Core principles of conservatism

While the specifics of conservative beliefs can vary, common principles include:

• Tradition: A preference for long-standing institutions and practices over sudden or radical change.
• Limited Government: A belief that governmental power and scope should be restricted to protect individual liberty and free markets.
• Fiscal responsibility: A focus on low taxes, reduced government spending, and minimal debt.
• Strong national defense: Support for a powerful military to ensure national security and project power abroad.
• Social conservatism: Emphasis on traditional morality, often rooted in religious beliefs, including support for the traditional family structure and opposition to abortion and certain LGBTQ+ rights.
• Individualism: A belief in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and individual achievement, viewing society as composed of individuals rather than collective groups. 

When I Googled “Conservative,” these are the principles the AI generated. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would find them compatible with their philosophies. The former is the first conservative I was able to vote for. The latter governed as best he could as a conservative. Those of us who supported the Conservative movement of the era have trouble with what the administration is passing off as conservative, when in many cases, they’re the opposite.

When Trump first ran for President, he made certain moves to demonstrate to conservatives that he was one of them. He promised to appoint judges from the Federalist Society’s list. Old Reagan hand Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore were enlisted to deliver an economic program of tax cuts and regulatory reduction. Much to my dismay and that of others, he delivered.

Meanwhile, most of Trump’s first term suffered under the cloud of “Russiagate,” a totally fabricated Russian Collusion charge that depended on a fake dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign. Even with some tariffs levied on Steel, Aluminum, and Chinese imports, and the initiation of misguided COVID lockdowns, conservatives were mainly satisfied with Trump’s performance. Increased defence spending and robust actions against ISIS and Syria meant little aggression abroad.

Even though many conservatives were appalled by Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen, and his action or lack of action on January 6th, the Hunter Biden Laptop cover-up balanced their ire.

Going on to the 2024 election, the ex-president was swamped in lawsuits seemingly designed only to entrap one person: Donald Trump. To conservatives, using the Government’s legal systems to go after a single individual for political reasons looked like banana republic tactics. Putin keeps his opponents off the ballot by invoking bogus laws, but Americans don’t.  

By making Trump look sympathetic. The lawfare backfired, and, with the world’s worst opponent, Trump won.

Biden’s executive orders, which include forgiving vast amounts of student loans, wide spending, and an industrial policy favoring his friends, shocked conservatives. Government entities suppressed legitimate points of view on COVID policies and others. Conservatives expected Trump to work to prevent repetitions of this highhandedness.  

What we have is quite different. Much of the Conservatives’ reverence for established institutions is tied to our Constitution. While progressives consider he document old and outdated, Conservatives value a Government structure that gives us a successful republic. It’s checks and balances restrain would-be autocrats.

With his widespread imposition of tariffs by executive order, Trump has circumvented Congress’s sole right to impose taxes, duties, and imposts by claiming emergencies. This action goes far beyond President Biden’s multibillion-dollar student loan forgiveness executive order.

Worse, what gets tariffed and how much, and what exemptions are granted, is, in effect, industrial policy. The administration goes further by acquiring golden shares and revenue participation in exchange for receiving favorable government actions. The free market is subverted by government direction.

Already, the Government has exercised its “golden share”, a veto power over a company’s actions, which it received for approving Nippon Steel’s acquisition of US Steel. In its attempt to modernize the company’s US. Production Nippon proposed closing a plant in Illinois. The administration said no, citing the job losses. The unprofitable plant stayed open.  

NVIDIA received a waiver to sell its chips to China in exchange for a 15% revenue share. Trump discusses a sovereign wealth fund for government investment in favored companies. Communists, socialists, and fascists intervene directly in markets with universally poor results. These ideas are abhorrent to genuine conservatives.

After progressive prosecutors ganged up on Donald Trump, with New York Attorney General Letitia James campaigning on nailing the former President, many on the right vowed to eliminate this kind of selective prosecution. Now we have the administration targeting its perceived enemies with similar, selective prosecutions. A loan fraud allegation on mortgage applications against Leattica James echoes her case against Trump.

Adam Schiff and James Comey, who have previously crossed swords with Trump, are now facing legal trouble. A Federal Reserve Governor who didn’t want to lower interest rates as Trump demanded also finds herself a mortgage fraud suspect; instead of legislating guardrails against selective protections of political enemies, Trump travels further down that road. Do we have a Constitutional or a Banana Republic?

Jimmy Kimmel tells an outright lie about the murder of Charlie Kirk on National TV, and Brendan Carr, Trump’s FCC chairman, threatens ABC and its affiliates’ broadcast licenses unless Kimmel is taken off the air. He is suspended. Texas Senator Ted Cruz called what Carr did “unbelievably dangerous.” Several other GOP senators joined Cruz in their condemnation, and Kimmel returned in a few days. Still, the question remains: why would the administration take the same suppression route they criticized when the Biden administration curbed free speech?

Ronald Reagan left no doubt about his support for allies and freedom fighters. Russia was the “Evil Empire.” So what explains Trump’s reticence regarding strong support for Ukraine? Humiliating the Ukrainian President, while giving the ex-KGB officer, the Russian President Putin, the red carpet treatment, is head-scratching. Trump claimed that if he were re-elected, he would end the war in “24 hours.” Instead, Putin has dramatically increased his attacks despite endless Trump warnings.

Trump, meanwhile, is harsher to our friends than to the world’s strongmen. How does slapping a 50% tariff on India, but doing little on Putin, benefit us?

If the President thinks he can turn Putin into an ally against China, I’ve shown that this idea is a fantasy. China must have access to the new Arctic trade route, and can absorb Eastern Russia to accomplish that goal. Russia needs to expand into Europe to be strong enough to remain a power.

Another possible reason is the Christian nationalist wing of the Republican Party. For some unfathomable reason, at least to me, they see Putin as a pillar of Christian culture. V.P. Vance, Secretary of War Hegseth, the late Charlie Kirk, and podcast powerhouses Tucker Carlson, among others, are associated with this group. Have they influenced Trump’s response to Putin?

While on the subject of Christian nationalism, I don’t know about others, but I felt like a stranger at a Christian revival when I watched the Charlie Kirk mass memorial. Only a minority of Americans attend Christian churches regularly, yet rather than being inclusive, we heard only about Christianity.

References by Christian nationalists to the US being a “Christian Republic” fly in the face of the Constitution, revered by most conservatives. That document bans any state-sponsored religion. In fact, it protects the exercise of conscience for everyone.

Conservatives straddling the fence are increasingly being put to the test. Like Ted Cruz in the FCC Chairman Carr’s action, they will have to speak up. In the not-too-distant future, the Supreme Court is expected to take action on much of President Trump’s tariffs. Unless the court grants the executive branch the power of the purse whenever it utters “emergency,” it will result in the repudiation of one of the pillars of Trumpism. The President likely will go ballistic. We’ll find out where those claiming to be Conservatives stand.