As I've suggested, the paramount feature of Traditional Conservatism is its unwavering dependence on the moral absolutes of Christianity for civic direction. Christian norms and values serve as the unchanging, non-negotiable touchstones by which all other elements of public life must ultimately orient themselves. Importantly, they are the ground from which all other elements of the political philosophy grow. Supported by historical and current evidence, the philosophy contends that a society lacking laws rooted in Christianity's moral absolutes inevitably falls into moral relativism and disorder or becomes tyrannical.

As I enumerate each of the other tenets of Traditional Conservatism, I'll touch on how they originate in scripture. I'll also mention that by explicitly linking Traditional Conservatism to Christian doctrines, my presentation of this political philosophy stands apart from most contemporary voices. In fact, my account may strike some readers as more overtly religious than even the works of Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk—Christians both, and the foremost architects of this philosophy. I attribute that difference to historical context. 

Writing in the late 18th and mid-20th centuries, respectively, Burke and Kirk could assume their readers were already steeped in Christian belief and ethics—they took for granted the moral absolutes of the faith. Thus, when Burke affirmed that conservatism is rooted in "one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator,"[i] and Kirk declared that "the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent,"[ii] neither found it necessary to elaborate on who the Creator was or what His moral law entailed. Additionally, Kirk's reluctance to explicitly acknowledge conservatism's debt to Christian doctrine may reflect the cultural climate of his time. In the aftermath of World War II, even among conservatives, there was a growing tendency to downplay overt references to Christianity in public discourse—viewed as a way to promote broader social cohesion in an increasingly pluralistic society. As society careens toward the abyss, we now recognize the folly of that notion. Today's Traditional Conservatism begins by acknowledging its reliance on Christian doctrine.

[i] Edmund Burke, The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, vol. 7 (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1857), 90.

[ii] Russell Kirk, “Ten Conservative Principles,” 3.

As a political philosophy, Traditional Conservatism posits that society's customs and traditions have developed for good reason: their longevity implies usefulness. Therefore, it advises skepticism when faced with the radical removal of norms and values that have stood the test of time. Following this same line of thought, the philosophy holds that traditions and customs provide a nation with stability, continuity, and a sense of identity and belonging. This isn't to say that the philosophy prohibits or avoids change. Change is welcome when it meets the following criteria: it follows prudent deliberation; it's a response to proven necessity, such as the elimination of explicit harm; it works to restore tradition; and, importantly, it doesn't erode established moral absolutes.

This political tenet—continuity of custom—finds its inspiration in Christian doctrine. The Gospels show Jesus repeatedly encouraging his followers to adhere to the established norms and values rooted in divine command. For example, in Matthew 22:37–40, summarizing the core commandments, Jesus says: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Some have misinterpreted scripture to argue that Jesus' mission was to tear down established tradition. This is not so. Jesus himself addressed this issue, saying, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18). When one examines the examples that supposedly suggest that Jesus was intent on tearing down tradition, it's clear that his efforts were not to override but to restore, correcting people's flawed understanding of ancient wisdom and custom so they might follow them better (e.g., Matthew 5:21, 43).

Apart from the words of Jesus found in the Gospels, other books of the New Testament call for the veneration of inherited insight and practice. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the early church leader, the Apostle Paul, celebrates the tradition of the faith as a timeless guide for human life, writing, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Elsewhere, in Romans 1:21-22, Paul warns that turning away from God's established law results in both moral and intellectual decline. Similarly, James 1:25 praises those who persevere in following divine norms and values, highlighting the benefits that arise from adherence: "But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do." By extension, scripture proposes that people find unity in their common adherence to core beliefs and time-honored standards (e.g., Galatians 3:28).

Old Testament scriptures equally underscore the enduring authority of ancient instruction, portraying it as a sacred inheritance to be honored and upheld. For example, veneration of ancient wisdom is vividly expressed in Psalm 119, a lengthy hymn of devotion to God's law. Verse 97 declares, "Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long," while verse 105 states, "Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path."

Similarly, Deuteronomy 4:5-6 reinforces this reverence when the prophet Moses instructs the Israelites: "See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'" In this context, following God's ancient statutes transcends mere legal duty, serving as the foundation for a nation's identity and a shining example to others.

Later, in Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Moses instructs the Israelites, "These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up." This passage underscores the duty to safeguard the spiritual heritage—the commandments and promises given to their forefathers—by passing them intact to the next generation. Psalm 78:4-6 expands this vision, declaring, "We will not hide them from their descendants; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD, his power, and the wonders he has done ... that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children."

As touched on previously, much of Traditional Conservatism is influenced by Englishman Edmund Burke (1729 -1797), who emphasized the importance of "the contract of eternal society."[i] His notion indicates that society is a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born. The traditional conservative principle of cherishing ancient traditions, norms, and values—explained just above—is one aspect of Burke's concept. However, in addition to passing down intangible cultural treasures to provide an ethereal sense of belonging across generations, Burke also envisioned the protection of tangible assets as part of his contract. That is, beyond specific custom, concrete holdings such as land, resources, or institutions that tangibly scaffold the foundations of society must be protected and preserved.

This protection and preservation are not optional but an obligation to one's forebears arising from gratitude for the material benefits they have bequeathed. The current generation, knowing they are enjoying the fruit of trees they neither planted nor brought to full bloom, feels duty-bound to ensure those tangible treasures are not neglected or given to strangers with neither history nor love for them. Instead, they must devotedly tend and even multiply them for the countrymen who follow. From the perspective of the forebearers, they can feel contented knowing that what they sacrificed to achieve will not be lost; their sentiment is: "I'm pleased to leave you this treasure; all I ask is that you take care of it."

While Traditional Conservatism insists that the current generation of countrymen is obligated to protect and preserve the land, resources, and institutions created and enhanced by past generations, it recognizes that this mission is significantly compromised when a population is overwhelmed by newcomers with no connection to the builders of the civilization. Newcomers may feel an obligation to the ancestors of their own birthplace, but they have little emotional connection to the deceased citizens whose work and sacrifices created the new environment they now enjoy. With no historical connection, there is no contemporary obligation.

To address this problem—to ensure that the duty to past generations is fulfilled and the tangible resources created by previous countrymen are not squandered or lost—leaders within the Traditional Conservatism movement are beginning to contemplate an expansive notion of rightful inheritance. While the details are slowly emerging, a society should recognize, as a starting point, that past public contributions must have a bearing on present and future public benefits. A family or group that has, for generations, given their time, talents, and treasure to establishing an outpost of civilization—through clearing land, constructing roads and buildings, creating community organizations, and contributing to public projects through decades of taxation—should have their historical and current involvement honored. Their voice in public matters—especially those related to preserving what they and their ancestors produced over generations—should be given more recognition and sway. Exactly how this should be done is a point of debate. This sentiment reasserts itself in the philosophy's core principle of nationalism, and thus it will be explored more fully there.

What is beyond dispute is that those with deep emotional connections to land, resources, or institutions are more likely to preserve and protect them. One of the most powerful examples of deep emotional connection to the land leading to preservation and protection is found among hunters and anglers—most of whom lean heavily conservative and tend to have a longstanding connection to their native land. In the U.S., hunters and anglers have contributed more financial and physical support to wildlife habitats and management than any other group: "Sixty percent of budget funding for state fish and wildlife agencies, which are tasked with responsible wildlife management, is generated by hunters and anglers... Altogether, hunters pay more than $1.6 billion a year for conservation programs."[ii] Similarly, in Canada, hunters and anglers are the largest financial contributors to wildlife habitat conservation.[iii]

In its emphasis on protecting the land and institutions passed down generationally, Traditional Conservatism parallels the Christian view of wise stewardship over what one is gifted. Scripture consistently frames this duty to preserve our ancestors' legacy and improve it for future generations as both a moral imperative and a covenantal trust. The sentiment is rooted in gratitude for what has been received and hope for what is yet to come.

The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, as recounted in Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:15, serves as an early biblical example of human stewardship over the land, emphasizing both authority and responsibility. In Genesis 1:26-28, God creates humanity in His image and grants them dominion over the earth's creatures and resources, instructing them to "subdue it" and "fill the earth," which implies a role of active management and care rather than mere exploitation. This stewardship is further clarified in Genesis 2:15, where God places Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it," a phrase that combines cultivation (enhancing the land's fruitfulness) with protection (preserving its integrity). The narrative positions Adam and Eve as caretakers of creation, tasked with maintaining and improving the garden under God's guidance—until their disobedience disrupts this harmonious role.

Later in the Old Testament, this theme of inheritance as both a divine right and an obligation appears. In Numbers 27:1-11, Zelophehad, an Israelite man, dies without sons, leaving his five daughters. As women, there was dispute over whether they could inherit their father's land. God, through Moses, affirms their claim, ensuring that the material good accrued by prior generations is preserved for the descendants, rather than lost to those who contributed nothing.

Elsewhere, the Old Testament describes improvement for the future as a duty. Proverbs 13:22 states, "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children," suggesting that righteousness involves not only maintaining what was received but multiplying it for posterity.

The New Testament deepens this principle. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) is commonly understood among Christians as a teaching that urges individuals to actively contribute to and enhance the world beyond what they inherit. The servants in the story are entrusted with their master's goods, expected not just to preserve them faithfully but also to multiply them wisely. The one servant who merely buries the coins he was given—preserving without improving—is condemned, while those who invested and increased their initial sum are praised. Beyond a strictly religious context, the moral lesson is that people have a duty to multiply the resources entrusted to them, improving the world and leaving it better than they found it.

[i] Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. J. C. D. Clark (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001; originally published 1790), 261.

[ii] Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, “Hunting Is Conservation,” December 27, 2019, https://www.rmef.org.

[iii] Canadian Wildlife Federation, The Role of Hunters and Anglers in Conservation (2018), https://wildlifeadvocate.ca.

Traditional Conservatism is at ease with a hierarchical social order where roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and distributed according to natural competencies and records of greater obligation or sacrifice.

Regarding competencies, it admits that some are more suited than others to certain roles, and when character, capacity, and career align, stability, peace, and prosperity follow. To say that some are more suited than others to certain roles is to rebuke the notion that "all men are created equal"—at least as today's progressives would understand it.

Weaving a narrative fit for a fantasy or science fiction novel, progressives today promote the idea that innate differences between people are virtually nonexistent (with the exception that Whites are innately more racist). For them, it's not a lack of skills, talent, or competence that prevents certain people from occupying particular positions; it's systemic bigotry. Because they believe people are fundamentally equal, like identical twins, they conclude that if someone falls behind, the cause must be nefarious and social, not natural or individual.

This near-literal belief that people are innately equal inspires progressives to take dramatic corrective action, specifically calling for the removal of criteria based on merit and competency and the imposition of criteria based on gender, sexual orientation, or skin color. This often involves government interventions—such as affirmative action, diversity quotas, or wealth redistribution—to ensure equality not just in opportunity but also in actual outcomes across gender, racial, and social lines.

Traditional conservatives hold that the principle "all men are created equal" is fundamentally a legal concept—referring to equality before the law and in natural rights—rather than a claim about biological sameness or sociological uniformity. Therefore, enforcing equality of outcome is to do violence to the very principle of equality, undermining liberty and property rights. They hold that differences in talent, effort, and circumstance naturally produce varied outcomes, and that government should safeguard fairness, not force uniformity. It's not the business of the state to make people equal in fact, but to ensure that the laws are equal.

When hierarchies emerge justly based on merit, traditional conservatives maintain that, at the societal level, subordinates in fields such as business, religion, the military, or other institutions should willingly and harmoniously follow those in higher positions—except in cases where a superior commands actions that clearly violate established moral principles. Likewise, within the family, traditional conservatives—particularly those rooted in the Christian faith—affirm the husband as the head of the household and uphold the expectation that children honor and respect their parents.

This call to defer to those in leadership above you does not equate to support for oppression, but rather to honor given for greater obligation, respect for different societal roles, and a desire for optimal functionality. Related to the latter, from a leadership theory perspective, organizations and teams—even families—function best when there's a clearly recognized point of ultimate responsibility, ensuring decisive action and coherent direction. In terms of checks and balances, those who receive the elevated status that comes from greater authority only maintain that status and authority insofar as they willingly accept and fulfill their greater responsibilities. Key among their responsibilities is securing—through their own sacrifice if necessary—the best circumstances for those under their authority.

In all circumstances, Traditional Conservatism consistently honors sacrifice made in service to others, granting greater status and influence—essentially a higher place in the social hierarchy—as a key form of recognition. This approach reflects the Christian ideal that true greatness comes through selfless service, as Jesus taught: "Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant" (Mark 10:43).

At the societal level, the philosophy's acceptance of a ranked, social pyramid of positions reflects the Christian notion of believers forming the "Body of Christ," a hierarchical yet caring communal structure where everyone has a role that aligns with their natural abilities, fostering maximum benefit and mutual respect (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 12:12-27).

At the level of families, the notions of male headship and honoring of parents also have a Christian pedigree. Christian scriptures, such as Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18-19, emphasize that wives are to submit to their husbands as the highest authority in the family, portraying this dynamic as a reflection of Christ's headship over the church. Ephesians instructs wives to submit "as to the Lord," with the husband as "head of the wife," while Colossians reinforces this submission "as is fitting in the Lord," framing it as a divine order. However, this authority isn't absolute or oppressive; it's paired with the husband's obligation to love his wife sacrificially, mirroring Christ's self-giving love for the church, thus balancing headship with mutual care and responsibility. Related to honoring parents, Christians find this commanded in Exodus 20:12 and Ephesians 6:1-3, where obedience and respect are linked to God's design for family and societal stability more generally (a topic I'll return to in the next subsection).

Among the foundational principles of Traditional Conservatism, few provoke greater indignation from non-conservatives—and even from conservatives outside the traditional sphere—than the concept of hierarchy as it applies to a man being head of the household. Indeed, this concept of "male headship" clashes so sharply with modern attitudes that non-conservatives struggle to imagine even a single plausible justification for its legitimacy. While it's beyond the scope of this book to examine in detail the reasons why traditional gender roles promote societal flourishing, the books of George Gilder, in particular Sexual Suicide[i] and Men and Marriage,[ii] provide fact-based arguments in support of that claim. More recently, Louise Perry's work The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century presents its own unique arguments for rejecting contemporary norms and values surrounding sex and relationships.[iii]

[i] George Gilder, Sexual Suicide (New York: Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co., 1973).

[ii] George Gilder, Men and Marriage (Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing Company, 1986).

[iii] Louise Perry, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2022).

Nationalism, a core tenet of Traditional Conservatism, prioritizes the needs and interests of one's countrymen above those beyond the homeland's borders, reflecting a commitment to communal loyalty and sovereignty. Though not a perfect match, some substitute the term fraternity for nationalism when discussing this tenet of the philosophy—perhaps because it makes for better alliteration when grouping it alongside other principles of the philosophy like faith, family, and freedom. Fraternity refers to a sense of brotherhood, solidarity, and mutual support among members of a group or community with shared values. To feel a sense of fraternity, group members need not be direct kin, but because of their character and worldview, they share a bond as "your people." Whether using fraternity or nationalism as the descriptive term, central to this notion are the questions: "Who qualifies as one's 'countryman'?" and "What makes someone 'your people'?"

For Traditional Conservatism, a countryman starts with those holding official citizenship, but the right disposition is as important as proper documentation. The correct disposition involves embracing and defending the home nation's heritage—its language, culture, and historical traditions. In addition to documentation and disposition, the philosophy considers one's historical dwelling when assessing a countryman. It unashamedly proclaims that a multi-generational record of residence—with familial evidence of constructing and contributing to the infrastructure, community, and culture of a place—elevates one's status as a true countryman. As discussed previously, greater sacrifice (in this case, generational outlay to one's nation) also equates to greater honor within Traditional Conservatism.

A family or kin group that has proven its loyalty and commitment to the nation's well-being through decades or even centuries of sustained contributions deserves a stronger voice in shaping its future. Traditional Conservatism argues that the principle of "obligation to ancestors and descendants" demands such recognition, while the principle of "acceptance of social hierarchies"—in which greater contributions merit greater honor—justifies it.

However, building on the earlier discussion in the Obligations to Ancestors and Descendants section, this perspective does not endorse creating preferential laws or allocating additional public benefits to individuals based on their history of deep-rooted contributions to the country. Honoring them means giving their opinions, not their votes, greater weight. How this is to be done is currently a point of discussion among traditional conservatives and has not yet been resolved. What's becoming clear, however, is that the toil and treasure of decades—or centuries—are dishonored when they are casually handed over to those who neither appreciate nor merit them. That is to say, many traditional conservatives today maintain that something must be done to significantly slow current citizenship processes across the West.

A growing consensus holds that the current paths to citizenship in both the U.S. and Canada demand too little of newcomers. Granting insider status with such undue haste and with so little contribution from applicants is a humiliation to those who have given so much for so long. A more rigorous model that honors those who built the foundations we stand on demands an extended process toward citizenship—a decade or two is not unreasonable—during which applicants, and their families if applicable, must demonstrate successful assimilation and true allegiance. This dedication to their new nation is to be demonstrated not only in language and cultural customs but also through steady contributions to the tax base, the strengthening of social cohesion, and the betterment of their communities.

By contrast, those who refuse to adopt the national language or customs, or who prove to be financial burdens, social disruptors, or shirkers of civic duty, would be returned to their country of origin at the first clear evidence of a failure to integrate or provide a consistent net benefit to the nation.

In addition, even those who achieve citizenship after arriving from abroad must be restricted from holding government, military, or bureaucratic positions, and dual citizenship should be prohibited. While their second-generation descendants may participate, the original immigrants themselves cannot. These measures are not intended to judge ability but to ensure that key responsibilities remain in the hands of individuals deeply rooted in the nation's culture, history, and civic traditions. By tying governing or civic authority to long-term investment in the country, traditional conservatives aim to preserve stability and continuity while still allowing fully committed newcomers to earn their place as true countrymen once they meet all integration requirements.

Such requirements are hardly novel or unduly harsh, as they echo the standards imposed upon earlier generations of European immigrants who built the United States and Canada from their founding eras into the mid-twentieth century. With no government subsidies, welfare programs, or institutional safety nets to fall back on, their welcome was tacitly conditional: they were expected to labor, adapt, and contribute in ways that tangibly strengthened the societies they entered. In other words, belonging was never an entitlement but a covenant, sealed by the immigrant's ability to improve the nation that received them.

The greater honor given to a countryman because of his predecessors' longstanding loyalty does not diminish the legitimacy or fundamental rights of those who become citizens through the rigorous new extended process. Provided they meet the measures outlined above, newcomers become true countrymen. While they are not required to abandon the language or benign customs of their ancestral homelands, these must be secondary to the language, customs, and culture of their new nation. This full acceptance of the home nation's identity—combined with the rejection of political loyalties to former countries—transforms them from mere residents within the nation's borders to countrymen who embody the nation's established character. In expecting new citizens born elsewhere to assimilate fully, traditional conservatives express their desire for continuity through unity. What traditional conservatives are not expressing, however, is racism.

Whereas racism seeks to exclude based on immutable traits like skin color, nationalism, as promoted by today's traditional conservatives, ignores race as a divide and seeks to include anyone of goodwill through cultural assimilation. For the traditional conservative today, nationalism's impulse is based in collective allegiance, not biological determinism. A supporter of Traditional Conservatism of European background can easily share authentic fraternity with other countrymen who support the philosophy and hail from different ethnic backgrounds. If they share devotion to traditional Christian faith, the bond is even deeper, as they move from alignment of the head to alignment of the heart.

Currently, an overwhelming number of newcomers have taken up residence in countries of the West, and Traditional Conservatism's definition of nationalism provides a lens for assessing the success of that immigration project. Is there evidence that the masses of newly invited refugees and "citizens" embrace the nation's linguistic, cultural, and historical traditions as their own? Have they rejected political and cultural allegiances to any prior heritage? Are they making steady contributions to the tax base, the strengthening of social cohesion, and the betterment of their communities? Perhaps more importantly, has anyone in authority asserted that they must meet those requirements? A traditional conservative leader would!

Naturally, the most reliable way for a country to ensure that newly arrived citizens fully adopt its linguistic, cultural, and historical traditions—while relinquishing political and cultural ties to previous heritages—is to accept primarily Christian immigrants. Traditional conservatives view this approach as not only reasonable but, given the current societal contexts of America and Canada—where many newcomers explicitly voice hatred for all things Western—essential. This theme will be explored in greater depth in the forthcoming chapter on nationalism.

Unlike some forms of nationalism, the nationalism promoted by Traditional Conservatism rejects racism because it aligns with Christianity. The faith clearly opposes racism, as demonstrated by key scriptural teachings affirming the unity and equal value of all people in Christ. Colossians 3:11 declares that in the new self, "Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all," showing that racial distinctions are irrelevant in the process of sanctification and unity in Christ. Similarly, Galatians 3:28 states, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," emphasizing equality across ethnic lines. Revelation 5:9-10 illustrates that Christ's redemption extends to "every tribe and language and people and nation," uniting diverse groups in worship and purpose. Ephesians 2:15-16 highlights the cross's role in abolishing enmity between groups, creating "one new humanity" through reconciliation. Finally, Deuteronomy 1:17 and Matthew 5:44 call for impartial judgment and love for all, condemning racial malice or pride as sin.

Other aspects of the philosophy's understanding of nationalism are also drawn from the Bible and Christian tradition. The Old Testament first justifies nationalism by portraying nations as divine inventions; for example, Deuteronomy 32:8 reads, "When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples..." From the start, nations were presented as part of God's design to order mankind and allow diverse people groups to co-exist while retaining their unique languages or customs (e.g., Genesis 10:31–32; Genesis 11:1-9; Psalm 86:9; Acts 17:26).

Related to the duty to prioritize one's countrymen over citizens of other nations, that notion begins in the Ten Commandments when God states: "Honor your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12; cf. Ephesians 6:2). Although this edict is primarily tailored to familial bonds, it lays the foundation for a greater sense of loyalty and responsibility toward one's people, encouraging individuals to prioritize the well-being and stability of their own community before extending their concerns outward. Honor for forebears is linked to the sustainability of a nation, with God stating, "so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." Sociological and anthropological research confirms that close-knit relationships based on ancestral connections provide the most solid foundation for social cohesion, reducing conflict and encouraging mutual support.

Moving outward, the obligation to fellow citizens is explicitly commanded in Deuteronomy 15:7-8: "If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites [your countrymen] in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need."

While the New Testament demands benevolence toward strangers (even one's enemies), the overriding obligation to first care for one's own people is reinforced. In Mark 7:9-13, Jesus condemns those who would allocate resources to other matters at the expense of their family. Paul reiterates this principle, emphasizing that assistance to extended family and the larger Christian community takes precedence: the faithful are told to provide first "for their own relatives" (1 Timothy 5:8) and to prioritize good works "to those who are of the household of faith" (Galatians 6:10). From a Christian perspective, working to benefit one's country's citizens—especially the poorest and most vulnerable—is the clearest application of the golden rule: love your neighbor as yourself.

The traditional conservative's ideas surrounding who qualifies as a countryman and the obligations newcomers must meet to be considered legitimate citizens also have a biblical foundation. Scripture teaches that newcomers to an established nation must adopt the country's existing laws and customs to fully belong as citizens. This principle stems from a respect for God-given order, preservation of shared identity, and the need to guard against cultural erosion caused by those who reject or oppose the nation's social norms and values. The story of Ruth illustrates this principle when the eponymous Moabite immigrant vows to fully adopt Israel's traditions and faith, declaring: "Your people shall be my people, and your God my God" (Ruth 1:6).

The legal code of Judaism reinforces this principle. Leviticus 18:26 mandates that immigrants conform to the nation's laws: "But you must keep my decrees and my laws... the native-born and the foreigners residing among you." Similarly, Leviticus 19:33-34 instructs Israel to love sojourners (foreigners) and treat them fairly but also expects them to live as the native population.

In the New Testament, 1 Peter 2:13-14 commands: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors," framing obedience to a host nation's authority as an obligation. Additionally, scriptures such as 2 Corinthians 6:14-15, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common?" and Ephesians 5:11, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness," caution against associating with those who reject God's established principles. This suggests an obligation on longstanding citizens to develop strategies that will ensure newcomers embrace their nation's customs and traditions, which will safeguard the nation's traditional norms and values against erosion.

Like male headship, Traditional Conservatism's push for nationalism—especially a version insisting on one unifying culture—is resisted in a society steeped in the ideals of equity and inclusion. As one of the philosophy's most divisive tenets, nationalism earns a robust defense in two chapters of its own.

Although family may appear later in the list of characteristics, it holds paramount importance in Traditional Conservatism as a central pillar of support and emphasis. While the philosophy regards a Christian ethos as the intangible foundation of a thriving society, it views stable families as the tangible bedrock of social order. Families are the most basic social institution and serve as the primary training ground for positive civic engagement. For instance, children taught to honor their parents within the home learn to respect legitimate authority figures outside of it. Through family chores, they acquire a sense of duty that later translates into diligence in their external work. Daily interactions with parents and siblings foster teamwork, collaboration, and conflict resolution—skills that prepare them to navigate society more effectively. Above all, stable and loving families are essential for passing down customs and values, ensuring the continuity of cultural and moral heritage.

As is clear from the explanation above, Traditional Conservatism's elevation of family intertwines with its commitment to cultural continuity, hierarchical social order, and loyalty to one's countrymen. Given the profound good that flows from thriving families and their broader social impact, Traditional Conservatism actively supports their formation and preservation through political means, such as tax structures that benefit married couples, policies that elevate traditional marriage over other models and parental authority over state control, and governmental systems designed to strengthen rather than replace family life.

Traditional Conservatism's support for family is also grounded in scripture. In earlier discussions, we have already seen several biblical references affirming that family must be a priority (e.g., Exodus 20:12; 1 Timothy 5:8). To these we may add the foundational teaching that marriage and children are central to God's purposes for humanity: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), and together they are commanded to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28).

The primacy of parents in raising children is reinforced throughout scripture. Proverbs 22:6 captures the biblical vision of parents as divinely appointed educators, charged with "training their children in the way they should go." Deuteronomy 6:4–7 expands this responsibility, presenting the family as the primary vehicle for transmitting cultural, moral, and religious norms. God instructs parents: "These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up."

The Apostle Paul echoes these principles in the New Testament, admonishing fathers: "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:1–4). Here, Paul confirms the authority of parents while also emphasizing a balanced approach that fosters both spiritual growth and emotional well-being.

As seen above, Traditional Conservatism is dedicated to maximizing the social standing of the family; conversely, it seeks to minimize the size and role of government. Its call for limited government rests on two convictions: greater power breeds greater corruption, and a more active state produces a less active citizenry. In the former conviction, it mirrors the Christian teaching on humanity's propensity for sin (Romans 3:23); in the latter, the Christian teaching on industriousness and self-reliance (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 3:10–12; Proverbs 6:6–11; Ephesians 4:28).

That said, traditional conservatives hold that certain functions must remain within the sphere of government: the defense of the nation, the protection of individual rights (including the enforcement of contracts and security of property), and the maintenance of the rule of law through courts and law enforcement. Beyond these, responsibilities such as health care, welfare assistance, education, marriage licensing, and other social services are best shifted to families and churches (or other community organizations)—groups that, when freed from heavy taxation and burdensome regulation, can provide these services with equal or greater effectiveness.

In this respect, traditional conservatives share some ground with libertarians or classical liberals. Yet they depart sharply from the libertarian impulse to treat all rules as oppression. Conservatives are willing to assign government a more activist role in curbing depravity and encouraging decency for the common good, measuring both against the time-tested norms and values of Christianity.

The Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans (13:1–7) outlines the proper role of the state, and Traditional Conservatism aligns closely with his vision of legitimate and illegitimate power. Paul instructs believers—as a general rule—to submit to governing authorities, recognizing them as instituted by God to maintain order, punish wrongdoing, and promote the good of society. He also commends individuals to fulfill civic duties such as paying taxes and respecting rulers. Yet even here, the state's role is confined to upholding justice, maintaining order, and protecting citizens—functions that resonate with the limited-government convictions of traditional conservatives. Paul does not extend government's reach to economic redistribution, social engineering, or even education (which in modern contexts has often become the chief vehicle for social engineering).

Moreover, Paul's call to submit to rulers is not absolute. His command assumes that authorities act as "God's servant for your good" (Romans 13:4), fulfilling a divine mandate to promote justice and order. When a government departs from this mandate—commanding actions that violate Christian moral law or forbidding those required by faith, such as worship—the duty to obey shifts to a duty to resist. This principle is expressed in Acts 5:29, where Peter declares, "We must obey God rather than human beings!" affirming divine authority over human authority in cases of conflict (see also Exodus 7:14–18; Esther 5:1–2; Daniel 3:16–18; Daniel 6:10).

Thus, both Paul's instruction and Traditional Conservatism's view of the state rest on the same foundation: government is to be respected and obeyed insofar as it upholds justice and order under God, but it is never to be treated as an absolute power.

I've just stated that Traditional Conservatism will employ the power of the state to curb or incentivize behavior in order to achieve the common good, with the "common good" understood as aligning with the historical Western-Christian worldview. Therefore, it may seem paradoxical to claim that this political philosophy also supports "maximum personal liberty." After all, to say that it's willing to use the state to discourage or encourage some behavior is to say that it's willing to quash the freedoms of those who want to do the opposite. Incidentally, this is the major complaint of libertarians and classical liberals against conservatives, and it leads them to point a finger and scream, "See! They want to take away your freedom! They're authoritarians just like the Progressives!" However, this supposed contradiction can be reconciled by understanding two key aspects of traditional conservative thought. (Later, in Chapter 6, I'll more fully debunk the libertarian-classical liberal "authoritarian" slander.)

First, Traditional Conservatism does not equate liberty with unfettered freedom but sees unfettered freedom as leading to slavery. At the individual level, uncontrolled freedoms lead to addiction, financial instability, criminal acts, relationship damage, social isolation, health issues, and failure to reach one's goals. At the level of society, to the extent that unfettered freedom creates masses of degenerate individuals with anti-social behavior, it creates dependent, dysfunctional, crime-ridden hellholes (think of cities with a long history of radical progressive leadership). Multiply the dysfunction caused by unfettered freedom to the level of a nation, and you create the preconditions for tyrants to rise. A population, desperate for order to be restored, is willing to exchange its rights for an assurance of safety and civility.

Rather than unfettered freedom, Traditional Conservatism advocates for "ordered liberty," where individual freedoms are balanced against the promotion of individual excellence and the need for societal stability. The philosophy defines maximum liberty as the most freedom each citizen can enjoy without undermining the social order, concluding that maximum liberty for the maximum number of people is only sustainable within a framework of laws, customs, and values informed by Christianity. However, as a safeguard against overcontrol and tyranny, the philosophy insists that this regulatory framework cannot be arbitrary or untested but must have a long record of balancing freedom against the maintenance of civil society. It will come as no surprise that traditional conservatives appeal to history to show that the laws, customs, and values formed in the Anglosphere under the influence of Christianity meet these criteria.

Beyond asserting that regulations informed by Christianity are best suited to maintain the balance between liberty and social order, Traditional Conservatism makes a related, yet more dramatic, claim. It posits that a citizenry immersed in the norms and values of Christianity is prone to self-regulation, honesty, cooperation, and responsibility (I'll show this to be so in Chapter 3). This leads to a society where individuals act in ways that naturally support social harmony, reducing the need for state oversight in personal conduct. In short, when sharing a "common moral language" supplied by Christianity, personal freedoms can be maximized because people do good and forgo evil of their own accord, requiring no external intervention.

From the Old Testament account of the Hebrews being led out of bondage in Egypt to liberty in the Promised Land, the Bible provides examples of how a people can and must be free. As with its other tenets, Traditional Conservatism's advocacy for and understanding of maximum liberty are dependent on stories and concepts from scripture.

The philosophy's position that unfettered freedom, or freedom out of balance, harms the individual and society is frequently attested in the Old and New Testaments, and it finds succinct expression in the Apostle Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth. After asserting that he has found true freedom in Christ, he details how that freedom must be used to become the best version of oneself, writing, "I have the right to do anything—but I will not be mastered by anything.... I have the right to do anything—but not everything is constructive" (1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23).

Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 8:9, Paul discusses how one's freedom might impact others, warning, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak." He goes on to emphasize that those who are naturally self-disciplined or morally stronger should, for the common good, create a public environment that helps avoid the downfall of the temperamentally vulnerable (1 Corinthians 8:10-13; see also Romans 14:13–21).

One of the most iconic biblical passages on freedom is found in Jesus' words. In John 8:31-32, he declares, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." On a spiritual level, this freedom delivers individuals from the bondage of sin, fostering a life-changing connection with God. However, on the level of personal character, this teaching echoes the traditional conservative vision of "true" freedom coming from the knowledge of the good, which allows individuals to realize their fullest potential, becoming their "best selves."

While the New Testament clearly defines freedom as liberation from sin or spiritual freedom rather than personal autonomy or self-governance, there are key passages where freedom is plainly extolled as the ability to act, speak, or think without restriction from external forces. In addition to his comments in 1 Corinthians mentioned above, in Galatians 5, Paul declares that Christians are to live freely according to their conscience guided by faith. In Romans 14 he discusses believers' freedom to choose their own course in matters not explicitly forbidden by scripture. His idea reflects Old Testament verses such as Deuteronomy 4:2, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it," which warn against human additions to divine law. The idea—that "Man should not legislate where God has been silent" or "Human laws should not bind where God has left men free"—became a key focus of early Protestant doctrine and continues to heavily influence Traditional Conservatism's approach to state restrictions on liberty.

The philosophy's emphasis on individual liberty and autonomy also finds inspiration and greater clarity in some of the other early doctrines of Protestantism—specifically sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers—which emerged during the Reformation in the 1500s.

Sola scriptura teaches that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority in faith and practice, encouraging everyone to read and understand it independently. This opposed the Catholic view, which discouraged personal access to Scripture, maintaining that ordinary people should rely on clergy for interpretation. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers states that every Christian, not just professional clergy, has direct access to God and is equally capable of serving him in their own sphere of influence. Together, these Protestant ideas helped shape Western values of individual liberty by democratizing religious knowledge, promoting literacy, and reinforcing personal agency.

In particular, by challenging the Catholic Church's exclusive authority, Protestantism encouraged individuals to scrutinize all forms of unchecked power and to expand their personal autonomy. This shift laid the groundwork for Enlightenment ideas about liberty, influencing Western societies to maximize individual freedoms. As Protestant reform spread, the resulting religious diversity and tolerance helped develop principles of pluralism and civil liberties, eventually shaping the legal and political frameworks that protect freedom of thought, speech, and religion.

Like personal freedom, Traditional Conservatism adopts a balanced view of free markets. It generally favors less government intervention, believing that greater personal autonomy leads to economic success. Its default stance, similar to libertarianism, is to let businesses and individuals operate with minimal regulation. However, it recognizes the need for controls to prevent obvious harm or injustice. When such controls are in place, it argues that a laissez-faire economy—a free market—encourages innovation, efficiency, and prosperity. In this system, the qualities, prices, supply, and demand of goods naturally self-regulate through competition.

But the philosophy holds that eroding social cohesion, compromised moral values, or significant threats to the welfare of the community justify additional regulation. Because of their dedication to the common good, their obligations to ancestors, and their patriotic duty to their countrymen, traditional conservatives often support solutions that are less profitable. They may enforce protections that, while costly, improve health or save historic sites. They may place the needs and desires of workers over those of business owners in certain employment disputes. Direct evidence of this is found in traditional conservatives' resentment toward monopolies, job loss through offshoring, wage suppression due to labor oversupply, and job insecurity from restructuring or automation. In their inclination to put fraternity before fortune, they are at odds with libertarians and even other types of conservatives.

At this stage of our exploration, we are starting to see some overlap. Astute readers will recognize that the Christian doctrines we have discussed in relation to other aspects of Traditional Conservatism also inform its stance on free markets. For instance, the stewardship principle (Genesis 1:28), where individuals are seen as caretakers of God's gifts, resonates with the economic activities in free markets by suggesting a duty to use resources in a way that makes them "fruitful and multiply." Rather than repeating these connections, I'll leave it to readers to revisit and link these ideas. Nonetheless, there are a few more Christian principles, not yet discussed, that support the free market perspective within Traditional Conservatism.

While Christians have occasionally chosen to hold property in common and are always called to voluntarily use some of what they own to benefit others, they have also championed the right to private property. They recognize the importance of owning land and goods, as well as the freedom to produce, buy, and sell for personal gain. This position is a necessary precondition for free markets. For free markets to exist, a country needs a system where goods and services are traded. For a single market—or a broader market economy made up of many markets—to function, citizens must have secure property rights. One of the clearest endorsements of property rights in Christianity comes from the Ten Commandments, where "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15) inherently recognizes the right to property ownership. This commandment would be meaningless if there were no concept of personal ownership.

In Matthew 20:1–16, Jesus tells the parable of workers in a vineyard, each receiving wages according to their agreement with the owner. This parable acknowledges that individuals have the right to negotiate terms for their labor and that the vineyard owner has the right to manage his property as he sees fit. Elsewhere in the New Testament, Ephesians 4:28 states, "Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands..." Here, stopping theft is linked to the idea of working to gain personal property, which people are then free to use and share as they choose.

Moving outward to free markets, the Bible provides a moral framework within which market activities should operate. The core Christian principle for all economic endeavors is to work diligently for profits and to be grateful for them; this gratitude should then manifest as social responsibility and voluntary service to the community. For Christians, several biblical passages highlight ethical resource management. Proverbs 14:23 links profit to hard work, stating, "All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty," endorsing industriousness in market economies. Jesus' Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30), mentioned earlier, underscores the rightness of investment and productivity being rewarded and advocates for entrepreneurship. Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat," supports personal responsibility and a productivity-based livelihood.

Of course, the Christian teachings I've referenced do not detail the intricacies and operations of a modern economic system; however, they do align with free market principles of stewardship, the work–reward connection, and personal accountability.