Rediscovering Order in an Age of Populism
An existential identity crisis now grips the American right. A political movement once united by a commitment to limited government, moral order, and a robust defense of American ideals now appears fractured, its purpose clouded by populist grievances and ideological drift. The urgency of this moment demands a return to first principles, along with a reexamination of what conservatism means and what it seeks to achieve in an age marked by cultural upheaval and political polarization.
Since the turn of the century, a once-robust definition of conservatism has gradually devolved into "anything that's not 'woke.'" This shift has been driven in part by the Democratic Party's efforts to banish common sense as political heresy and clamp down on free speech. As the left quickly learned, abandoning the moderate middle provided ample substrate for new political coalitions on the right to develop and flourish.
Though subtle at first, the consequences of the conservative movement's transformation into the anti-woke movement have steadily accumulated. By the time Donald Trump won his second term, much post-election analysis correctly framed his victory not as a triumph of conservative ideals, but as a mere repudiation of a decadent and debauched Democratic Party.
This was not always how the right understood itself in America. Conservatism once proudly embraced a positive vision, offering the American people clear alternatives to the prevailing left-leaning orthodoxies of the day. In the final decades of the 20th century, conservatives not only opposed affirmative action's quixotic pursuit of equal outcomes, they championed equality of opportunity for all. Conservatives were not simply opposed to letting communism run wild; they contained it by boldly leading the free world. Conservatives were not just critical of big government; their support for free markets unleashed one of the greatest economic expansions in history. At the heart of conservatism lay an ambition to help America flourish, coupled with the desire to preserve the private institutions — families, churches, local communities, and the like — that serve as the building blocks of an ordered society.
But now, as the left has captured major institutions and inverted traditional morality, conservatism is often reduced to mere opposition. It is, after all, easy to shout "no!" And it feels good, too. While such opposition can attract allies and can even win elections when Republicans are out of power, it cannot serve as a movement's moral foundation. Conservatism cannot be defined solely by what it isn't.
Conservatism is not a rigid ideology promising utopia; it is a disposition — a state of mind grounded in timeless principles. It recognizes human nature as it is and has been throughout the ages, and points toward a distinct approach to governing ourselves. Conservatism values obedience to a transcendent moral order, reverence for tradition and our forebears, prudence in decision-making, humility regarding our place in history, and the pursuit of justice in a fallen world. These harmonious values make conservatism a timeless philosophy that aligns seamlessly with self-governance.
To understand these principles, and to understand how to implement them in the 21st century, there is perhaps no better guide than Russell Kirk's Roots of American Order, first published a half-century ago in 1974. Kirk sought to identify the distinguishing characteristics of the West's most dynamic societies: Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and London. For, as Kirk observed, whether we are in Washington, New York, San Francisco, or the heartland, "the order which Americans experience is derived from the experience of those four old cities." These cities, whose ancient legacies and perennial virtues live on in America today, flourished because they embraced an order of both polity and soul.
Fifty years after the publication of this landmark work, it is crucial for conservatives to rediscover Kirk's enduring insights.
ORDERED SOULS AND ORDERED POLITIES
Kirk began with ancient Israel, which is not remembered primarily for military might or territorial conquest, but for its ordered moral and spiritual life. He argued that "until human beings are tied together by some common faith, and share certain moral principles, they prey upon one another."
Unlike its neighbors, Israel unified an ordered soul under monotheism with an ordered polity under divine law. "The other creeds of the ancient world," Kirk asserted, "are dust and ashes now, but the Decalogue of Moses and the understanding of man's existence under God which Moses communicated to the people remain a living power, the source of order." This legacy, he noted, still resonates in American society, where Sinai's moral order, in both its Christian and Jewish forms, underpins both public and private life.
In Athens, Kirk credited Solon's reforms with elevating the city above its peers. While other Greek city-states succumbed to infighting and chaos, Solon introduced principles of checks and balances, mixed government, and peaceful transitions of power — all of which remain hallmarks of American government. Solon's restraint, as Kirk explained, prevented Athens from devolving into tyranny. "Entrusted with such authority," he observed, "nearly any other Greek would have made himself tyrant. Yet Solon, rejecting opportunity to seize absolute rule and vast wealth, healed Athenian society." As one of the founders and guardians of Athenian democracy, Solon's noble pursuits laid the foundation for human flourishing across millennia. His example underscores how prioritizing order over efficiency yields lasting prosperity.
If Solon offered the American founders a vision of functional democracy, Rome, under Cicero's influence, gave them a vision of legal order. "It was by Cicero," Kirk explained, "that the doctrine of the law of nature had been expounded lucidly in the Roman age, and that juridical doctrine was essential to the founders of the American Republic." At the peak of its powers, the Roman Republic was a legal powerhouse whose insistence on order fast-tracked its greatness. Yet, as Saint Augustine lamented, Rome ultimately fell "for want of order in the soul."
Finally, Kirk argued, London represents the culmination of these earlier traditions, refining and institutionalizing them into the English common law and constitutional government that directly shaped America's own legal and political order. From the Magna Carta to the Glorious Revolution, London was the crucible in which the principles of representative government — the rule of law and individual rights — were forged. Kirk emphasized that these were not abstract ideals, but lived realities, tested and tempered through centuries of struggle and bloodshed. Although unwritten, the British constitutional tradition nevertheless provided the American founders with a model of governance that balanced authority with freedom. Without London's legacy, the United States would not have inherited the institutions that have preserved its freedoms for nearly two and a half centuries.
As Kirk made clear, while a well-ordered polity is essential, it cannot endure without a moral and spiritual order that sustains it. A civilization is not maintained by its politics, but by its people. Thus, an ordered polity must be wedded to an ordered soul; or, better yet, the overflow of ordered souls. This magnificent union of ordered souls and government was the state of affairs that gave birth to the American Constitution, thanks in no small part to religion's role in America's founding. Kirk summarized America's success thus:
[T]he framers of the Constitution took it for granted that a moral order, founded upon religious beliefs, supports and parallels the political order. The Constitution was and is purely an instrument for practical government — not a philosophical disquisition. Yet practical government in the United States, and in every other nation, is possible only because most people in that nation accept the existence of some moral order, by which they govern their conduct — the order of the soul.
Our nation's second president, John Adams, put it similarly, if more succinctly: Our Constitution, he declared, "was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
A KIRKIAN VISION FOR 21ST-CENTURY CONSERVATISM
Kirk concluded The Roots of American Order with hope, asserting that despite the changing times, the principles of moral and political order remain vital. He reminded us that though the "circumstances have changed markedly...the laws and the mores have endured; and as Tocqueville knew, the American democracy is the creation of its laws and (in still larger degree) of its moral habits."
But the conservative movement must remember its roots to fulfill this promise. It must transcend the reactionary impulse to merely oppose progressivism and instead reclaim its commitment to the "permanent things": the moral and cultural foundations of a free society.
Sadly, for most populists, Kirk's wisdom seems to have faded quietly into the pages of history, along with the insights that shaped conservatism for much of the last century. For them, grievance now dictates policy. Rather than advance the American-led internationalism of our country at the height of its powers, populism complains that our allies and trading partners have taken advantage of us, and that we need tariffs to settle the score, even at the expense of our own national security and economic growth. Rather than uphold the long memory of the British colonists, who were suspicious of monarchical government's abuse of power, populism clamors for more centralization in Washington to work our will for the common good. Rather than Edmund Burke's belief that men have "a right to the fruits of their industry and to the means of making their industry fruitful," populists insist we weaponize the administrative state to compel businesses to act in our favor.
As grievance increasingly shapes the political thought of the right, conservatism risks exchanging its identity as a coherent governing philosophy for a new identity as a solely oppositional force. This would be a tragedy. Defining oneself by one's adversaries rather than by one's principles is a recipe for intellectual decay and political aimlessness. Such a mindset breeds short-term thinking and risks engendering a culture of resentment rather than one of renewal. It may feel good in the moment, but it cannot inspire the enduring loyalty and purpose that conservatism has historically brought to our national life.
Fortunately, Kirk's enduring framework of ordered souls and ordered polities offers us a practical pathway back from the brink of three looming political crises: global chaos, alienation of our allies, and the triumph of unaccountable centralized government.
ORDERED POLITIES AND FOREIGN POLICY
While Kirk was no interventionist (an ideology parodied rather brutally in his novel A Creature of the Twilight), neither was he an isolationist. It was clear to him that an ordered polity must honor the commitments that sustain peace and stability. As he argued in The Roots of American Order, "a republic requires leaders with a sense of honor." Alliances are not merely transactional; they reflect shared values and mutual interests that extend far beyond immediate costs and benefits.
Conservatives, therefore, must champion a foreign policy that balances prudence with principle, recognizing that global stability is a cornerstone of American national security. In foreign policy, the essential question facing the conservative movement is this: Will we continue to champion freedom, a strong national defense, well-funded militaries, and robust alliances, or will we turn our backs on our friends, attempt to appease our enemies, and disengage with a world that grows less orderly and more dangerous by the day?
In the generations following World War II, a consensus emerged in the United States that America should be the strong and confident leader of the free world. Today, a new wave of isolationists says that America should retreat from her leadership position, turn inward, and focus solely on domestic concerns. Such isolationism reflects a narrow, short-sighted worldview rather than the strategic foresight that has historically defined conservative foreign policy. Traditional conservatives do not seek to police the world, but we do recognize that a strong and engaged America is essential for our security, prosperity, and the preservation of freedom worldwide.
Isolationism is appeasement. And appeasement is not a foreign policy. Ronald Reagan warned us that appeasement "gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender." Burying our head in the sand while our adversaries plot and scheme to inflict suffering on America and the rest of the world is a foolish and dangerous strategy. Isolationism cloaks itself in the promise of peace. But history — including the history of the 20th century — teaches us all too well that isolationism leads to conflict and chaos.
If America were to give into the isolationists and step back from her leadership role, it would merely create a vacuum that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran would be more than happy to fill. Those nations have plans to remake the world to serve dictatorships. They would make it more totalitarian, more antagonistic, and less concerned with human rights — a world in which all of us are less free.
Consider what would happen if the isolationists were successful in ending American support for Ukraine. If we allow Vladimir Putin to overrun Ukraine, what will stop him from invading countries like Poland, Estonia, or Latvia? And what message would it send to China, other than a flashing green light to invade Taiwan, which would throw the entire Indo-Pacific region into chaos? You can either be tough on China, or you can be an isolationist — you cannot be both.
Conservatives must never ignore gathering storms abroad in exchange for indulging the illusion of security at home. We can never allow the enemies of freedom to run roughshod around the world until their tyranny washes up on our shores. The reality is that freedom at home depends on what happens beyond our own borders.
Taking our security seriously does not mean that America and her allies have to be the world's police force. John Quincy Adams warned that America must never go "abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." But we must support other freedom-loving nations in defending their sovereignty. As Burke wrote in his Letters on a Regicide Peace (which Kirk was fond of quoting): "The blood of man should never be shed but to redeem the blood of man. It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our country, for our kind. The rest is vanity; the rest is crime."
Our long-established allies play a crucial role in protecting, preserving, and promoting freedom worldwide. By helping our friends defend themselves, we deter our enemies and advance American interests.
ORDERED SOULS AND GLOBAL TRADE
Commerce is not a zero-sum game of winners and losers, but a framework through which individuals and nations work together to create shared prosperity. The type of ordered soul that Kirk believed essential for a functional economy resists the temptation to view trade as merely transactional, or as exploitation; instead, it sees that trade is an act of mutual cooperation that benefits both parties.
As Samuel Gregg and Richard Reinsch have documented in these pages, economic thinkers like Wilhelm Röpke demonstrated how free-flowing markets correlate with character formation. Kirk, in his essay "The Humane Economy of Wilhelm Röpke," summarized Röpke's project thus: "His object is to restore liberty to men by promoting economic independence." He continued:
[E]conomic theory as a basis for state coercion has repeatedly proved fallible; "planning" destroys the voluntary community and tries to substitute an ineffectual master plan....[T]he goals of state action should be judicial rather than economic; and thus the whole perspective of "social planners" is distorted.
Tariffs can absolutely serve as a useful and essential tool in our nation's toolbox — protecting American industries from foreign cheating, forcing China to negotiate on trade, even convincing Mexico to take unprecedented action to help stem the flow of illegal migration into the United States. But they can only be used effectively when they are used narrowly and humbly, avoiding the pretenses of the social planners and Kirk's "terrible simplifiers," who deny the bedeviling trade-offs that come with tariffs and fail to allow any kind of nuance or draw necessary distinctions between friends and foes.
This is the major problem with the plans for universal baseline tariffs now embraced by populists. They took up a sledgehammer when the situation demanded a scalpel. Why should we force our oldest allies in Europe to abide by the same terms we impose on adversarial nations like China?
Margaret Thatcher offered a better path forward with her vision of a more tightly knit Anglosphere, one in which free nations would strengthen economic, security, and diplomatic ties among themselves while maintaining stricter terms with authoritarian rivals. Conservatives should rediscover this wise approach, embracing free trade with free nations while maintaining more restrictive relationships with countries like China and Russia.
It is perfectly sensible to impose tariffs on authoritarian countries that reject our values and wage economic warfare against us and our allies. But we would gain nothing — in fact, we would lose a great deal — by subjecting friends like Britain or Israel to the same punitive treatment.
ORDERED SOULS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE
President Ronald Reagan wisely observed in his first inaugural address: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Yet today, some populists have lost confidence in themselves and their fellow Americans, and are instead looking to government as the solution to problems of the free market. They have forgotten what Kirk recognized all too well: the reality of human imperfection. "To suppose that the mass-state would be always just and generous toward its slaves," he wrote, "is to suppose that there would exist, upon all its levels, a class of philosopher-kings superior to human frailty, purged of lust and envy and petty ambition."
This tendency is nothing new. For over a century, America has wrestled with the consequences of progressives' elevation of centralized expertise over the sovereignty of the people. The progressive vision of governance by an unelected class of administrators who ostensibly know better than ordinary citizens has metastasized into today's behemoth administrative state, where federal agencies and regulatory bodies — immune to the checks and balances of democratic accountability — churn out edicts with the force of law.
This is the real menace conservatives must defeat: the ever-growing power of bureaucrats, regulators, and self-proclaimed experts who seek to dictate the terms of our lives without our consent or possible recourse. The fight is not simply against left-wing collectivism or heavy-handed populist demagoguery, but against the very idea that government, rather than free people and free institutions, should determine the economic and moral order of our society.
To be sure, very real problems have emerged within contemporary corporate culture in America. Boardrooms have been co-opted by left-wing activists. Wall Street has sold out to progressive extremists by pushing for environmental, social, and governance policies that advance left-wing goals to the detriment of shareholders and workers. Fortune 500 companies have spent millions to fill our airwaves with ads that promote transgenderism and climate alarmism as much as their products.
Nowhere has this been clearer than in the rise of DEI initiatives that prioritize political dogma over merit and competence. These policies have encouraged racial and gender-based hiring quotas, ideological litmus tests in the workplace, and the erosion of excellence in education and industry alike. DEI is nothing less than state-sanctioned racism.
But the last thing conservatives should want is to force private companies to become "conservative" businesses as a counterbalance to "progressive" ones. Instead, we should want profitable companies to fulfill their corporate mission and otherwise stay out of politics. Businesses exist to make money, not to promote social causes. When companies prioritize ideology over profitability, they risk alienating their customer base and damaging their bottom line. The company, its employees, and consumers alike suffer the consequences.
The populist desire to use government power to steer corporate behavior is antithetical to conservative principles. While frustration with corporations' leftward lurch is understandable, weaponizing the administrative state undermines free enterprise and risks turning government into a tool of coercion. While patience is required, the market can address this problem far more effectively than heavy-handed, counterproductive government action that we have spent decades criticizing the left for undertaking.
Kirk's concept of ordered souls reminds us that true change comes not from government mandates, but from moral renewal. Conservatives must resist the temptation to abandon their defense of free enterprise in pursuit of short-term victories. The free market remains the best mechanism for correcting the excesses of corporate America, but only if we have the patience and the discipline to let it work.
RENEWING AMERICAN ORDER
The question for today's conservatives is clear: Will we remain a party of enduring principles, or will we succumb to populism unmoored from conservative ideals?
The populist impulse is understandable in an age of political corruption, corporate excess, and institutional failure. It resonates because it gives voice to frustrations long ignored by an elite class that has often prioritized globalism over patriotism, efficiency over morality, and left-wing dogma over common sense. Yet, as Kirk would remind us, frustration alone is not a governing philosophy. If conservatism allows itself to be consumed by populist fervor, it risks losing its identity and forsaking the principles that have delivered its greatest triumphs.
The Kirkian formula — ordered souls and ordered polities — has sustained America for centuries, and remains our best hope for the future. If we preserve these dual tracks of order and the institutions that provide and maintain them, Kirk's optimism will be justified. The task ahead is not merely to oppose decline, but to actively build a better future.
A truly conservative movement must resist the allure of revanchist politics obsessively focused on destroying the edifices of the left. As Kirk so eloquently demonstrated, civilizations are not built on negation, but on affirmation. They thrive when they are anchored in a moral and spiritual order that shapes their laws, customs, and governance. The same principle holds true for political movements. To regain its footing, the conservative movement must return to this foundation, cultivating ordered souls capable of sustaining an ordered polity.
This project begins with the family. Kirk understood that the family is the seedbed of virtue — the primary institution through which moral order is instilled in each generation. Conservatives must prioritize policies that strengthen families, such as tax codes that facilitate marriage and child-rearing, educational reforms that empower parents, and cultural efforts that celebrate rather than denigrate the special role of mothers and fathers. Strong families are the roots of strong nations. Without strong families, no political order can endure.
Beyond the family, conservatives must champion the mediating institutions that form the building blocks of American life. These institutions provide the moral education, mutual aid, and sense of belonging that prevent societies from falling into the abyss of atomized chaos. Alexis de Tocqueville considered their ubiquity one of America's fundamental strengths. Kirk's vision calls for a decentralization of power, emphasizing the local and the particular over the national and the abstract. A movement that rediscovers the importance of these smaller, vital institutions will foster ordered souls who can, in turn, build a more ordered society.
In the realm of governance, conservatives in the 21st century must heed Kirk's call for prudence. Populist policies that seek to dismantle perceived enemies without regard for long-term consequences risk undermining the very order they claim to advocate. Whether it be tariffs that alienate allies, regulatory overreach for the sake of punishing progressive firms, or isolationism that leaves the world's despots unchecked, these approaches are the antithesis of the careful, measured conservatism Kirk espoused. True conservatism does not merely react; it acts with humility, foresight, and an eye toward preserving the "permanent things."
Finally, conservatives must remember that order in the polity begins with order in the soul. This is perhaps Kirk's most enduring lesson, the one most relevant to our times. The path forward is not one of sweeping government mandates or punitive cultural crusades, but of personal renewal and moral clarity. Conservatives must lead by example, demonstrating in their own lives the virtues they wish to see reflected in society. Integrity, humility, charity, and courage — these are the qualities that sustain civilizations. They must be cultivated anew in each of us before they can be passed on to the next generation.
In rediscovering the wisdom of Russell Kirk, the conservative movement has an opportunity to reclaim its rightful place as the steward of the American experiment — the guardian of ordered liberty, the protector of American institutions, and the champion of the limitless opportunity that has always been the American birthright. It is not enough to reject the radicalism of the left or the excesses of the populist right; conservatives must articulate and embody a positive vision of the good life. This vision must be rooted in faith, reason, and the enduring principles that have shaped our nation since its founding.
As Kirk himself wrote: "Order [is] the first need of all." Without it, freedom unravels, prosperity withers, and the bonds that hold a nation together begin to fray. But an order rooted in tradition and moral truth becomes the unshakable foundation upon which human flourishing and national greatness can be built.
Conservatism is far more than a resistance to disorder — it is a promise, a calling, a duty to preserve what is good and cultivate what is enduring. If we hold fast to this charge, we will not only secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves, we will pass down to future generations an America that is strong, free, and truly worthy of its founding ideals.
