A new terminology has developed within the conservative movement: that of the so called old right and the new right. This discourse, and the resulting synthesis between the two, is among the most important conversations happening in the centre-right political tradition today. It will not be resolved anytime soon, nor should it be.
The old right represents the conservatism embodied by the structural economic reforms of leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher — a coalition pairing free enterprise with free individuals as the surest path to a flourishing society. In the anglosphere it developed because an unsustainable system of economic micromanagement had emerged following the end of the Second World War and, along with the rapid social change of that time, led to a strong streak of small-l liberalism paired with free-market ideals.
Recommended Videos
The new right, while maintaining that fundamental character, sees greater purpose in the mediating institutions of society: objects like the family, the church, the local community. It sees greater purpose for government, both in uplifting those institutions and in forming the bedrock of a modern society engaged in purposeful action, beyond the traditional vision of limiting the state as the preeminent solution to today’s problems. What might appear a minor contrast has produced far-reaching disagreement.
I can think of almost nothing more conservative than welcoming rigorous debate of our own views. What I find increasingly unconvincing, however, is the claim that this new current represents a genuinely new formation of the movement. It does not. It represents something closer to a rediscovery.
Most people who self-identify as conservative share some intellectual descent from Edmund Burke. As Sir Roger Scruton put it, “Belief in your inheritance is the most important part of politics.” The new right is deeply Burkean in this sense. George Will captured its spirit precisely in his 1983 work Statecraft as Soulcraft: “By not drawing deeply enough from the Western political tradition, this nation has acquired political values and practices which involve a disproportionate individualism and an inadequate sense of human beings as social creatures. The older, richer part of the Western political tradition is now too remote for our own good. But a tradition need not remain as remote as time and negligence have made it. If the wine of the Western tradition has become watery, let us pour some of the vintage that is in the old bottles.”
The practical stakes are real. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in his 2003 Civitas speech, argued that real gains are always measured and incremental. Saying, “we must realize that real gains are inevitably incremental. This, in my experience, is harder for social conservatives than for economic conservatives. The explicitly moral orientation of social conservatives makes it difficult for many to accept the incremental approach. Yet, in democratic politics, any other approach will certainly fail. We should never accept the standard of just being ‘better than the Liberals’ — people who advocate that standard seldom achieve it — but conservatives should be satisfied if the agenda is moving in the right direction, even if slowly.”
Without making too much haste, we can also look to the Harper ministry as an example of excessive caution. Harper’s leadership will no doubt stand the test of time with regard to the day-to-day management of the country. Canada was well respected on the world stage, tax dollars were spent prudently, and on most major policy issues the government tended to make the right decisions. However, there was little deeper thought put into the long term, and unfortunately, after nearly 10 years of Trudeau, almost every aspect of Harper’s legacy had been erased or undone. The lesson is not that we must become revolutionary, but that we must be purposeful. There is a difference between patience and passivity.
Why does this matter today? It matters because the conservative movement in Canada has been grappling with questions about its identity. After losing the last four elections during which the Liberals were repeatedly able to outmaneuver Conservative narratives on culture war issues (the “Elbows Up” movement being a prime example), the new right has sought to rediscover conservatism’s older, often forgotten roots as a way to begin talking about something deeper than tax reform or regulatory streamlining.
What the new right is reaching for, instinctively if not always articulately, is the recovery of that vocabulary: the language of responsibility, virtue, and the common good. Applied to Canadian policy, this means being willing to ask not merely whether a housing policy is economically efficient, but whether it supports the kind of neighbourhoods in which families can put down roots. Not merely whether a social program is fiscally responsible, but whether it strengthens or supplants the civic institutions that give communities their character. These are conservative questions. They are not new ones.
This is not to say that sound economics and fiscal prudence are not still the foundation of any conservative mindset. They are incredibly important and essential to the good governance of any jurisdiction. Ultimately, however, people vote with their hearts, not just their minds.
This brings us to the grand bargain the movement needs. The old right and the new right are not opponents — they can be complements. The old right’s instinct for economic liberty provides the material conditions for a free society. The new right’s emphasis on mediating institutions provides the cultural conditions. Neither is sufficient without the other. A conservatism that pursues growth without attending to the institutions that give that growth meaning will hollow out the civilization it sought to defend. A conservatism that celebrates community without securing the economic freedom that makes genuine community possible will find itself presiding over managed decline. The synthesis should not be complicated: build the conditions for prosperity, and use those conditions to strengthen the institutions and society that make prosperity worth having. Politics is downstream of culture and we can’t ignore the non-material conditions of this country.
The conservatism of tomorrow, if it does not know where it comes from, will lose its way. It must stand firmly for the old virtues and wisdom inherited from the generations that built our nation from the ground up. It must be willing to say clearly that some ways of living are better than others and that some human conditions are more conducive to human flourishing than others. A society that cannot say these things, even tentatively, even with appropriate humility, has lost the ability to steer. We must recover the courage to speak in the language of the common good rather than the language of competing interests. The new right is not new. But the rediscovery it represents is urgent and well overdue.
Joshua Hart is a Calgary-based conservative advocate.