A new terminology has developed within the conservative movement: that of the so-called old right and the new right. This discourse, and the resulting synthesis between the two, is among the most important conversations happening in the centre-right political tradition today. It will not be resolved anytime soon, nor should it be.
The old right represents the conservatism embodied by the structural economic reforms of leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher — a coalition pairing free enterprise with free individuals as the surest path to a flourishing society. In the anglosphere it developed because an unsustainable system of economic micromanagement had emerged following the end of the Second World War and, along with the rapid social change of that time, led to a strong streak of small-l liberalism paired with free-market ideals.
The new right, while maintaining that fundamental character, sees greater purpose in the mediating institutions of society: objects like the family, the church, the local community. It sees greater purpose for government, both in uplifting those institutions and in forming the bedrock of a modern society engaged in purposeful action, beyond the traditional vision of limiting the state as the preeminent solution to today's problems. What might appear a minor contrast has produced far-reaching disagreement.
I can think of almost nothing more conservative than welcoming rigorous debate of our own views. What I find increasingly unconvincing, however, is the claim that this new current represents a genuinely new formation of the movement. It does not. It represents something closer to a rediscovery.
Most people who self-identify as conservative share some intellectual descent from Edmund Burke. As Sir Roger Scruton put it, “Belief in your inheritance is the most important part of politics.” The new right is deeply Burkean in this sense. George Will captured its spirit precisely in his 1983 work Statecraft as Soulcraft: “By not drawing deeply enough from the Western political tradition, this nation has acquired political values and practices which involve a disproportionate individualism and an inadequate sense of human beings as social creatures. The older, richer part of the Western political tradition is now too remote for our own good. But a tradition need not remain as remote as time and negligence have made it. If the wine of the Western tradition has become watery, let us pour some of the vintage that is in the old bottles.”
The practical stakes are real. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in his 2003 Civitas speech, argued that real gains are always measured and incremental. Saying, “we must realize that real gains are inevitably incremental. This, in my experience, is harder for social conservatives than for economic conservatives. The explicitly moral orientation of social conservatives makes it difficult for many to accept the incremental approach. Yet, in democratic politics, any other approach will certainly fail. We should never accept the standard of just being ‘better than the Liberals’ — people who advocate that standard seldom achieve it — but conservatives should be satisfied if the agenda is moving in the right direction, even if slowly.”
Without making too much haste, we can also look to the Harper ministry as an example of excessive caution. Harper's leadership will no doubt stand the test of time with regard to the day-to-day management of the country. Canada was well respected on the world stage, tax dollars were spent prudently, and on most major policy issues the government tended to make the right decisions. However, there was little deeper thought put into the long term, and unfortunately, after nearly 10 years of Trudeau, almost every aspect of Harper's legacy had been erased or undone. The lesson is not that we must become revolutionary, but that we must be purposeful. There is a difference between patience and passivity.
Conservatives must combine economic liberty with building cultural institutions that will endure. The new right, by focusing on mediating institutions and purposeful government, offers a path to make conservative gains last beyond a single government. It is a rediscovery of the Burkean tradition that emphasizes inheritance and social fabric, not a radical departure. The challenge is to apply this vision practically, ensuring that incremental progress is coupled with institution-building that can withstand future political shifts.
