The Conservative Roots of Trumpism

What we call Trumpism is, at its core, a branch of conservatism. Therefore, understanding American conservatism is essential to understanding Trumpism itself. In today’s world, conservatism manifests differently across regions: the United States represents one strand, while European countries such as the United Kingdom and France embody another. The ideological tension between these variants reflects a broader and enduring struggle between conservatism and liberalism. Understanding conservatism, then, is key to understanding contemporary global dynamics.

In The Conservative Mind, American political philosopher Russell Kirk emphasized that conservatism is not an abstract ideology or rigid dogma, but a moral consensus grounded in historical experience, common sense, and tradition. He highlighted the central importance of moral order, private property, religious faith, limited government, and tradition.

Broadly speaking, conservatism values continuity, social order, family, religion, and virtue. It views society as an organic whole rather than a mere aggregation of individuals. Liberalism, by contrast, places greater emphasis on individual rights, liberty, equality, and progress, often advocating government intervention to address social inequalities. Regarding the role of the state, conservatives typically champion limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility, arguing that excessive intervention undermines liberty and social stability. Liberals, conversely, favor a more active state, one that ensures social welfare, regulates the economy, and protects civil rights.

The two traditions also diverge sharply in their attitudes toward change. Conservatives favor gradual, cautious reform rooted in respect for historical continuity, warning that radical change often leads to chaos and unintended consequences. Liberals, by contrast, are more inclined to pursue social justice and progress through assertive reform, and sometimes disruptive activism. It is therefore unsurprising that liberal movements are often associated with mass protests and radical tactics.

American conservatism is far from monolithic; it is a constellation of intellectual traditions and schools of thought. Among its key figures is Edmund Burke, often regarded as the father of modern conservatism. Burke opposed the violent upheaval of the French Revolution, instead advocating for gradual reform grounded in tradition. John Adams, an early American statesman, supported republicanism while remaining wary of the perils of pure democracy. John C. Calhoun, a 19th-century political theorist, emphasized states’ rights and decentralized government as safeguards for minority interests.

Neoconservatism emerged in the mid-20th century as a distinct political movement. It promotes an assertive foreign policy and cultural conservatism at home, diverging from the traditional restraint of thinkers like Kirk. Traditional conservatism stresses national interest, balance of power, and prudence in foreign affairs, especially caution against ideologically driven interventions. Neoconservatism, by contrast, champions a more interventionist approach, asserting that the United States bears a responsibility to promote universal values such as democracy, human rights, and free markets. Neoconservatives advocate preemptive military action when necessary to address perceived threats.

This divide between traditional and neoconservative thought is also evident in their respective views of government. Traditional conservatives defend limited government as a means of preserving tradition, property, and liberty, while opposing radical state expansion. Although neoconservatives profess a belief in limited government, in practice, they are more willing to employ state power to advance both domestic and international agendas.

In this context, Burkean thought represents the foundational core of conservatism. Edmund Burke’s complex and influential ideas are best understood through his critique of the French Revolution and his reflections on society, government, and change.

First, Burke was deeply skeptical of the Enlightenment’s exaltation of abstract reason. He argued that human reason is inherently limited and that society is not a blank slate to be redesigned at will. A healthy society, in his view, is the cumulative product of generations of wisdom embodied in customs, traditions, and even prejudices. These inherited norms, though seemingly “irrational”, represent a collective intelligence far more reliable than any utopian blueprint conceived by a single generation.

Second, Burke distinguished between gradual reform and radical revolution. Traditional American conservatism has generally embraced reform that seeks to preserve continuity rather than destroy existing institutions. Burke supported American independence, for instance, because he believed the colonists were defending inherited liberties grounded in British constitutional tradition. He viewed their cause as a “change for the sake of preservation” that intended to repair and preserve the established order, not to overthrow it entirely.

Third, Burke vehemently opposed the French Revolution, which he saw as an attempt to annihilate religion, aristocracy, law, and custom in favor of abstract ideals such as “human rights”. He predicted that such destruction would lead to anarchy and tyranny, a prophecy fulfilled in the Reign of Terror and the rise of Napoleon.

Fourth, Burke rejected the social contract theory of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his contemporaries. He conceived of society not as a voluntary pact among individuals, but as a living organism. In one of his most famous passages, he described society as “a partnership… not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”. This vision implies a moral duty across generations: we are stewards of a cultural inheritance that must be preserved for our descendants.

Fifth, traditional American conservatism holds that elected representatives are not mere delegates executing the immediate will of their constituents, but trustees entrusted with the nation’s long-term moral and political interests.

Sixth, conservatism insists on balancing liberty with order. Burke argued that true freedom must be anchored in moral restraint, observing that “liberty, too, must be limited in order to be possessed”. Unchecked liberty, he warned, inevitably degenerates into disorder and tyranny.

Burke himself was a figure of rich complexity. An Irishman educated at Trinity College Dublin, a land long resistant to British rule, he spent most of his career in London. His enduring influence on American political thought stems not from nationality or office, but from his writings and philosophy.

Burke was sharply critical of the British toward its North American colonies. He sympathized with the colonists not out of revolutionary zeal, but because he believed Britain had betrayed its own constitutional principles, especially the ancient English maxim of “no taxation without representation”. His stance earned him deep respect among the American Founders, who saw in him a philosophical ally.

His Reflections on the Revolution in France, published in the early stages of the Revolution, offered a penetrating critique of its violence and radicalism. The book profoundly influenced American intellectuals, among them John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, who shared Burke’s apprehensions about unrestrained democracy. Over time, Reflections became a cornerstone of American conservative thought, serving as a defining counterpoint to the revolutionary ideologies of Europe.

So great was Burke’s influence in the United States that he is often called the godfather of American conservative thought. Trumpism will continue to shape American politics, and it will do so in a way that bears the unmistakable imprint of conservatism.

Have you read?
Richest Countries. Most Visited Countries. California’s 50 Richest Suburbs.
The Chief Economists magazine, UGGP News, and the CEO Policy Institute.