What ‘Freedom Conservatism’ Is Missing

Last year, in the Claremont Review of Books, the great Charles Kesler published an astute observation on the ways in which the “national conservative” movement departs from the political legacy of the “American conservative” movement initiated in large part by the founders of National Review. As conservatives, we ought not to brush away those instances in which we take a different path from that of our predecessors. Yet it is not only the NatCons — or the “New Right” more broadly — who diverge from movement conservatism. This became obvious when I attended February’s inaugural “freedom conservatism” conference, which Jack Butler has also written about. Amid the FreeCons’ haste to criticize their ideological opponents, they overlook their own departure from the Buckleyite conservatism they purport to represent.

When the FreeCons published their statement of principles in the summer of 2023, I critiqued it (alongside many others) for its lack of an explicit reference to God. Without such a theological grounding, I argued, the FreeCons could not rightfully claim themselves as philosophical heirs of Bill Buckley’s conservatism. Several FreeCons responded by noting that their statement, while not explicit in having a religious outlook, is at least highly compatible with one. Regardless, it is difficult to make conclusive arguments based on an inherently vague statement of principles.

About the Author

Natan Ehrenreich

Natan Ehrenreich, a recent graduate of Yeshiva University, is a writing fellow at National Review.

Featured Tags

Last year, in the Claremont Review of Books, the great Charles Kesler published an astute observation on the ways in which the “national conservative” movement departs from the political legacy of the “American conservative” movement initiated in large part by the founders of National Review. As conservatives, we ought not to brush away those instances in which we take a different path from that of our predecessors. Yet it is not only the NatCons — or the “New Right” more broadly — who diverge from movement conservatism. This became obvious when I attended February’s inaugural “freedom conservatism” conference, which Jack Butler has also written about. Amid the FreeCons’ haste to criticize their ideological opponents, they overlook their own departure from the Buckleyite conservatism they purport to represent.

When the FreeCons published their statement of principles in the summer of 2023, I critiqued it (alongside many others) for its lack of an explicit reference to God. Without such a theological grounding, I argued, the FreeCons could not rightfully claim themselves as philosophical heirs of Bill Buckley’s conservatism. Several FreeCons responded by noting that their statement, while not explicit in having a religious outlook, is at least highly compatible with one. Regardless, it is difficult to make conclusive arguments based on an inherently vague statement of principles.