Conservatism

Conservatism for when you want to reject modernity.

Proponents and subideologies

Note: People marked with an asterisk are their countries' starting leaders.

Subideology	Description	Adherents
Liberal Conservatism	Political labels are a moving target. The terms liberal and conservative, left and right, revolutionary and reactionary, have had the specifics change from the heyday of absolute monarchy and oaths on French tennis courts. What these stand for, in the middle of the twentieth century, must be assessed by what status quo they exist in reference to. This is especially important when describing an ideology bearing the name of two shifting ideals: Liberal Conservatism. The philosophers of the Enlightenment never embodied a unified tendency. There were a number who, while hesitating before certain liberal or republican ambitions, were still broadly in favour of the rise of private capitalism and the concept of individual rights. Burke in England and de Tocqueville in France were representatives of a trend that could be characterized as reformist, in contrast to events such as the French Revolution they decried. When the questions of feudalism were no longer as pertinent, what their heirs were cautioning against or partially adopting changed as well, to new reformers and radicals. Liberal Conservatism, at the present political moment, has come to accommodate the Enlightenment project. The free market, representative government, and the like are settled questions. But at the crossroads of belief in individual rights and traditional values, some have framed their approach as the principle of individual responsibility. While public morality is something worth upholding, wealth redistribution and social engineering are looked upon with a more jaundiced eye. Skeptical of collectivist radicalism that could upend the whole system, or of overbearing government intervention, it has continued to function as the sober second thought of liberal democracy. Where Edmund Burke stood in opposition to the bloodshed unleashed by the first French Revolution, his scions prepare to meet a similar storm.	Skënderbeu IV (Roland Bonaparte) Konstantinos Karamanlis Stelian Popescu Sikander Hayat Khan*
National Conservatism	In the past, the vanguard of the nation was more likely identified with liberalism, extolling the rights of the citizenry over arbitrarily-drawn feudal polities. The risings of 1848 stirred under slabs of vestigial duchies and creaking empires, placing a revolutionary core that was often more bourgeois and urban against loyalists who were often more faithful to the church and throne. But the passage of time changed the political questions of the day, and with the rise of mass politics, the face of the status quo and mainstream conservatism would shift along with them. Did the national interest factor into the machinations of global capital? Would the rise of socialism wash all nations away in a red tide? The world as we know it demands a National Conservatism. The priority of this tendency, put simply, is the preservation of the national identity and interest by what democratic means are available. While that interest will vary from place to place, it tends to manifest as the same recognizable hallmarks of tradition, be it the family, cultural practice, or identity of a people. Of course, conservatism is nothing if not adaptable, and the pressures upon the nation may demand a greater toolkit than once thought appropriate. Where some conservatives emphasize the protection of the traditional social order, the National Conservative strain is more willing to see an active and creative role for the state for higher-minded goals, from simple corporate regulation and industrial subsidy to outright corporatism for the sake of national strength and stability. Just like its liberal cousin, National Conservatism has evolved as a collective response to the travails of the modern age. It is the assertion that, in the face of global crisis — one that ignores lines on maps — a strong hand is required to shelter one's home and people. Even so, to raise certain weapons in anger would inherently risk the same status quo it seeks to preserve, and so the ideology has remained separate from the more authoritarian responses to the faltering world.	Grigoriy Gurkin* Charles D. B. King* Carl Friedrich Goerdeler Andrej Hlinka
Right Wing Populism	Popular revolt is not solely a leftist or rightist phenomenon, nor is it always a call to bring about a new order. The historical record is full of attempts to undo a change that was underway, from rural revolts in the name of the King to militant outcry against new methods of production that disrupted old livelihoods. It would also be a mistake, however, to categorize all of the rightist agitators as atavists, retrograde obscurantists. Sometimes it will come to be that a political movement becomes wrapped around a charismatic figure and the grievances they voice, and that voice may speak in familiar language of old values, national pride, and strong leadership while being committed democrats. Where conservatism arrives in this guise, intent on shaking up a hidebound political establishment, it can be identified as a form of Right Wing Populism. Like its leftier counterpart, this tendency at times begins in a movement external to political structures, before it becomes a party or a faction of an existing one. Similarly, starting outside of the established political theatre can lead to political platforms that are eclectic or syncretic. Like other conservatisms, its economic agenda could skewer a regime of high taxes and restrictions, or seek to wield the regulatory state to preserve old and domestic industries. What defines it as right wing tends to be a greater emphasis on traditional order - and if the common man generally hopes that tomorrow will be not too dissimilar from today, is crypto-socialism from a party elite or economic elitism from the capital really representative of the people? Right Wing Populism can prove surprisingly effective despite all of the obstacles against outsiders. A sense of authenticity, and occasionally shared priorities, can expand the voting base and electoral alliances available to the movement. Likewise, being unafraid of upsetting the political balancing acts of the past can allow a leader to reshape the nation more quickly than expected. By reclaiming the title of tribune, conservatism need no longer be seen as merely the status quo, but a returning of power to the people's hands.	Wild Bill Langer+ Landry Sales Gonçalves (Post unification) Ju Zheng Mykola Mikhnovsky*
Social Conservatism	There are underlying trends and processes that wear away at the world as we know it. Mass literacy brought the ideas of the Enlightenment to the masses. The primacy of the king and church was questioned, even oceans away. A new era of capitalism undid the old guilds that united professions. Industrialization and attendant urbanization broke up old professions and family relations. Erosion, too, is a process. One that demands foundations be shored up before everything is swept out to sea. Even before the advent of liberal governance, there were philosophers concerned about the effects of unmooring society from what had served as its bedrock for ages, at least not without careful consideration. Now, to varying degrees, they claim vindication. If there is a unifying feature of Social Conservatism between states and cultures, it is the desire to uphold and secure traditional social structures — the aforementioned forms of labour, family, and culture. What separates it as an ideology from a more conventional reactionary movement is that it is willing to work within the structure of liberal democratic politics. Inside these boundaries, faith over secularism, and the collective wellbeing over the individual, can be promoted and supported by a state that wields the law to promote public morality. A conservative government's economic programme can differ between parties, however. Some will propose increased spending, subsidy, and protectionism to reduce the world's disruptions to families and local industries, while others favour austerity to discourage indolence and deviance where they can. Despite the disagreements on how to get there, the comforting embrace of how things once were holds ample appeal around the world. While it need not destroy the Enlightenment's heritage of individual rights and representative government, the Social Conservative promise is of community grounded in the things that are known to bring the people together. Where the promises of modernity have run up against their consequences, and the disaffected are seduced by bloody-minded radicalism, it may be time to seize what we still have and carry it close to our hearts.	Franz Ferdinand* Austen Chamberlain* Phraya Songsuradet Dan Moody