It's a good question and a big subject because many people who say they are conservative are actually neo-liberals, who would sell off anything and take down any tradition for a buck. Although they might hold to some conservative social positions on the role of women or religion.

A conservative is someone who opposes radical change and what they call 'social engineering' and works to maintain institutions and traditions and cultural artefacts (buildings, museums, landscapes, the arts, the rule of law, royalty - in Britain and the Commonwealth). Conservatives often wish to preserve anachronistic social systems and privileges, they tend to believe in high culture and are suspicious of new ideas, technology and immigration. Roger Scruton, the philosopher, was a conservative and wrote a great deal about it.

“Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created. This is especially true of the good things that come to us as collective assets: peace, freedom, law, civility, public spirit, the security of property and family life, in all of which we depend on the cooperation of others while having no means singlehandedly to obtain it. In respect of such things, the work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation slow, laborious and dull. That is one of the lessons of the twentieth century. It is also one reason why conservatives suffer such a disadvantage when it comes to public opinion. Their position is true but boring, that of their opponents exciting but false.”
― Roger Scruton, How to Be a Conservative

I don't know the actual philosophy conservatives hold in their own minds — Vera Mont

I think it would help if you named a particular conservative.

"The way things were", often "the way things are supposed to be" in a religious context. When discussed generally Anglo-Saxon Christian beliefs however Islam has them beat by a mile.

A "leave well enough alone"/let sleeping dogs lie attitude. Stranger danger. Naturally that includes distrusting other peoples and cultures (though not automatically out of inferiority/superiority) simply that the less change, the better. "What worked today, will work tomorrow".

Naturally it attracts those with perverse views on other groups of people. Human nature is to take something when it is needed, trust what is familiar, and distrust (think lesser of?) what is not (this is biologically why you exist today). Has a tinge of tribalism but is more political in the sense that it acknowledges at the end of the day everybody is looking out for #1 and the less of other cultures who do not share or have automatic bonds of familiarity or customs, the safer one or a given society or civilization will be.

I suppose to compare and contrast with being a liberal a conservative would disfavor, ignore or perhaps ostracize one who does not conform or share their given worldviews and customs or way of life.

"There's a way things are supposed to be and if you don't follow it, just don't talk to me!" :razz:

I think it would help if you named a particular conservative. — frank

It would help to name one if I knew how to recognize one. In politics, it seems to me that people who call themselves conservative in some way, e.g. fiscal responsibility or individual liberty, actually do the opposite when they're in office: cut government revenue while spending borrowed money on arms contracts and subsidies; curtail civil rights and freedoms.

many people who say they are conservative are actually neo-liberals, — Tom Storm

I don't exactly know what that is when it's at home, either. I have a definition for 'liberal' and I have one for 'new', but when they're put together, it becomes a political portmanteau of bad policy. Unless the liberalism referred-to is laissez-faire libertarian, which is quite different from social liberalism.
Okay, so the money-oriented, deregulating, privatizing conservatives are not, in fact, conservative.

A conservative is someone who opposes radical change — Tom Storm

I can't tell what counts as 'radical' change in the age of over 8000 satellites and every politician sounding off on social media like teenagers. And again: trade unions are a well established institution and tearing them down is - to me - a radical change brought about conservative administrations. So contracting "corrections" out to private enterprise: a state monopoly on law enforcement and retribution is a very deeply rooted tradition in all civilizations. (neoliberal?)

what they call 'social engineering'

That's another one of those terms I don't quite grasp. God made things a certain way, and nobody should change it. But every king and aristocracy and economic elite - the conservatives of their era - did change the order that prevailed before they took over. I understand that some Americans want their women back in the kitchen, pregnant, barefoot and illitarate, and their slaves back in the fields, singing sweetly from dawn to dusk. But that state of affairs, like every other, had also been brought about by human intervention - the pair God made was naked and unencumbered by possessions.

and works to maintain institutions and traditions and cultural artefacts (buildings, museums, landscapes, the arts, the rule of law,

Some institutions. Some traditions. cultural artefacts, buildings and the arts, not so much. At least in the US

The NEH and the NEA, despite commanding a tiny fraction of the federal government’s budget, have long been on the GOP’s kill list, since conservatives consider them to be a complete waste of taxpayer money.

they tend to believe in high culture — Tom Storm

Not that I have ever seen in the US or Canada. Certainly not among their voter base, and not conspicuously among their elite. Unless C&W&G are "high" culture, compared to symphony, ballet and opera - the despised province of the east coast liberal elite.

Conservatives often wish to preserve anachronistic social systems and privileges, — Tom Storm

This is the one part that rings true and corresponds to my own observation of conservative political behaviour. It doesn't tell me about values,though; only about holding on to power and depriving minority groups of rights and freedoms - while screaming about rights and freedom.

I don't think that's a true conservative position, either. I have kind of a nebulous idea what it is - at least, I have a memory of attitudes among elders I once respected. But they're all dead now.

This is especially true of the good things that come to us as collective assets: peace, freedom, law, civility, public spirit, the security of property and family life, in all of which we depend on the cooperation of others while having no means singlehandedly to obtain it.

That wouldn't look out of place on a socialist agenda.

Their position is true but boring, that of their opponents exciting but false.”

We don't hear that 'position', ever. We hear: no gun control, defunding social services and public broadcast media, lowering taxes on the rich, interference in public school curricula by special interest groups, and making war on some small foreign countries while exploiting others for natural resources.

IME, conservatism seeks to conserve (i.e. propagandize, police) the social-political-economic status quo ante, and thereby, in practice, rationalizes illiberality with terms like "traditional" & "patriotic", "family values" & "human nature", "essence" & "ideal", "faith" & "duty", "law" & "order"... Policy prescriptions such as e.g. deregulation, lowering / eliminating taxes, smaller government (austerity), border controls, [insert country here] first / isolationism, etc are just campaign slogans and partisan window-dressing (i.e. fundraising talking points) which distract from the illiberal ideology.

'Conservatives' themselves seem to bifurcate the world by tribe / sect such that they tend to be very pessimistic about "Them" (i.e. much less cosmopolitan, urban & prospective) and yet not quite optimistic about "Us" (i.e. much more parochial, rural & retrospecttive); therefore, as history of the modern era amply shows, 'conservatives' are just as, or more, comfortable with autocracy (i.e. centralized minority rule – 'political Right' (i.e. "Us & Them" trumps Right & Wrong / True & False)) than they are with democracy (i.e. agonistic majority rule – 'political Center').

as history of the modern era amply shows, 'conservatives' are just as, or more, comfortable with autocracy (i.e. centralized minority rule) than they are with democracy (i.e. agonistic majority rule). — 180 Proof

This has been my observation, as well. The political right does tend to pull toward conformity, hierarchy and the imposition of order by force from above; it might well support an American ruling dynasty, but has not yet cast up a family equal to the role.

:up:

I think your version of ‘conservatives’ tends to be neoliberal folk who follow that cultural wrecking ball, Rupert Murdoch. But no doubt some neoliberals share some conservative values mainly on social issues.

Nothing is hard and fast.

I do not think the political right is identical to the Conservative position. What counts as Right wing? If it’s authoritarianism, suppression of opposing voices and minority groups then are there not ‘Leftist’ groups who do all this?

Maybe categories like this are approximate positions only.

I think your version of ‘conservatives’ tends to be neoliberal folk who follow that cultural wrecking ball, — Tom Storm

That's not my version; that's the version I see under the political label that identifiable parties, their public spokespeople and their supporters wear. I can't tell who a real conservative is and who is a neoliberal calling him or herself conservative. That's why I asked.

But no doubt some neoliberals share some conservative values mainly on social issues. — Tom Storm

Those are the values I'm trying to identify. I'm not even asking for hard and fast; I'd settle for casually ambling Jello; I can't seem to find anything solid or positive enough to identify. I hear a lot of stuff that self-professed conservatives are against, - mostly other people being allowed to do something that doesn't affect them - but there, too, the substance eludes definition, and when you ask what they're for, it fades into smoke dissipates in neoliberal policy.

I understand wanting to keep the monarchy... even though they hate the present monarch. That happens, and the resolution has usually been bloody and costly, but I don't think it's a danger this time.
I understand the idea of patriotism, but not "my country right or wrong, unless the other party is in power, in which case, burn it down."
I get wanting to hang on to power all just for "us", but self-identified conservatives rarely admit that. And they elect such prats and twits and mountebanks, it's hard to respect even that desire.

If it’s authoritarianism, suppression of opposing voices and minority groups then are there not ‘Leftist’ groups who do all this? — Tom Storm

I suppose there must be, though the leftist groups I've been associated with were a lot more like a herd of cats than a phalanx. When that happens, though, are they still socialists and liberals? Or is there a leftward equivalent of 'neoliberal'? All labels can be abused and perverted.

But I do expect people of conviction to be able to articulate, clearly and consistently, their own values: what they believe, what they consider important personally and as a society; what they think is a desirable state of affairs.
I keep harking back to Archie Bunker's theme song. They may have been deluded, that generation of conservatives, but they had a picture in their heads of how things should be.

Best source is Scruton who writes about this at length and was the poster boy for conservatism for many years. He was not always a fan of the right even though the right would borrow from his work rather lackadaisically.

You’re pointing to the fact that political categories are blurred and inexact.

But I do expect people of conviction to be able to articulate, clearly and consistently, their own values: what they believe, what they consider important personally and as a society; what they think is a desirable state of affairs. — Vera Mont

I would expect that of few people, theorists maybe. In my experience, people with conviction often have convictions in place of knowledge.

That's not my version; that's the version I see under the political label that identifiable parties, their public spokespeople and their supporters wear. — Vera Mont

Yes - as you described them earlier. Not yours personally.

I suppose there must be, though the leftist groups I've been associated with were a lot more like a herd of cats than a phalanx. When that happens, though, are they still socialists and liberals? Or is there a leftward equivalent of 'neoliberal'? All labels can be abused and perverted. — Vera Mont

Fair point. Labels are twisted. I think most Western governments are neo-liberal. They do not rock the boat of the corporate interest groups - Obama bailing out Wall Street; Tony Blair's "New Labour" were about conserving the status quo. Here in Australia, Labor's Hawke/Keating deregulated the markets, floated the dollar and embraced neo-liberalism fulsomely. My socialist friends have always considered Democrat and Labor to be virtually equivalent to Republican and Tory. In this vein we get philosopher Cornel West's observation that Obama was "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats."

What are "conservative values"? What kind of society do they envisage and how do they believe it can be brought about? — Vera Mont

I entered the above into chat GBT for an AI answer, and got:
"Conservative values" are principles and beliefs that emphasize traditional social, cultural, and political practices and institutions, and a cautious approach to change. These values are often associated with the political ideology of conservatism.

Conservative values typically include a belief in limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, free markets, and the importance of preserving traditional cultural and social institutions. Conservatives often believe in the importance of a strong national defense, law and order, and respect for authority.

Conservatives generally envision a society that is stable, secure, and prosperous, with a strong emphasis on family, community, and individual responsibility. They believe that this kind of society can be brought about through a combination of policies that promote economic growth, individual liberty, and the preservation of traditional values.

Conservatives also tend to view government intervention as a potential threat to individual freedom and a source of inefficiency and waste. They prefer a smaller, more limited government that focuses on core functions like national defense, law enforcement, and infrastructure.

In terms of social policy, conservatives tend to oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and other social practices they see as undermining traditional family values. They also tend to support school choice, religious freedom, and the protection of individual rights.

Overall, the conservative vision of society emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, traditional values, and strong communities. They believe that these values are the key to creating a prosperous, stable, and free society.

In addition to @universeness AI answer.

Overall, the conservative vision of society emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, traditional values, and strong communities. They believe that these values are the key to creating a prosperous, stable, and free society. — universeness

This is the key to understanding conservatism. A conservative government is against public intervention, but they agree with the free market, the agglomeration of companies, and the reduction of taxes. One of the main aspects of a conservative culture is the financial idea that, if you reduce taxes, you will allow the rich companies to create more employment. Another characteristic is the promotion and defense of private property.
To be honest, I think that modern conservatism is more focused on economic modes than on traditional familiar values or strong communities when these have already disappeared due to globalization.

But I don't know the actual philosophy conservatives hold in their own minds. — Vera Mont

I don't think there is one. There is a great deal of conceptual drift. Some appeal to tradition, but not always the same tradition. It might be some form of Liberalism, or some religious group, but the identity of these is not fixed.

Some tie it to the notion of limited government, but many who call themselves conservative are in favor of the government deciding reproductive rights, or transgender rights, or what books are permissible in public schools. Some who call themselves conservatives claim that the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian values. As such the limits of government extend to what goes on in the bedroom behind closed doors as well as what is permissible to say and do in public.

This is the key to understanding conservatism. A conservative government is against public intervention, — javi2541997

Except in making and enforcing laws that curtail personal freedom.
This is what I can't come to grips with: the logical contradictions.

if you reduce taxes, you will allow the rich companies to create more employment. — javi2541997

This is not borne out by documented evidence from the past. If they value the past, why do they have such short memories?

traditional family values. — universeness

There they are again! What does that mean??? There are many conflicting traditions. Which do conservatives prefer? Abraham's domestic arrangements? Thomas Jefferson's? And how do they see more marriages undermining the institution of marriage? How do they see the practical, logistical aspects of a strong community? What makes a community strong?

I've heard all the general descriptions and desiderata, but they don't correspond to the actions of any conservative government I've seen. The individuals I have met who identify as conservative by nature, temperament do seem to imagine

a society that is stable, secure, and prosperous, with a strong emphasis on family, community, and individual responsibility. — universeness

and yet the political parties they keep voting for keep making more people poor and insecure.
I do understand the vision, the magical vision of a 1950's American small town. Picket fences, lace curtains, friendly neighbourhood shops, Officer Mike strolling down Main street, women with shopping baskets, red-cheeked youngsters cannonballing into the river, whale-shaped cars parked along the street, having come in on a perfectly maintained highway; ice cream parlour with wholesome teenagers exchanging shy glances over gold-flecked formica tabletops, all present at Sunday service in their best clothes and scrubbed faces, then stopping for a little gossip before hurrying home to roast chicken. All white, all middle class, all busy, faithful, happy and law abiding.
And I know what's under the bile-green linoleum in those kitchens. They choose not to.

As I previously explained, I only see conservatism in an economic model. Reducing taxes + allowing the rich to expand their wealth + not intervention from the state = more employment.
At least, that was the formula used by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
On the other hand, we have interventionism or social democracy where the rich must to pay the most to redistribute the wealth among the citizens.
As we can see both models crash because of monetary interests, not because of moral/familiar values.

As I previously explained, I only see conservatism in an economic model. Reducing taxes + allowing the rich to expand their wealth + not intervention from the state = more employment. — javi2541997

But I'm told that's actually neoliberalism. Still can't quitewrap my head around how the word 'liberal' - which means 'broad-minded, tolerant, inclusive, generous' got mixed in there.

Anyway, there is this very strong religious element - different religions in each place a powerful 'conservative' faction takes over: it also means suppression of other religions, secular, humanist values, science and diversity.

At least, that was the formula used by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher — javi2541997

They represented a departure from conservatism, and some conservatives doubt that they were conservative at all. Thatcher was a radical. She rocked the boat. The conservatives went along with it, because conservatism is adaptable and she was not threatening many of their interests, even though she was not really a friend of the aristocracy.

Conservatives created the first welfare state and were quite happy to go along with a mixed economy in the UK from the end of the Second World War until Thatcher.

Conservatism is not essentially pro-free-market, but this might be because it has little in the way of essence—it defends hierarchy and power, and that takes different forms. Traditionally, conservatives are pragmatic, not doctrinal.

Generally, what you are describing is the popular, very modern use of the term “conservatism”, but because it is also a political philosophy that’s a couple of centuries old, one which is still influential, it’s worth looking at that too. Vera’s questions pertain to the discrepancies between the two.

Someone mentioned Roger Scruton. He was one of the most prominent conservative philosophers until he died recently, following on from Michael Oakeshott and going back ultimately to Edmund Burke. I see this as the main conservative tradition and the modern use of the term as hopelessly confused. There must be a book about what has happened to conservatism in the past fifty years, and no doubt it’s a strange and interesting story. And unfortunately I can’t just say that what is referred to now as conservatism has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism—it’s more complicated than that.

The SEP article might help sort out some of the confusing uses of the word:

It is contested both what conservatism is, and what it could or ought to be—both among the public and politicians, and among the philosophers and political theorists that this article focuses on. Popularly, “conservative” is a generic term for “right-wing viewpoint occupying the political spectrum between liberalism and fascism”. Philosophical commentators offer a more distinctive characterisation. Many treat it as a standpoint that is sceptical of abstract reasoning in politics, and that appeals instead to living tradition, allowing for the possibility of limited political reform. On this view, conservatism is neither dogmatic reaction, nor the right-wing radicalism of Margaret Thatcher or contemporary American “neo-conservatives”. — Conservatism, SEP

On neoliberalism, libertarianism, etc:

Conservatism is popularly conflated with neo-conservatism and with libertarianism. But right libertarians and neo-conservatives, unlike Burkean conservatives, reject state planning for doctrinaire reasons. Making anti-planning into a principle, or economic liberalism into an ideology, offends the conservative’s pragmatic, sceptical temper, which could admit a role for state planning and economic intervention were such things shown to be effective. Conservatives reject ideologies, of which neo-liberalism is one. — Conservatism, SEP

For me, if there is a core of conservatism it’s a basic suspicion of Utopianism and of the idea of the “perfectibility of man”; a resultant pragmatic attitude to politics that aims to maintain a harmonious community in which change happens only slowly and organically on the basis of experience rather than on the basis of doctrines and principles. Of course, this is to represent it in its best light, according to its self-image, and I can also describe it differently: a pragmatic attitude to politics that aims to maintain traditional hierarchies and relations of power, which are regarded as natural. This last point is crucial I think: class and war and inequality are naturalized in conservatism, and particular social formations dehistoricized.

There must be a book about what has happened to conservatism in the past fifty years, and no doubt it’s a strange and interesting story. — Jamal

There are dozens.

But I wasn't asking about books or philosophers. I was asking about what conservative people value; what, specifically, they want to conserve. The confusion seems to enter when several incompatible ideas are introduced as part of a single vision: it becomes incoherent.
This comes very close to the feelings I noticed in sincere conservatives of my politically aware youth:

For me, if there is a core of conservatism it’s a basic suspicion of Utopianism and the idea of the “perfectibility of man”; a resultant pragmatic attitude to politics that aims to maintain a harmonious community in which change happens only slowly and organically on the basis of experience rather than on the basis of doctrines and principles. — Jamal

Thank you.

Thank you — Vera Mont

You’re welcome, but the bit that came after that is crucial.

But I wasn't asking about books or philosophers — Vera Mont

I really find this attitude needlessly combative. I wrote what I though about, pretty much off the top of my head, in response to your questions, and because I don’t have all the answers to those questions I figured it might be a contribution to the discussion to mention the philosophers who can help answer them. That you didn’t want replies to mention philosophers or books—this is weird to me but fair enough—is of no concern to me. Just ignore that stuff if you’re not interested.

There are obviously conservatives who support the movement simply because they see it as the most self-interested political means to secure more wealth for themselves. But that's no different to any movement. For those on the left, for whom social capital is worth more than financial capital, they may only support left-wing or progressive political positions because they think doing so maximises that social capital.

If you're asking why some people engage in politics for selfish, rather than ideological, reasons, then your question has nothing to do with conservatism, but just social psychology in general.

If you want to ask about the coherence of conservatism as an ideology, then you need to disregard that which is cynically done in its name just to gain a core of political support. The same is true of the left.

I thank you for explaining a clear version of this topic. It is true that I only focused on economic analysis. Margaret Thatcher was a radical, no doubt. But, somehow, she represents a big reference to modern conservatives. Most of the conservatives of my country see her as a guide for freedom and development.
I think it depends on each state we are talking about. Despite I understand that conservatism goes beyond than just reduce taxes and support powerful groups/lobbies, the main subject for modern democracies (as mine) is among those. Countries with a solid middle class such as UK, USA, Sweden, Germany, Japan, etc... Doesn't seem to be a big issue the matter of collecting money from the rich or raising the salaries up. But here is different. IBEX 35 says that it will be impossible for the companies to raise the incomes up if they pay a lot of taxes. This view is a 1980's/1990's model of neo-liberalism supported by conservative/Christian democracy politicians.
Some countries surpassed this conservatism of their enterprise sector, others don't. There is a clear fight on social democracy (those who defend working class) and enterprises (conservative by nature). So, it is more a struggle of a group of persons against a group of enterprises. I am aware that this already happened in the UK in Thatcher's era, but here, this issue is recent.

Adding to Christian democracy:

Christian democrats are usually socially conservative and generally have a relatively skeptical stance towards abortion and same-sex marriage, although some Christian democratic parties have accepted the limited legalization of both. They advocate for a consistent life ethic concerning their opposition to capital punishment and assisted suicide. Christian Democrats have also supported the prohibition of drugs... Most European Christian Democrats reject the concept of class struggle and instead prefer co-determination. Christian democrats maintain that civil issues should first be addressed at the lowest level of government before being examined at a higher level, a doctrine known as subsidiarity. These concepts of sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity are considered cornerstones of Christian Democracy political ideology. — Lamberts, Emiel (1997). Christian Democracy in the European Union, 1945/1995:

Those are key notes on "What is conservatism?"

I think it depends on each state we are talking about — javi2541997

Yes indeed, and this is an example of the relativism of conservatism. Conservatisms in different places and different times don’t share much beyond their basic defence of the status quo, whatever that status quo is. It’s interesting to think that conservatism is historically and geographically relative even though conservatives often complain about relativism.

Is that an inconsistency or are they just different kinds of relativism? I think it’s probably an inconsistency, sort of: you cannot, qua representative of conservatism, uphold values as absolute if conservatism in different times and places has defended different, opposing values.

If none of that makes sense it’s because I’m thinking on the fly.

Yes indeed, and this is an example of the relativism of conservatism. You cannot, qua representative of conservatism, uphold values as absolute if conservatism in different times and places has defended different, opposing values — Jamal

:up:

class and war and inequality are naturalized in conservatism, and particular social formations dehistoricized. — Jamal

Yes, I was aware of that, though the process by which this happens is less clear, given that the personal perspective is a desire for peace, prosperity, security and continuity. I understand the tribalism and its strongest political expression: isolationism. But that should lead to wall-building and exclusion, not international warfare.
So, there seems to be a dissonance between the individual and collective expressions of the conservative mind-set, which makes it less comprehensible, not more; a discrepancy between the local and the state-level application of policy. Of course the Abrahams are willing to sacrifice their sons if God wants them, but it's not their own idea - or they claim that is isn't; they're just following orders. That makes it even more confusing to me.

I really find this attitude needlessly combative. — Jamal

I apologize. That was not my intention; I was only trying to make the same distinction as above: to separate personal conviction from general perception, professional analysis and political platform. Those perspective strike me as each markedly at variance with the others.

If none of that makes sense it’s because I’m thinking on the fly. — Jamal

My on the fly thought is that throughout human history there's been an steady increase the rate of change and it's now moving to the vertical part of an exponential curve so that generation gaps are widening.

What that means for conservatism is that one generation's conservatism was the progressive view of the previous generation. The result is that everything is getting scrambled.

The result is that everything is getting scrambled. — frank

Yes, that! Maybe I'm not supposed to understand....
I'm old and have always been a progressive socialist. The last conservatives I understood and respected were old when I was young.
It irks me when I keep hearing that old people tend to be more conservative, and everything will be better, once we die off. On the other hand, I'm reading things like this:

over the last 10 years, the role of right-wing youth movements has grown even more central, helping to establish the guiding narratives and elevating some of the most visible faces of conservatism today,https://www.salon.com/2022/10/14/how-youth-activists-energized-the-right--and-drove-into-madness/

If I'm confused, at least I'm not alone.

I apologize. That was not my intention; I was only trying to make the same distinction as above: to separate personal conviction from general perception, professional analysis and political platform. Those perspective strike me as each markedly at variance with the others. — Vera Mont

No worries, I see where you’re coming from better now :cool:

You raise interesting questions that revolve around nationalism. I think there is definitely a tension between the modern nation-state and individual conservatism (and traditional conservatism, the philosophical position). The nation-state was in many ways, at least in some places, a liberal and ideological project, and thus not something that conservatives should have been very happy about. If conservatives as representing the -ism of conservatism were able to recalibrate their political positions and take the liberal nation-state as the new status quo, that doesn’t necessarily mean ordinary conservative people did the same.

And yet, they did: the First World War was initially hugely popular, for example, and nationalism, even aggressive adventurous nationalism, has at times been associated with conservatives.

But if it’s true that conservatism is supremely adaptable and anti-doctrinal, lacking in dogma, perhaps this actually frees it to be inconsistent and sometimes embrace dogmas as and when it suits them.

The reason we don’t know much about conservatism is because intellectual conservatives are rare and academia and the press are mostly captured by the opposition.

I read Roger Scruton’s “How to be a conservative” a while back due to the same interest. According to him, he watched as the communists and socialists rioted in France in '68, and all he knew was he opposed everything they believed in. So he spent the rest of his life trying to articulate his beliefs.

What I remember most is the notion of “inheritance”. Since it is much easier to destroy but not so easy to create, we owe it everyone to pass on the Good to the future, as a sort of bond between the past, the present, and posterity. Even if these things and institutions are useless, like royalty, they are forged through generations, are often beautiful, and indicate this inheritance.

In any case, everyone is conservative about what they know and value.