There was no reason that I should have been born in this specific place, with the specific parents and events in my life that have led me to believe in the principles I do now. You very well could have expected a different outcome for me, growing up in the 90s and spending some of my formative years in San Diego and El Paso.

I am a millennial in 2018 and it seems as though, from music to media, all my college-age peers are participating in popular leftism, including social justice and socialism. From my politically active high-school friends to the talk-radio station my former boss was consistently tuned in to, impossible was the prediction of events that steered me towards the beliefs I currently hold.

As I reflect, all of these seemingly unrelated factors interacted with my genetics to form the ideas and ideology I now espouse. We commonly call that ideology “Conservatism.” At one point, however, I called myself a “Libertarian” (after that politically active high school friend invited me to an early Tea-Party rally). That is, before I began this journey of enlightenment.

Others may have not been so blessed as to have been raised in a productive, constructive, and moral environment. Maybe their journey took them the long way around, and they had to discover conservatism later in life. There are still plenty who haven’t made it, and never will. In this way, I will acknowledge my privilege.

Not, that is, of white privilege, but of Christian privilege – the privilege of making constructive choices. The privilege of a Christian upbringing which afforded me a moral, Conservative education and surrounded me with honest, hard-working role models. It also provided me with opportunities not granted to others. I must acknowledge my privilege – my only privilege – of divine blessing.

But what is a Conservative, and what am I conserving? Why are Liberals “the enemy,” especially since so many others with a positive influence espouse liberal (or, rather, classical liberal) values? Let me also boast in my weaknesses and be the first to admit to you that my ideological foundations are weak, but as I become more involved and engaged (my writing prep being a vehicle for my own education), my depth of knowledge, as well as yours, will grow. It is a journey for us all.

As the Democratic party moves further and further left, it seems the political-Right’s tent continues to grow in size, largely because of those disenfranchised by the Left’s radicalism – now mainstream. In 2018, the “Right” has grown to accommodate such players as libertarians, intellectuals, classical liberals, and even social Darwinists and atheists.

We are experiencing some growing pains, as the shift occurring begins to make us the more tolerant party (an area admittedly left previously unpopulated by Conservatives) and gains us many who would never have dreamed of crossing the aisle just a few years ago.

These growing pains are clear, and it is a narrative constantly highlighted by mainstream media, from the problems with the Alt-Right to nationalist extremists. But the Right isn’t just a platform for Pepe-memery and isn’t supposed to be a haven for neo-Nazis. So what is it?

To answer that question, I have to first define Liberalism, or as it is now termed, Classical Liberalism. And I’d then like to diverge by discussing a brief history of Liberalism and how it came to be seen as diametrically opposed to Conservatism. (And by the way, if you find anything to be in error, please don’t hesitate to write me at Crit-Large)

Liberalism is not what is popular in mainstream Democratic circles now, nor has it been for many decades. Modern Liberalism is Leftism, which is distantly removed from true liberalism.

True (classical) Liberalism is the ideology our country was founded upon. Original liberalism upholds the ideals of individual freedoms, limited government, and free-market economy. Doesn’t that sound like modern Conservatism? It does.

Capital (in capitalism) was once seen as the means by which one gains a kind of liberty, that is, liberty from the oppression of poverty. Also important to liberalism is the notion of protecting the disaffected and minority voices from oppressions by majority or institutions like government (the former is possible under a pure democracy, unlike our system of constitutional democracy), which is a just cause. The chief role of the government under liberalism is the protection from and prevention of obstacles that might hinder living freely.

Liberalism, as a movement, has been present in the U.S. since our founding, but the term has been evermore hijacked and altered in meaning since that time. From my research, the first deviation from true liberalism towards the Democratic party we see today came as a reaction to the industrial revolution.

The circumstances for laborers in this wild-west economy was seen to be unjust. Instead of producing the promised prosperity, capitalism was seen to have ushered in a new feudalism, as the wealth disparity became deeply apparent and living conditions in urban areas became dismally despondent.

Thus, Liberals identified a new enemy or oppressor of the people and their freedoms – the free market. Where Liberals previously were skeptical of government intervention and held a mistrust of concentrated power – at the turn of the century they sought to fight for freedoms and against perceived injustices with the very institution they were skeptical of – the government. There was a change in attitude that demonstrated that only the state could overcome oppressions such as poverty, disease, and discrimination. Society acted through the government to even the playing field via regulation and social services.

During WWI, Liberals adopted the “Progressive” banner as Woodrow Wilson implemented the income tax and the Federal Reserve, holding the view that the economy needed reform. We saw the results of these policies in 1929. In response to the Depression, Democrats continued down this path with hopeful programs such as FDR’s New Deal.

The belief that the market needed planning and that government spending could not only counter economic lulls but promote economic growth continued to redefine liberalism. Socialism slowly became a tenet of the Democratic platform. Socialism fundamentally seeks to “tame” capitalism, or solve its failures, if you will, by tamping its abuses and leveling its inequalities.

Postwar America first saw great prosperity but soon faced a decline under another big-government program: LBJ’s Great Society. This program produced abysmal consequences through the 1970s. There was rampant economic stagnation, a plateaued standard of living, and high inflation. The most damage done was to the Black community via the welfare state.

To me, this is the point where Democrats began to emerge as the Left we see today. The era of Johnson seemed to be a gateway into our current era of popular socialism, victim culture, and handout-dependencies.

The reaction from the American people to these policies led to a boom in social and economic conservatism as well as a reinvigoration of our liberal foundations. During this time, Reagan and Friedman called for laissez-faire free-markets. What was also born out of this movement were the “Libertarians,” or rather, rebranded classical liberals, since the party of LBJ no longer had room for them. The party had, and has, moved so far left it was unrecognizable.

Conservatism, on the other hand, may be seen conceptually as a reaction rather than a true ideology (at least at its conception). Conservatives believe in the idea that, within the range of liberty, there are certain established traditions and institutions which are constructive and need to be conserved (or preserved) in order to foster a functioning society.

It could be said the founder of Conservatism is Edmund Burke, who wrote on the French Revolution. Burke argued that the revolution, in its mob-fervor, dismantled the constructive order and nuance of French society. Conservative ideals arose primarily out of a similar reaction to the French Revolution, which sought to tear down all institutions and rebuild society in the image of rationality and abstract Enlightenment ideals.

If you contrast that with the American Revolution, you can see that the Founders, while Liberal in its finest sense, theorized with an underpinning of conservatism, noting the value and necessity in God, faith, religion, and the Church as institutions necessary for imbuing human rights, establishing a moral character (necessary for men to act in a free society), and subduing the whims of mankind. John Adams is famously quoted, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The Founders held liberal ideals, while maintaining the idea of order, continuity, and security.

In the aftermath of WWII, it was seen that socialism was inadequate to rebuild the devastated European economies, so a kind of Conservatism was adopted, promising economic growth and democratic freedoms as demonstrated by the prosperity in the U.S. In the New Deal era in the U.S., Conservatism began to gain ground when individuals clung to the previously established principles of liberty that led to the pre-war prosperity, in opposition to the Democrat’s left-moving socialist programs and policies.

A couple decades later, Conservatives found themselves concerned with the attack on institutions and traditions during the countercultural revolution in the 1960s and 70s. Many on the Left believe this was a time when “whites” and other establishmentarians were worried their power was slipping away under civil rights milestones and equality movements. However, what Conservatives perceived to be under attack was the established traditional, religious, hard-working “W.A.S.P.” (white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) culture that most of America practiced and valued, even in black and minority communities.

Under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the U.K., classical liberalism adopted the “Conservative” banner and both the U.S. (under Reagan) and Britain saw prosperity under Conservatism. This era also saw a rebellion against the Church in popular culture, against which religious Conservatives dug their heels in.

It was at this time that the dreaded “c-word” (Conservative) became synonymous to many with “religious bigot,” and the party has since tried to shake itself from that brand. Nonetheless, the Reagan-era cemented conservatism into the political lexicon, also defining it as the conservatism we see today, which is much closer to classical liberalism.

Since that time, we’ve seen the left move further left, inventing intersectionality and identity politics, and pushing victim culture to its extreme. I wonder just how radical it can go. True liberals would and should be disgusted with leftist politics. However, Conservatives are beginning to play this game, which, in the name of civility, partisanship, and unity, is not a good move for the country.

Conservatives, studies have shown, have remained relatively stable post-W. Bush in ideology. We can be seen as the religious party; the staunch and rigid party; the compassionless, ruthless, capitalist party, hiding behind our religion in the cause of exclusion and hate. All of these critiques, to an extent, have validity. I will even go so far as to say (and in all honesty I have succumb to this mistake before) that Conservatives, in an effort to preserve institutions we believe bring prosperity and stand as a bulwark against chaos and Gomorrah, have at times defended and overlooked abuses and corruption.

The examples that come to mind are: First, the Catholic church – seen by Conservatives as an honorable institution that defends Christianity and culture, but we acknowledge it has some fundamental issues within its clergy and hierarchy; second, business – which we believe brings wealth and prosperity, at times at the expense of access and well-being; and third, the criminal justice system – which we hail as the harbinger of law and order, but can be unnecessarily violent and accusatory at times. The debate on these subjects is for a different article.

Liberalism reminds men that they are an island unto themselves; the able-bodied individual is all that is necessary to form a well-oiled society. At its faults, as with leftist Postmodernism, we can see that as man attempts to tear down institutions in the name of rationality and liberty, he has nothing to replace it with. We can see that Liberalism without a Judeo-Christian underscore gives us the atrocities of the 20th century, if we look towards regimes like Stalinist Russia.

Modern Leftism, it seems, seeks to destroy institutions haphazardly (all except government, ironically). Modern Conservatism is Liberalism plus a respect for institution and tradition. One could say we believe that man plays a specific and delicate role, and that society is nuanced, requiring customs and a standard of morality to exist harmoniously. Conservatives believe in limited government, but still leave room for the minor duties of government like defense and infrastructure. Conservatives have a respect for authority.

If we wanted to divide left and right on temporal issues, you might give the example of abortion. Modern Liberals are pro-choice because of their desire for freedom and choice; modern Conservatives are pro-life because they have a respect for the institution of life. Both seek to use the government to enact these perspectives.

Another real-world example is welfare. Liberals believe that companies or other institutions are oppressing minority voices and want to provide freedom for them through unions and government programs, while Conservatives believe that handouts destroy the institution of family and hinder recipients from growing.

Conservatives also believe that families and organizations like charities, churches and communities exist to provide the support that social programs do. Both sides agree discrimination is bad and want to see the success of all people.

If, then, we wanted to distill left and right down to primitive comparisons, we might say that Liberals are “fun” while Conservatives are “responsible.” We might say that Liberals are the movers and pushers of society to change and improve; they seek to build a new model. Conservatives defend what exists for the good that it brings and are skeptical of change, believing the model we have is (at least) adequate.

If, finally, you wanted to make a comparison between the outlooks of Conservatives and Liberals, that might be it: the willingness or resistance to change. Whether or not change is seen generally as beneficial or having the potential for loss might be a vaguely accurate differentiation.

With all that said, I believe that institutions like religion and tradition are the framework and anchors of society when we’re tossed in the tempests of strife. This is why I call myself a Conservative.

You can be truly liberal and not believe these things. You can respect or disagree with the sentiment that we need Judeo-Christian values as a foundation for our society and morality (as someone like Sam Harris does), and I can give you the benefit of the doubt - if you can back it up. Classical Liberals and Conservatives alike need to practice the ability to not attribute malice toward those we disagree with, for the future of ourselves and the future of this nation we love.