Conservatives: Between Ideology and the Natural

El artículo puede leerse aquí en español.

***

The complexity of language often leads us to assign multiple meanings to the same word, resulting in misunderstandings that could have been avoided if the concepts had been clearly defined beforehand. This is the case with the word conservative, which, depending on the meaning ascribed to it, can carry either a positive or negative connotation.

In common usage, conservative broadly refers to a political tendency that seeks to safeguard or maintain certain customs or institutions deemed morally good and that have endured to this day. This purely natural or tendential meaning is frequently confused with the ideological one. If a person identifies as conservative because they preserve their parents’ religion, the stability of the family, love of the fatherland, and so on, this does not necessarily mean they are, at first glance, a conservative in the ideological sense.

An ideological conservative, on the other hand, not only follows a natural tendency but goes further, believing that this tendency constitutes the unquestionable principle of morality and political action.

The Revolution, triumphant ever since nations rejected the Natural Order and its Creator, grounding politics in the general will, popular or national sovereignty – politics founded on man detached from his Creator – has led to a paradox. This natural tendency to conserve has consequently been directed toward preserving the Revolution itself, that is, the anthropocentric foundation of political society.

It must be emphasized that the Revolution brought about a genuine regime change, not only at the institutional or dynastic level but also at the moral and spiritual levels. Thus, there is some truth in the pejorative use of the term Ancien Régime to describe the traditional political order, as the foundations of the modern regime are indeed new and distinct from those of its predecessor.

The ideological conservative, motivated by fear, a sense of security, or even a pragmatic “realism,” does not seek a radical change in the opposite direction – that is, the restoration of the Ancien Régime. Instead, they settle for the new regime, aiming to preserve the values and good customs that have survived despite the Revolution. The issue is that they never challenge the anthropocentric foundations of this regime because their political principle is based on preserving what remains, not restoring what was lost.

For this reason, it is unsurprising that well-intentioned individuals, while seeking to conserve what is good and even valuing Christendom positively, view a return to a traditional theocentric society as a utopia or an impossibility. They see such a return as requiring opposition to the revolutionary system, which they perceive as impenetrable, irreversible, or even as a necessary evolution of humanity. Others, moreover, confuse the essential with the accidental elements of traditional society – for instance, the clothing, modes of speech, certain entirely lost customs, or even technology. This confusion often arises from folkloric or even romantic practices associated with tradition, which are not, per se, synonymous with political tradition.

Nonetheless, history demonstrates that, just as a group of malevolent and misguided men managed to destroy Altar and Throne through a change in minds and centuries of persistent conspiracy, another group of men, with the help of God, could restore a Christian social order.

This is not to suggest that some actions within the revolutionary system cannot achieve certain specific and even noble goods. However, it is crucial to recognize that these goods will be fleeting, as they can be erased in an instant by the ruling government, dominant parties, or the intricate forces of international plutocratic power.

Gabriel Robledo, Círculo Tradicionalista del Río de la Plata

Translated by the Gremio San Jerónimo