aiding Ukraine as Ukraine is a western nation in culture, and Russia is not.
- Hamas Israeli War. Progressives want the war to end, as probably everybody does, but have an odd belief that we can decree this to be so. Younger Progressives tend to support Hamas as it seems like it involves the rights of more people than the Israeli cause does. Not really believing in anything externally existential, the rapes and murders committed by Hamas don't really matter to them.
Robert LaFollette, Progressive of the early 20th Century.
How these categories bleed into each other, creating confusion.
In no small part due to the adoption of the French Revolution "right wing/left wing" political map, we tend to think of all political categories as existing as a scaled line, when in fact their world more closely resembles a box, or perhaps intersecting circles. This confuses people in general, including those who fit any one category. For example, a lot of populists right now genuinely believe that they are conservatives, when in fact they are anything but. Put another way, a lot of members of the Freedom Caucus would actually feel a lot more comfortable at a Bernie Sanders Coffee Klatch than they would at a William F. Buckley Society cocktail party, and by leagues.
To start with conservatives again, as conservatives apply Chesterton's Fence to all sorts of things as a philosophical principle, they may see populists who arise due to social stress as members of the same group. To give an example, conservatives are rightly horrified by the gender nonsense that's going on right now, and more than that look back to male/female social roles that seem more solidly grounded in an existential other. Populists take the same outward approach, but that's because the collective mass of them tells them that what is going on is weird. Conservatives tend to support strong border and immigration policies as they believe in the principal of sovereignty, which has long existed, and they fear they value national culture and fear that uncontrolled immigration can damage it. Populists tend to support the same, but because the people coming across the border are part of some mysterious other, who are almost not real people, or at least not equal people.
On other issues, however the differences begin to become more apparent. Conservatives have always tended to support a strong national defense on sovereignty grounds, although that doesn't always take the same expression. Therefore, while conservatives of the 1930s were isolationist, they were also more than willing to build a strong Navy that projected power well beyond the United States. In recent years, they've been strong proponents of collective security, often aggravating liberals by being willing to see authoritarian regimes as potential defense partners. Populists are universally strict isolationist, as they feel anything beyond our borders doesn't matter.
Economically, conservatives generally tend to be fiscally restrained, but not unwilling to apply the American system where it will seem to work. They believe in balanced finances. Populists believe in balanced finances, but take a hyper stingy view of expenditures, virtually never seeing any expenditure as benefiting the populist mass. Therefore, funding for schools, something conservatives have long supported, becomes sort of an anathema to some populists. Strong education in science, math and history as a conservative position degrades into limited education on the populist end, as they have watched populist raised children evolve into conservatives, liberals or progressives.
Western conservatives (but not European conservatives) had tended to be in favor of limiting government, as they basically feel, in a pessimistic sort of way, that people are generally better off figuring out things for themselves rather than having the government do it, or do things for them. Populists are for a limited government as they hate the government, seeing it as the conspiratorial "they" that's out to destroy them and the culture they believe in.
For this reason, conservatives and populists confuse each other as being part of their ranks. Populists continually claim they are conservatives, when in fact they are not. Populists have been told that the Republican Party is the home of conservatives, which after 1912 it came to be, and as they believe that they are conservative, they believe anyone in the GOP who doesn't think the way they do is a Republican In Name Only. Ironically, populists were in the Populist Party at the turn of the last century in the US, and then in the Democratic Party for decades. What they are complaining about is the traditional positions of the Republican Party.
The same is true of liberals and progressives.
Liberals tend to be basically in favor of social liberty for the same reason that conservatives are in favor of limited government, they feel that people are best left to figure those things out for themselves and will ultimately figure the right thing out. Progressives want to force a brave new social world view on everyone. Liberals are more willing to use the government and government money for what they think the common good is than conservatives are, but progressives are willing to use both to force their view on what the good is on people who disagree with it. Liberals (like many conservatives) are supportive of preservation of the common good, through public and environmental policies. Progressives are as well, but they're more much willing to dictate an extra view on how people should generally behave. Liberals, like conservatives, have traditionally been in favor of a strong national defense, but have been, since the Vietnam War, very careful about using it beyond our shores unless absolutely necessary. Progressives, like populists, never see it as necessary as a rule.
Because liberals and progressives overlap, they confuse each other as being on the same scale on the left, which in fact, they're in different circles or boxes. Liberal inability to see the distinction has been to the benefit of Progressives, who have come to increasingly dominate the Democratic Party in recent years.
Liberals and conservatives tend to have a lot in common, but not be able to realize it, in part because liberals feel they need to make camp with the progressives, and the conservatives do make camp with the progressives.
A warning
And here we get, in a way, to where we are now.
Conservatives in the modern West, and always in the English-speaking West, have democracy as a primary virtue, in spite of being aware that they're never in the majority, although the National Conservative movement, which is reactionary in the true sense of the word (it's reacting to something) is weakening that and looking to a pre Second World War model of European conservatism.
Liberals are always in favor of democracy.
Progressives and Populists really aren't quite often. Sometimes they are, but often they are not.
And Progressives and Populists only are in the forefront of politics in odd, and dangerous, times.
We are in odd and dangerous times.
Footnotes:
1. Hindu conservatives, and there are millions, would say "gods", or some variant of it, we should note.
2. Evolutionary biology is almost an elemental fixture of conservatism. Indeed, scientists who are evolutioanry biologist have been rebuked, in recent years, by progressives simply for stating scientific truths.
