CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 1
Conservatism, Liberalism, and Nationalism
Abdul Majeed
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
Author Note
Abdul Majeed
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Email: amajeed@liberty.edu
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 2
Abstract
The world as we see it today is filled with multitudes of ideas and ideologies. Gone are the days
when everyone looked up to the United States for guidance on an accepted ideology. The issue is
that, even the United States has no idea which way it should head when it comes to choosing an
ideology that best suits all its people. Liberals and conservatives see the other as the enemy and
not as a fellow statesman or patriot seeking to reach the same destination of maximizing liberty
for all. Is there any ideology out there without confusion or contradiction? The wait for an
answer is not worth it, the reality is that there is none. But can we bring together the positives in
liberalism, conservatism, and integrate the teachings and values of Christianity to eliminate the
hatred, racism, and polarization of our nation to help breed patriots that will stand up and hold
the nations leaders accountable when it has wronged the citizenry? Afterall, the destination is to
protect the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 3
Conservatism, Liberalism, and Nationalism
Humanity has over time sought to evolve in diverse ways and through such evolutions
has attempted to not only explain our existence but also change it. Arguably, the answer to the
ever-existing question of the origins of political ideologies lies within this theme. The definition
of an ideology is hard to come by but, according to Baradat & Phillips (2016), “political
ideologies are usually simply stated and oriented toward masses of people, they are materialistic,
activist, and often impatient with delay” (p. 1). Ideologies present people with the hope that they
could improve their conditions by taking positive actions to improve their state rather than
accepting life just the way it is. This hope according to Baradat & Phillips (2016), was
“accompanied by the great economic and social upheaval caused by the mechanization of
production” seen in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution (p. 1). Notwithstanding the
positive effects of ideologies in developing immature societies, the opposite effect is seen in
industrialized democratic societies where they only show a decorative role (Vincent 2009, p.
10).
Many scholars believed that the concept of “ideology” had come to an end with the
collapse of the Soviet Empire in the late 20th century. They believed this marked a new era in
human history, and that “ideology had ended with the final triumph of liberal capitalism” (Steger
2009, p. 1). Many leaders of the world including President Bush argued that the rise of Islamic
extremism represented the “decisive ideological struggle of our time” (Bush 2007). Many
individuals including politicians have a strong attachment to one of the many ideologies in the
world today. It is therefore difficult to come across someone that openly bashes all of them as
bad to our societal development.
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 4
Liberalism
The correlation between liberalism and capitalism is highlighted by the human autonomy
as seeing the individual as the focal point of progress in both theories. Capitalism is supported by
the state in equally “protecting the right of individuals to make these decisions and sets only
broad procedural rules governing their transactions” (Koyzis 2019, 43). Equality is viewed as
one of the underlining values of liberalism. Thomas Sowell believes that societies have and can
be destroyed in the quest for equality, something he attest to be just a mirage. According to him,
the “processes designed to create greater equality cannot be judged by that goal but must be
examined in terms of the processes created in pursuit of that goal” (Sowell 1999, 51). The desire
of having a “universal set of political ideas” governing the world was crashed by the terrorist
attacks of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 (Steger 2009, p. 1).
According to Koyzis (2019), “liberalism stands and falls on its foundational belief in the
sovereignty of the individual” (p. 28). Vincent (2009) explains that, Liberalism is the most
“complex and intricate of ideologies” mainly because it is ingrained deeply into the “cultural life
of the West that it is difficult to disentangle the partisan from the more objective commentary”
(p. 23). The founding principles of liberalism are centered around individualism, tolerance, and
progress; however, these beliefs have tweaked over time. These beliefs naturally trigger other
subsidiary beliefs which essentially contradicts itself and hence may eventually lead some of the
followers of this ideology to abandon it for other satisfying narratives (Koyzis 2019, p. 28). The
constant contradiction of liberal views and ideologies is explained further by Vincent as he
suggests that the motivating factor behind the ideas about rights, liberties, limited government,
and tolerance originate from illiberal sources. Vincent believes that liberalism in its early days
represented the fight of “intolerant minorities ruthlessly maintaining their independence in
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 5
hostile environments and searching for arguments to justify their independence” (Vincent 2009,
p. 27).
The achievements of liberal ideologies cannot be ignored especially across Western
Europe during the Cold War. The social progress liberalist movements elevated liberalism as the
leading western ideology which directly and openly opposed the oppression in the Communist
East (Owen 2018, 3). The success of liberalism led many scholars including Francis Fukuyama
to accept the supremacy of liberal values. As explained by Francis Fukuyama (1989), the end of
the Cold War was “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of
Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government” (p. 4).
Despite the differences in the various sections in the liberalist ideology, they share
common ground in their desire to effect social and political change. As Koyzis puts it, the proper
rise of liberalism can be seen in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the “intellectual
milieu of the scientific revolution and of Rene’s Descartes’ attempt to construct a unified science
on mathematical models”. Furthermore, he describes liberalism as it “reduces society to its
component parts and attempt to reconstruct it on a more rational basis” and accepting the fact
that “a human community is deemed intangible; we cannot touch it or otherwise perceive it
through our senses” (Koyzis 2019, 35). To understand the way the society works requires the
examination of the individuals that make it up. Despite that, “the community claims are
subsidiary to the rights of the individual, who claims to be able to remake the world and society
at large in her own image” (Koyzis 2019, 36).
Also, the peak of their existence can be distinctly separated in the nineteenth century,
classical liberalism was more prevalent in the early nineteenth century whilst the more
modernized view gathered steam in the latter parts of the same century (Creed 2008, p. 6).
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 6
Contrary to what many believe, liberals do not view self-interest as primary in their quest in as
much as they believe it to be a strong motivation factor in human affairs. They rather believe
that, how “people view their own interests will ultimately depend on their beliefs about human
nature, social interaction, the proper roles of coercion and persuasion, and a host of other abstract
issues” (Smith 2013, pp. 1-2). Furthermore, David Hume asserts that, “though men be much
governed by interest; yet even interest itself, and all human affairs, are entirely governed by
opinion” (Hume 1907, p. 125). In addition, most liberalists believed that the interests of everyone
in a society can only be satisfied if that society allows a “maximum amount of individual
freedom” and this belief according to Smith led them to stress the importance of education to
teach their people the value of freedom. Also, he asserts that, the value of individual freedom
was one of the points of agreement amongst liberals which he believes to be the defining
characteristic of classical liberalism (Smith 2013, p. 2).
Classical liberals viewed society as a collection of individuals and pushed for a limited
government. This limited role of the state was associated with the “concept of negative freedom
and rights, or noninterference with the individual” which departs from the “individualistic
conception of society, new liberals saw the society as “an organic whole with individuals as
distinct parts working together” (Creed 2008, p. 5). It is important to note that, modern liberalism
increased the role of the state and placed it on a “pedestal to solve all our problems” (Fischer
2021). As explained by Creed (2008), the expanded role of the state brought to bear the inclusion
of positive freedom and rights which implied that, to have a meaningful existence, the state
needed to provide certain pre-determined goods to the individual (Creed 2008, p. 5). In addition,
Michael Freeden asserts that, “new liberals…. interpreted the assumption of communal
responsibility for defined areas of human activity as itself conducive to the development and
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 7
perfection of individuals (Freeden 1986, p. 108). In this sense, the focus on the individual was a
steppingstone to promote interdependence hence “we cannot divorce our own good from the
good of others” (Vincent 2009, 36). Alternatively, according to Koyzis (2019), “the fact that
liberalism historically includes both a belief in the sovereignty of the individual and a belief in
the limited state means that in various manifestations it must try to hold onto both but will
probably gravitate toward one or the other at different times” (Koyzis 2019, 29). Fisher
highlights the confusion the liberalist view poses in its several variations over time. In one sense,
thus from the more traditional classical perspective, caring for the poor is the duty of the church,
neighbors, and other aspects of society whilst that same responsibility is designated to the state
under the modern view (Fischer 2021). This causes internal friction amongst the believers of the
same ideology.
Unsurprisingly, it is not that difficult to distinguish the existence of both varieties of
liberalism. Classical liberalism dominated in the early part of the nineteenth century whilst the
modern took hold of the latter parts of the century. Also, the effect of liberalism cannot be
ignored across Europe, but its effect is equally as strong here in North America. Interestingly, as
Koyzis puts it, liberalism has taking the political culture globally especially in the English-
speaking nations to the point that, “virtually all of us can be said to be liberals in some sense,
even if we explicitly repudiate the label” (Koyzis 2019, 30). George Grant (1969) compares
Canada to the United States in the sense of the underlining liberal ethos both nations share. But
he asserts that, Canada, unlike the United States still held unto some of its traditions of respect
and support for the commonwealth. The labelling of ideologies is confusing in political discourse
especially here in the United States where for example “liberal and conservative are nowadays
seen to be polar opposites; to wear the one label means that you cannot wear the other” (Koyzis
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 8
2019, 30). But George Grant attests that liberalism has been pivotal in American political culture
to the point that even steadfast conservatives are “old fashioned liberals” (Grant 1969, 64).
Similarly, according to Hartz (1955), the two critical factors that helped shape politics here in the
United States are, “the absence of feudalism and the presence of the liberal idea”. He continues
that, in the attempt to escape from the old European system of government, the United States
found its way to liberalism. In terms of European history, “the abstraction of the feudal force
implies the natural development of liberalism so that for all practical purposes we are dealing
with a single factor” (Hartz 1955, pp. 20-21).
John Owen in Transnational Liberalism and U.S Primacy attempts to explain U.S
relations with other nations based on their liberal views. He argues that the “degree to which a
state counterbalances U.S. power is a function of how politically liberal that state is, measured by
the degree to which its internal institutions and practices are liberal and the degree to which
liberals influence foreign policy” (Owen 2002, p. 120). The lack of a coalition to counterbalance
the U.S power is attributed to the fact that, most potential challengers to the power of the United
States has also been penetrated by political liberalism. It goes without mention, how liberal a
state is affects how it interacts with other liberal nations including U.S power and policies and
vice versa how it is treated by the United States. According to Owen (2002), “the U.S.-Russian
relationship is the least settled, in part because the Russian domestic regime is itself unsettled.
Should Russia end up with an antiliberal regime, it will likely counterbalance the United States
more consistently” (p. 121). Ultimately, if the United States seeks to preserve its primacy, the
“country must walk a difficult line, simultaneously preserving not only its power but
transnational liberalism where it can, and yet guarding against actions that appear imperialistic to
foreign elites” (Owen 2002, 121).
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 9
The liberal dominance of the United States in the global spectrum faces significant
challenges from other ideologies including those from China. Many scholars including Xuetong
Yan (2018) believe that as China continues to narrow the gap between themselves and the United
States economically, China’s rise “will simultaneously reshape the international configuration
from US-dominated unipolarity to China–US led bipolarity” (Yan 2018, p. 1). Yan (2018)
believes that, China will need to incorporate traditional Chinese values with some liberalist
values such as benevolence, righteousness, equality, democracy, and freedom. This combination
can help China take over the international order and can produce a “set of modern values of
human authority, such as fairness, justice, and civility” (Yan 2018, 1).
Conservatism
The political rhetoric today views conservatism as the opposite of liberalism something
which is false. To conserve something is to “keep intact”, to preserve or to maintain” thus
conservatism deals with leaving things the way they are. Based on this shallow definition alone,
conservatism cannot be the opposite of liberalism. Koyzis explains that, a “conservative has a
heightened sense that with change of any sorts comes inevitable loss, often the loss of something
good that cannot be replaced” (Koyzis 2019, 64). On the other hand, Huntington (1957) views
conservatism as an autonomous system of ideas which are generally valid. It supports universal
values such as “justice, order, balance, moderation”. He states that, “whether or not a particular
individual holds these values high depends not on his social affiliations but upon his personal
capacity to see their inherent truth and desirability” (Huntington 1957, 455). Possibly, the
discussion regarding the oppositeness of conservatism and liberalism could be because liberals
are always looking to change what they deem to impede the progress of the individual.
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 10
Huntington explains the conservative ideology as “the product of intense ideological and social
conflict” which only arises when there is a challenge to the established institutions which attacks
the “fundamentals of the ideational theory” of which the institutions were created. Interestingly,
he continues that, if the opposition to the established institution does not attack the basic values
of the current philosophy, “the controversy between those for and against institutional change is
carried on with reference to the commonly accepted ideational philosophy” (Huntington 1957,
458).
In the United States, conservative elites on many levels have challenged several forms of
federal activism including liberal policies that have become lodged in not only our government
but also in other institutions such as the media and our educational systems (Pierson & Skocpol
2007, p. 4). But according to Brinkley (1994), “the existence of a conservative tradition is not,
perhaps, incompatible with the organizational view that the driving force in the modern world is
the emergence of large-scale bureaucratic institutions” (p. 413). On the other hand, Pierson &
Skocpol (2007), explain that irrespective of the barriers in their path, “conservatives have been
able to trim and shift taxes and federal regulations, preclude major new social policy initiatives,
and limit increases in direct, highly visible social expenditure for working-age Americans”
(Pierson & Skocpol 2007, p. 4). The conservative point of view seeks above all for government
and regards “no citizen as possessed of a natural right that transcends his obligation to be ruled”
as compared to democracy which correlates “neither to the natural nor to the supernatural
yearnings of the normal citizen - can be discarded without detriment to the civil well-being as the
conservative conceives it” (Scruton 1980, 16). Contemporary American politics highlights the
ongoing collision, shown through the “new forms of participation, between the rise of the activist
state and the emergence of an invigorated conservatism” (Pierson & Skocpol 2007, p. 5). It is
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 11
important to note that, the rise in conservatism has not successfully destroyed big activist
governments. They obviously have slowed down the takeover of big governments. Pierson &
Skocpol assert that, conservatives have proven to be more “adept than liberals at using the new
institutional and organizational levers available to politically active groups” (p. 5).
Just as liberals, conservatives lack cohesion on some of their views such as the “role of
the government, the nature of the community, or the status of the individual”. As Koyzis puts it,
the lack of cohesiveness on these matters is not what makes them conservatives, but it is their
“common attitude toward tradition and change in the context of the developing human
community”. In addition, conservatives have a “heightened awareness of the fragility of human
undertakings and the tendency of human beings to fall into evil and chaotic behavior” (Koyzis
2019, 68). The lack of trust in the human behavior is what has made conservatives skeptical of
change. Dr. Fischer explains that supporters of conservatism need to be careful not to place
tradition and culture above God (Fischer 2021). In addition, the division in the conservative
camp was highlighted by Julian Zelizer by referencing the key political battles in 1982 and 1983
where social conservatives rebelled against the Reagan administration for not appointing
movement conservatives into his administration. Also, in 1986 and 87, conservatives were very
vocal against Reagan administration for agreeing to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces
(INF) arms treaty with the Soviet Union (Zelizer 2010, 373). These are some examples that the
conservative movement that many associate with the Republic party has not always supported
every decision the party may have made.
Interestingly, Zelizer asserts that policy change for conservatives becomes a difficult
phenomenon when they are forced to switch from opposition to office holders dealing with the
challenges of governance. He continues that, conservatives found it difficult to push their
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 12
demands for limited government when they are the ones in charge of the government and a good
portion of their supporters are calling for more government. According to Zelizer (2010), the
election of Republicans in government “turned out to be different than the wholesale triumph of
conservative politics and ideas”, conservatives in government positions had to “contend with the
durability of public policy” and many argued that established institutions are “sticky and as a
result difficult to dismantle” (Zelizer 2010, 375). The takeover of conservatives in government
was seen after “the New Deal, the Great Society, and after the expansion of social regulation
during the 1970’s which included federal intervention on the environment, consumer protection,
workplace safety, and transportation” (Vogel 1981, pp. 155-185).
Nationalism
The love for one’s nation has been interchangeable across the world with how patriotic
one is. As explained by Minxin Pei, there is a distinction but no real difference between
patriotism and nationalism. Many political scientists equate “patriotism with allegiance to one's
country and defining nationalism as sentiments of ethno-national superiority” (Pei 2003, 32).
Furthermore, Zelinsky (2017), views nationalism as an “intense devotion to the nation, the real
or supposed community of individuals who are convinced they share a common set of traditions,
beliefs and cultural characteristics so precise that no sacrifice is too great for its preservation or
advancement” (p. 6). David Koyzis explains nationalism by comparing it to liberalism and
conservatism. His focus was on the value of the community to all three ideologies; as liberalism
focuses on individualism, conservatism he believes generally “values community as a source of
social stability” but, the political protection offered by conservatism is by virtue of “liberal
underpinnings” which confirms the less value for the community. On the other hand, nationalism
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 13
“recognizes that people seek their identities in communities, which make claims on their
loyalties and demand varying degrees of personal sacrifice for their collective well-being”
(Koyzis 2019, 90). Nationalism according to Anatol Lieven (2012) is a new phenomenon when
describing American political culture. Patriotism or in some sense super patriotism are the terms
most Americans would use to explain their attachment to their nation (Anatol 2012, p. 3). Critics
of American superiority has referred to the nation’s status as American imperialism. But as
explained by Anatol, the United States does not “harbor important forces that can be called
imperialist in their outlook and aims”. However, in terms of number, these people are very few,
but their influence carries a lot more weight and can be found in overlapping sections of the
intelligentsia, and the foreign policy and security establishments, with a particular concentration
among the so-called neoconservatives (Anatol 2012, p. 3). Jonathan Monten explains that
“neoconservatism are usually descriptive, often alarmist, and occasionally conspiratorial” but he
explains further that neoconservatism is imbedded with nationalist ideologies that are rooted in
“liberal exceptionalism, and specifically emerging from a late nineteenth-century Progressive
and Social Gospel understanding of political progress and the capacity of American power to
effect democratic change in the international system” (Monten 2005, p. 116).
The beginning of American nationalism is triggered by the “point at which the colonists
stopped considering themselves Englishmen and began more often to think of themselves as
Americans was of signal importance in the rise of American nationalism” (Merritt 1965, p. 319).
Polling institutions have routinely found among western democracies that, Americans have the
highest degree of national pride. The University of Chicago reported data from a survey with the
statement “I would rather be a citizen of America than of any other country in the world”. The
results showed that 90 percent of Americas voted in favor prior to the September 11 attacks and
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 14
97 percent after the attacks. Similarly, 38 percent of Americans prior to the 9/11 attacks
supported the view that “the world would be a better place if people from other countries were
more like the Americans” and that number rose to 49 percent after the attacks (Pei 2003, p. 32).
In times of war or major catastrophes, the level of nationalism tends to rise because people’s
allegiance is heightened. The love for one’s nation should not be viewed as a bad thing. Dr.
Fischer explains that a true patriot is one that critiques its nation and points out its mistakes to
ensure that the nation is held accountable. According to Fischer, “a patriot doesn’t worship their
country” (Fischer 2021).
Biblical principles of statesmanship and government
All the three ideologies discussed in this paper proclaim their desire to ensure the
betterment of the individual, community, and the nation. But the underlying confusion is all of
them create an idolatrous and sometimes dehumanizing culture. From a Biblical perspective, the
search for a political ideology must be one that addresses the negative themes that the current
political ideologies possess and establishing a political society guided by the principles of
Christianity. As Dr. Fischer puts it, a just government is achieved by the willful concessions of
power and accountability. A main benefit of a covenantal relationship is that it “achieves a means
of security for a society and yet still allows a relative level of freedom and diversity (Fischer
1998, p. 37). Christianity according to Koyzis presented itself in ensuring social stability
something the good conservative supports (Koyzis 2019, 82).
It can not be argued that all the ideologies discussed follow some teachings and values of
our Lord Jesus Christ. In as much as conservatives claim Christianity than most, even liberalism
is indebted to Christianity. As explained by Robert Song, some versions of liberalism are
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 15
“automatically entailed by any reasonable version” of Christianity and that the “case for
engaging in a theological interpretation and analysis of liberalism as a necessary negative
element in the ultimately constructive project of a general social theology, is overwhelmingly
evident” (Song 2006, p. 2). Similarly, the distinction between Christianity and nationalism is
drawn by Koyzis that, while “Christianity aspires to draw people together on the basis of charity
and humility, nationalism drives them apart on the basis of pride and tribal selfishness” (Koyzis
2019, p. 98). The American system of government is one that seeks to honor liberty mainly
because our founding fathers through their respect of the sovereignty and authority of God built a
system that ensured the separation of church and state thus limiting tyranny and maximizing
liberty (Fischer 1998, p. 66). In our fight to ensure that our inalienable rights are protected
through the various political ideologies and the freedom they seem to provide us, we must
remain vigilant and ensure that our north star regardless of which path we take remains
embedded in the teachings of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 16
References
Anatol Lieven. (2012). America right or wrong: An anatomy of american nationalism. Oxford
University Press, USA.
Ansell, A. (2019). Unraveling the right: The new conservatism in american thought and politics.
Routledge.
Baradat, L. P., & Phillips, J. A. (2016). Political ideologies: Their origins and impact. Routledge.
Brinkley, A. (1994). The problem of american conservatism. The American Historical
Review, 99(2), 409-429.
Bush, G. W. (2007). Transcript of president bush’s address to nation on US policy in iraq. New
York Times, 11
Creed, K. (2008). Classical liberal stunt men: Lord acton, herbert spencer, and the development
of liberalism in nineteenth century britain.
Fischer, K. J. (1998). Biblical principles of history & government.
Freeden, M. (1986). Liberalism divided: A study in british political thought 1914-1939. OUP
Oxford.
Grant, G. P. (1969). Lament for a nation: The defeat of canadian nationalism. McClelland and
Stewart.
Hartz, L. (1955). The liberal tradition in america: An interpretation of american political
thought since the revolution. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Hume, D. (1907). Essay’s moral, political, and literary. Longmans, Green, and Company.
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 17
Huntington, S. P. (1957). Conservatism as an ideology. The American Political Science
Review, 51(2), 454-473.
Koyzis, D. T. (2019). Political visions & illusions: A survey & christian critique of
contemporary ideologies. InterVarsity Press.
Merritt, R. L. (1965). The emergence of american nationalism: A quantitative
approach. American Quarterly, 17(2), 319-335.
Monten, J. (2005). The roots of the bush doctrine: Power, nationalism, and democracy promotion
in US strategy. International Security, 29(4), 112-156.
Owen IV, J. M. (2002). Transnational liberalism and US primacy. International Security, 26(3),
117-152.
Pei, M. (2003). The paradoxes of american nationalism. Foreign Policy, , 31-37.
Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (2007). The transformation of american politics: Activist government
and the rise of conservatism. Princeton University Press.
Scruton, R. (1980). The meaning of conservatism. Springer.
Smith, G. H. (2013). The system of liberty: Themes in the history of classical liberalism.
Cambridge University Press.
Song, R. (2006). Christianity and liberal society. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Sowell, T. (2001). The quest for cosmic justice. Simon and Schuster.
Steger, M. (2009). Political ideologies and social imaginaries in the global age. Global Justice:
Theory Practice Rhetoric, 2
CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, AND NATIONALISM 18
Vogel, D. (1981). The'new'social regulation in historical and comparative
perspective. Regulation in Perspective, 1
Yan, X. (2018). Chinese values vs. liberalism: What ideology will shape the international
normative order? The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11(1), 1-22.
Zelinsky, W. (2017). Nation into state: The shifting symbolic foundations of american
nationalism. UNC Press Books.
Zelizer, J. E. (2010). Rethinking the history of american conservatism. Reviews in American
History, 38(2), 367-392.
