On February 22, the Independent and the Salvatori Center co-hosted CMC professor Jon Shields for a lunch talk on modern conservative thought. Shields specializes in American conservatism, with a more recent focus on the contemporary right and Republican Party.
Working off an assigned excerpt from Jerry Muller’s Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present, Shields' opening remarks provided an overview of the central tenets of conservative thought. Referencing Muller’s thoughts on historical utilitarianism, Shields outlined the conservative view that the enduring presence of current institutions reflects their success in meeting human needs. Conservatives contend that even if these institutions are not intrinsically superior to alternatives, their familiarity and established tradition make them worthy of our trust and protection.
Consequently, conservatives argue that the family remains the most vital social institution and that societal inequalities, when properly understood, are not only inevitable but legitimate. They stress the need for elite guidance, viewing experienced leaders as custodians of tradition and order. Shields explained that this perspective is not simply a nostalgia for the past; rather, it is a response to a modern world where “liberationist and reformist impulses often threaten to upend established ways of living.”
An enduring worry among conservatives, Shields noted, is that liberationist agendas, if left unchecked, might dismantle the very institutions that provide stability. Yet within conservatism itself, there exists a tension between factions of reactionaries and radical conservatives. While reactionaries insist on conserving the very traditions that have long underpinned social order, radical conservatives seek to tear down corrupted institutions, arguing that they have strayed too far from their original virtues.
Shields used the example of Roe v. Wade to further articulate divides in conservative thinking. Despite Roe's standing as established law for nearly 50 years, many conservatives actively sought to overturn it, arguing that it was wrongly decided from the outset. This raises a tension within conservative ideology: while they typically champion judicial restraint and adherence to precedent, their pro-life stance necessitates a departure from this principle. The willingness to challenge Roe suggests that, for some conservatives, ideological commitments—such as the belief in protecting fetal life—can take precedence over their usual deference to legal continuity.
One student, acknowledging that conservatives generally seek to preserve institutions, asked, “Where is there room in conservatism for change?” Shields suggested that conservatism can be a form of moderation to liberalism. He brought up same sex marriage, explaining that some conservatives argue against it because they think broadening marriage to include same sex couples would erode its institutional integrity. Others argue that if conservatives did not endorse same sex marriage, it would delegitimize the institution in the public eye by making it appear out of step with modern society.
The cultural debates within conservatism have come into focus more sharply through works like JD Vance’s memoir Hillbilly Elegy. Vance’s narrative, which mourns the collapse of marriage, industriousness, and religiosity among America’s white working class, sparked discussion among students about whether he remains a true representative of traditional conservative values. Shields discussed how Vance has backed away from the critique presented in Hillbilly Elegy—noting that the book blames the decline of the white working class not just on policy but also on their own failures of culture and agency—as his stature has grown in a party that has increasingly demonized elites and reoriented around populism.
Balancing tradition with the demands of a rapidly changing society, conservatives navigate the tensions between radical reform and the preservation of established institutions, between elite guidance and populist revolt. While voices like JD Vance have thrust cultural and class conflicts into the spotlight, the enduring conservative belief remains: without restraint, guidance, and reverence for the wisdom of the past, society risks losing the very foundations upon which it has long depended.
One student, acknowledging the tension between conservatism and orthodoxy, asked, “Does conservatism without orthodoxy fall apart?” Muller writes that while the orthodox defense of institutions depends on belief in their correspondence to some ultimate truth, the conservative has a skeptic’s tendency to avoid justifying institutions on the basis of theory and principle alone. Conservatives instead find justification for institutions in their continued existence, which is taken to imply their utility. Some students suggested the two can exist independently of one another, while others argued that conservatism and orthodoxy are intrinsically connected.
Shields closed by noting how conservatism remains both a call to return to established virtues and a challenge to adapt those virtues to the realities of the modern world—a balancing act that continues to define the political and cultural landscape of America.
Commentaires