Why Division Among Conservatives Is a Virtue

In recent days, rivers of ink have flowed surrounding the supposed division within the conservative movement in the United States. We have also witnessed similar controversies within the EU, including the differences that arose from the realignment of parties around the ECR and the Patriots. The Left is happy with the divisions on the Right, but not as happy as the Right is with its own divisions.

The postmodern Left turned its back on the world and on reality when it deemed social democracy ineffective and embraced wokeism and identity politics as its only lifeline. Nothing has prevented them, in just over a century, from moving from communism to the reformist democratic consensus, then to the center-left, later to environmentalism, and finally betting everything on a far-left culture war that has ultimately burst like a bubble. The mobility of the Left is not based on a logical evolution from its ideological traditions but rather on the totalitarian roots of socialism, which allow it to manipulate its followers to the tune of doctrines dictated exclusively by the top of the pyramid of power: the party and its affiliated media. The only thing in which the Left has been infallible throughout the centuries is the pragmatic effectiveness of dogmatism.

Conversely, conservatism, as Russell Kirk wrote, “is not a fixed and immutable body of dogma, and conservatives inherit from Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time.” Tradition, as Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation emphasized during his recent visit to Spain, has never consisted of worshipping ashes but rather passing on the flame, to use the words of the old aphorism of uncertain literal authorship, but with a proven proverbial tradition among conservatives. Neither Burke, nor Kirk, nor Scruton, nor Buckley wanted a conservative ideological dogma, perhaps because they all already had a creed, perhaps because they viewed history as a succession, not a chain of strictly compartmentalized sections.

Thus, we should only be alarmed today by the existence of conservative activists disillusioned by division within their own ranks. The Right does not shy away from intellectual debate; it is not ashamed of its ideas, and therefore it is willing to confront them, whether with its own members or with those of others. Since the early Greco-Roman philosophers, we have known that the confrontation of ideas can enrich ultimate wisdom.

A classic example: the tension in economic matters between anti-libertarian conservatism and libertarian conservatism has always existed and will always exist. Some of history’s greatest governments have emerged from this apparent contradiction, which isn’t really one, because the concern for the individual dignity of each human being is shared, as is the idea of ​​national sovereignty, or the importance of respecting traditional values. Since Greece and Rome, these values ​​have shaped the cultural foundation of the West during its most prosperous centuries.

The difference becomes more troubling at the extremes: a traditional conservative can hardly contend with the moral apathy of some ultralibertarians, and the latter rarely manage to reconcile themselves with the tariff policies of national protectionism. The fact is, most conservatives are united by a thread far more important than all of that, a thread more stable than that which binds even the most fanatical and united progressives in the world. Among other reasons, the thread that unites conservatives is constructive, moving between faith, history, tradition, freedom, and prosperity, while the glue that binds the postmodern Left, if it exists at all, is merely a mortar of resentment, hatred, censorship, and identity politics aimed at obtaining the greatest benefits at the lowest cost.

This also explains why, throughout history, the Left has found it much more difficult to create a national idea, a sovereign unity of its citizens, without resorting to totalitarianism. The Soviets, like the Chinese today, cannot choose patriotism because it is an obligatory sentiment, further filtered through a prior love for the single party, an even more obligatory love. The boldest conservative leaders, however, by always appealing to unity and not division, have achieved the strongest bonds of brotherhood among citizens and the noblest love of national sentiment, simply by instructing them in history, tradition, pride in their own cultural achievements, and the importance of unity to play a strong role in the globalized world.

In certain respects, the post-Constitution EU of the social democrats attempted to become a state, a kind of artificial pseudo-homeland, that would have to be accepted by all citizens, and it failed in this attempt because it subtly employed the same totalitarian tactics as the most harmful far-left regimes. These included the maxim that what matters is the community, not the individual; that private property is at the service of the European project; that the state can interfere in the private lives of any European citizen if it does so supposedly for the benefit of the majority; and that the cultural legacy of the past is irrelevant because the newly created sovereign entity—the EU—does not yet have a great past to boast of in a unified way. The EU is just one more example of how the Left, even when it can sometimes win a majority in elections, is incapable of forging solid bonds between citizens without inducing them through fear of exclusion or persecution. This also explains its obsession with regulating everything.

Another reason why the right wing copes better with internal division is that, generally speaking, unlike the left wing, it doesn’t hate its enemies. The Christian foundation of common conservatism originally teaches the equality of all individuals, thanks to their shared filiation with the same God the Father, and the inherent dignity of each person, something that has been demonstrated on many significant occasions in history, such as the origin of human rights or the abolition of slavery during the Conquest of America. In fact, if you want an illustrative image, the left wing is Zohran Mamdani giving the middle finger to a sculpture of Christopher Columbus, and the right wing is Charlie Kirk engaging in friendly, face-to-face debates with those who hold opposing views to his value system.

Finally, the purely partisan or electoral aspect is a separate matter. Of course, with elections approaching, unity is preferable for the Right, but always within a project that doesn’t betray conservative principles and is sufficiently welcoming to the different right-wing perspectives. However, if this isn’t the case, if there is a leadership openly hostile to right-wing ideas, as has been seen so often in the tensions between the PP and VOX in Spain, the true conservative, when faced with an electoral challenge, will always lean towards the moral option rather than the partisan one. This is something that the vast majority of the European People’s Party will hardly ever understand when confronted with groups they have unjustifiably labeled as ‘far-right.’

Ultimately, divisions on the right are a virtue inherent in the conservative’s own moral compass. There’s no problem with that. From Chesterton to William F. Buckley Jr., the only thing that would truly frighten a conservative is agreeing on everything with all their peers. After all, as the founder of National Review himself said when questioned about the importance of being conservative, “Conservatism aims to maintain in working order the loyalties of the community to perceived truths and also to those truths which in their judgment have earned universal recognition.” Within that definition, millions of nuances can coexist.