Are Donald Trump and his supporters (hereafter: Trumpkins) conservative?

Roger Kimball, a man I greatly respect for his fervent defense of traditional aesthetic values, certainly doesn’t think so, however, there is a case to be made that the Trumpkins, who describe themselves as conservative, are correct in that description.

There are three main ways that conservatism has been defined: (1) a defense of the European feudal order that is historically irrelevant today, which is the position held by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; (2) an autonomous system of values; or (3) the a situationally defined ideology that is asserted against another ideological movement that seeks to undermine the established institutional order.

Modern American conservatives have never accepted the first definition and it is mainly used as a rhetorical tool by proponents of ideologies that are opposed by those claiming to be conservative; it is a class-based definition which appeals to those whose worldview interprets political reality in terms of class. The second definition is what a conservative like Roger Kimball would assert. It is  a certain Whiggish set of values held in common with Edmund Burke, the founder of conservatism. The final definition though is probably most relevant to the Trumpkins.

Samuel Huntington (1957) asserted that conservatism is in fact number 3. He extracts a core set of principles from Burke’s writings that defines conservatism:

1. Man is basically a religious animal, and religion is the foundation of civil society. A divine sanction infuses the legitimate, existing, social order.
2. Society is the natural, organic product of slow historical growth. Existing institutions embody the wisdom of previous generations. Right is a function of time.
3. Man is a creature of instinct and emotion as well as reason. Prudence, prejudice, experience, and habit are better guides than reason, logic, abstractions, and metaphysics. Truth exists not in universal propositions but in concrete experiences.
4. The community is superior to the individual. The rights of men derive from their duties. Evil is rooted in human nature, not in any particular social institutions.
5. Except in an ultimate moral sense, men are unequal. Social organization is complex and always includes a variety of classes, orders, and groups. Differentiation, hierarchy, and leadership are the inevitable characteristics of any civil society.
6. A presumption exists “in favour of any settled scheme of government against any untried project…” Man’s hopes are high, but his vision is short. Efforts to remedy existing evils usually result in even greater ones.

In short, conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop” (to use William F. Buckley’s phrase).  As the society slowly changes over time (see #2), however, a new institutional norm develops to be defended when threated by radical change.

The Trumpkins consider themselves conservative in that third sense. That they want to conserve the existing Great Society programs, which were deeply un-conservative when created, does not make them un-conservative. Those institutions have become part of the accepted social fabric of society and worth preserving. Trumpkins are deeply distrustful of technocratic government, whether Republican or Democrat.

When it comes to issues, the best way to understand the Trumpkins is using Walter Russell Mead’s four main traditions in Special Providence: Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, and Wilsonian. The Trumpkins are asserting Jeffersonian (agrarian populism and non-interventionism) and Jacksonian (communitarian, yet egalitarian, and honor-bound) principles against Hamiltonian (pro-business and free trade) and Wilsonian (technocratic and interventionist) principles.

Typical Republican Party themes fail to resonate with the Trumpkins, since they, as a group, have become threatened by them. Flattening the income tax structure fails to resonate because it is insufficiently egalitarian. The claimed benefits of free trade and mass immigration fail to resonate because they suppress wages and the covenantal nature of the republic is threatened by foreign influence. Foreign wars of choice divert resources better spent at home, unless the United States is directly attacked, which challenges the Trumpkins’ honor. Trump is giving voice to a class of conservative that has been one of the three legs propping up the Republican Party and may be poised to either capture the party or split it irrevocably.

Anti-communism was the glue that held the Republican Party together in the twentieth century. That glue disappeared in October 1989.  Will the Republican Party go the way of its predecessor the Whig Party and fracture over irreconcilable differences?  Back then, it was slavery.  Will free trade and immigration be the proximate cause of a new fracture?