The mission of Issues in Perspective is to provide thoughtful, historical and biblically-centered perspectives on current ethical and cultural issues.

Robert P. George, McCormick professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, asks these penetrating questions: “What should the conservative movement stand for? What should conservatives dedicate themselves to conserving?” As we begin 2026, it is clear that people describing themselves as conservatives do not agree on the answers to these questions.

However, George summarizes what I believe are the basic characteristics of what I call principled conservatism:  “[B]elief in the rule of law; in the nation’s republican civic order; in accountable and limited government; in marriage and the family; in the importance of flourishing institutions of civil society; in traditional moral values, personal responsibility, and rewarding effort and achievement; in the constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers; in basic civil rights and liberties; in the market-based economy; in a sensible system of legal immigration, and in opposition to illegal immigration; in maintaining a healthy physical environment for everyone and a moral ecology suitable for the rearing of children; in a strong national defense and a sensible understanding of America’s leadership role in the world.

At the foundation, however, is the basic commitment to inherent and equal dignity and natural rights. If conservatism doesn’t stand for conserving these values, it stands for nothing. Everything else conservatives believe — about politics and government, education, ethics, culture — stands upon those foundational values. Any viewpoint that denies those values cannot be conservative.”

What (and/or who) is challenging principled conservatism? Those who are claiming the mantle of conservatism promote white supremacy, antisemitism, eugenics, the subjugation of women, and other forms of ideological extremism and bigotry.  “So-called ‘groypers,’ such as the Hitler (and Stalin) sympathizer Nick Fuentes, want to be inside the tent, and they make no secret of their aim to take control of and remake the conservative movement . . . Extremism and bigotry have no place in the conservative movement. They are contrary to the central things conservatives should be dedicating themselves to conserving, namely, the biblical principle of the inherent dignity of every member of the human family, and the civic principle that human beings are ‘created equal’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.’”

Geroge warns: “The ‘groypers’ who are attempting to bring their toxic ideas into the conservative movement and remake conservatism in their image ought to be met with reasoned, principled responses. Conservative leaders and institutions must not pander to them or play footsie with them. We must, in the name of our ancient faith, draw the bright line.”

A few additional comments about principled conservatism:

1. Christian conservative writer and author, Rod Dreher, comments that “. . .  the conservative person is simply one who finds permanent things more pleasing than Chaos. . . .  A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers.”

• “. . . The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.  This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. . . . The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.”
• Our 21st century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. “Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order . . .  A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.”
• As Russell Kirk said, “conservatism is an attitude toward the world, not a dogmatic religion. It irritates me to no end that the American conservative mind is so closed, even to thinkers and resources in its own tradition. As Kirk’s tenth canon says, ‘The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.’ That means that we have to be willing and able to think creatively about conservative principles and apply them to new facts and circumstances.”

1. Furthermore, as Peter Werner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center contends, “[Many Republicans today] have turned inward instead of outward, they have embraced white identity politics as a matter of course and they have developed a disdain for the intricate work of governing . . . There is a nihilistic strain coursing through the veins of a significant number of people on the American right.  They delight in . . . effort[s] to annihilate truth and peddle conspiracy theories . . . .”
2. In addition, principled conservatives have advocated for democratic values, consistently standing against totalitarian dictators who use their military and political power to destroy innocent nations. Principled conservatives found it abhorrent when the dictatorial egomaniac, Vladimir Putin, ruthlessly invaded Ukraine.  The moral clarity of what Putin has done to Ukraine is detestable and offensive to conservative values and principles.  To his own personal shame, the current US president tragically rejects this moral clarity.
3. A final issue dear to the heart of principled conservativism is the national debt.  George Will comments that “federal debt has increased for 24 consecutive years. In constant 2025 dollars, it has more than tripled. Debt problems were successfully addressed in the 20th century, following World War II and in the 1990s. Debt fell in the period 1946 to 1974 from more than 100 percent of GDP to less than 25 percent, and from 48 percent of GDP in 1994 to 31 percent in early 2001 . . .With annual deficits approaching $2 trillion even with the economy humming, and with defense spending down to around 3 percent of GDP (above 13 percent during the Korean War; above 9 percent during peak Vietnam), what can cause sustained economic growth of at least 5 percent to cope with the debt’s growth? Artificial intelligence? A risky reliance. Revenue from the president’s perhaps unconstitutional tariffs? A net drag on the economy.  A nation that used to borrow for emergencies now is mired in a perpetual emergency because it is borrowing — $2.6 trillion annually projected by 2034 — to fund current consumption of government goods and services . . . Uncertainty is cubed because amid today’s loosening constraints on executive behavior, Congress is losing control of spending. If the Federal Reserve must raise rates to counter decreased global demand for this debt, growth will slow, and today’s slow-motion crisis will accelerate.  We are spending our rainy-day fund during (relatively) sunny weather. A great nation is reduced to fanciful hoping — that, for example, AI eliminates economic rain.”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address is remembered for his forebodings about “the acquisition of unwarranted influence … by the military-industrial complex.” Ike ended, however, warning against: “… the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.”

Will: “When he spoke, the national debt was 52 percent of GDP. Today’s $38 trillion is 125 percent, projected to reach 143 percent by 2030. This assumes, rashly, that government behavior does not make things even worse sooner.”  One cannot be optimistic that the current administration is serious about the national debt.

See Robert P. Geroge in the Washington Post (4 December 2025); Rod Dreher, “What is a Conservative,” The American Conservative (22 September 2012); Michael Gerson in the Washington Post (16 and 23 October 2017); Peter Waldman in the Washington Post (19 October 2017); David Brooks in the New York Times (27 October 2017); Peter Wehner in the New York Times (22 October 2017);  Greg Sargent in the Washington Post (23 December 2022); Washington Post editorial (27 December 2022); and Geroge Will in the Washington Post (14 November 2025).