The Idiot’s Dilemma: Why ‘What Have Conservatives Conserved?’ Is the Wrong Question

It’s become a hallmark in certain circles to sneer, almost reflexively, “But what have conservatives conserved?” The question drips with condescension, tinged by an implication that conservatism has somehow failed its calling, surrendered ground, or lost its way. Yet this critique, popularized by an increasingly disaffected segment within the self identifying conservative camp, misses the point and exposes an underlying misunderstanding of conservatism itself.

This question—this rallying cry of frustrated populists minds—presupposes that the measure of conservative success lies in the visible control of institutions or in the unbending preservation of every social edifice. By this standard, conservatism has indeed faltered, as many traditional bastions have been overtaken by left-leaning ideologies or succumbed to cultural forces that conservatives find morally and intellectually dubious. But this focus on institutional ownership overlooks something fundamental: conservatism is not an exercise in institutional control, nor is it merely a tool for freezing society in place.

What, then, is conservatism? It is, above all, an allegiance to timeless principles. Its purpose is not to petrify the past but to carry forward those values that make civilization possible: respect for tradition, moral order, individual responsibility, and an enduring sense of duty to future generations. These values cannot be confined to a single institution, nor can they be extinguished by the shifting winds of cultural dominance. To look at conservatism’s purpose solely through the lens of institutional preservation is to confuse form with substance, to mistake the shell for the soul.