Executive Summary
Conservatism, as both an intellectual tradition and political movement, resists neat categorization. The right-of-center in the United States and globally encompasses a wide variety of ideological families, strategic approaches, and sociocultural identities. These range from those motivated primarily by economic liberalism and small-government ideals to those driven by ethno-nationalist identity, religious tradition, monarchist nostalgia, or ecological stewardship.
This white paper provides a comprehensive typology of the major categories of conservatives, highlighting both U.S.-specific currents and global conservative traditions, noting areas of overlap, tension, and adaptation. While many of these factions share broad skepticism of rapid social change, they diverge sharply on the proper role of the state, the basis of legitimacy, and the balance between liberty and order.
1. Framework for Classification
The typology below uses three axes to understand conservative diversity:
Core Justification for Conservatism — What is being preserved? (Tradition, markets, nation, faith, environment, hierarchy, etc.) Attitude Toward Change — Willingness to reform vs. preference for preservation vs. desire for restoration. Organizing Principle — Whether conservatism is primarily cultural, economic, religious, nationalistic, or institutional.
2. U.S. Conservative Typology
2.1 Traditionalist Conservatives
Core Focus: Preservation of long-standing cultural and moral norms, often tied to Western or Christian heritage. Key Characteristics: Skeptical of both radical change and libertarian individualism; see culture as the foundation of political order. Examples: Russell Kirk’s intellectual descendants, certain Catholic integralists, small-town moral traditionalists. Tensions: Often at odds with libertarians on social issues and with populists on rhetorical style.
2.2 Religious Conservatives
Core Focus: Alignment of laws and society with religious values. Key Characteristics: Draw from evangelical Protestantism, Catholic social teaching, Orthodox Judaism, or other faith traditions; prioritize life, marriage, and family issues. Examples: U.S. evangelical political coalitions, Christian Right activists, Orthodox Jewish political blocs. Tensions: May clash with economic libertarians when free-market policies conflict with moral or community protection.
2.3 Libertarian Conservatives
Core Focus: Individual liberty, limited government, free markets. Key Characteristics: Skeptical of government in both economic and personal spheres; strong defense of property rights. Examples: Cato Institute affiliates, Ron Paul movement, Silicon Valley “classical liberals.” Tensions: Disagree with moral conservatives on drug laws, marriage policy, and surveillance.
2.4 National Conservatives
Core Focus: Sovereignty, border control, and prioritization of national interests over global integration. Key Characteristics: Emphasize immigration restriction, national industry protection, and cultural cohesion. Examples: “America First” advocates, some Brexit supporters, anti-globalist European right-wing parties. Tensions: Conflict with free traders, cosmopolitan elites, and interventionist foreign policy hawks.
2.5 Populist Conservatives
Core Focus: Championing “ordinary people” against elites, often blending nationalism and economic protectionism. Key Characteristics: Anti-establishment rhetoric, suspicion of bureaucracy and “deep state” actors, support for direct democratic measures. Examples: Trump-era Republican base, Tea Party insurgents. Tensions: Uncomfortable relationship with think-tank conservatives and business-friendly globalists.
2.6 Neoconservatives
Core Focus: Promotion of democracy and U.S. leadership abroad, often via robust military engagement. Key Characteristics: Interventionist foreign policy, alliance-building, free-market economics at home. Examples: Figures from the Reagan/Bush foreign policy establishment. Tensions: Viewed by paleoconservatives and non-interventionists as globalist or imperial.
2.7 Paleoconservatives
Core Focus: Cultural continuity, non-interventionism, and skepticism of modernity. Key Characteristics: Often regionalist or agrarian in sentiment, wary of mass immigration and multiculturalism. Examples: Pat Buchanan’s politics, Southern traditionalists. Tensions: Ideological distance from neoconservatives and free-market radicals.
2.8 Business/Economic Conservatives
Core Focus: Pro-business policies, deregulation, low taxes, and corporate competitiveness. Key Characteristics: Chamber of Commerce allies, often pragmatic on social issues to maintain economic growth. Examples: GOP donor class, centrist business lobbies. Tensions: Accused by populists of prioritizing corporate over national interests.
2.9 Law-and-Order Conservatives
Core Focus: Strong policing, tough criminal justice, and robust state authority for public safety. Key Characteristics: Support for police unions, punitive sentencing, and military-style border enforcement. Examples: “Back the Blue” movements, anti-crime mayors in conservative cities. Tensions: Overlap with authoritarian tendencies; resisted by libertarians on civil liberties grounds.
3. Global Conservative Typology
While many categories above have analogues abroad, global conservatism includes distinct forms shaped by monarchy, colonial history, and religious diversity.
3.1 Monarchist Conservatives
Focus: Defense of monarchy as a source of stability and identity. Examples: Royalists in Spain, Thailand, and Morocco. Tensions: Often ceremonial in practice but politically influential in crisis.
3.2 Post-Colonial Conservatives
Focus: Defense of order, hierarchy, and sometimes traditional ethnic dominance in post-colonial states. Examples: Certain parties in Africa and Asia that merge nationalism with colonial administrative structures.
3.3 Confessional Conservatives
Focus: Preservation of state-linked religion (e.g., Islam in Saudi Arabia, Orthodoxy in Russia). Tensions: Clash with secular nationalists and Western-style liberals.
3.4 Agrarian Conservatives
Focus: Rural identity, land rights, and agricultural heritage. Examples: Parties in Eastern Europe, Latin America’s rural right.
3.5 Technocratic Conservatives
Focus: Preservation of national stability through managed modernization and elite governance. Examples: Singapore’s People’s Action Party, Japan’s LDP.
3.6 Ethno-Nationalist Conservatives
Focus: Preservation of a dominant ethnic identity, often through exclusionary immigration policies. Examples: Hungary’s Fidesz, India’s BJP in certain policies.
3.7 Green Conservatives
Focus: Stewardship of nature rooted in tradition, not progressive environmentalism. Examples: UK “Tory Greens,” Bhutanese conservation monarchy.
4. Overlaps, Hybrids, and Tensions
Many conservatives blend elements from multiple categories. For instance:
National-populists mix nationalism and anti-elite rhetoric. Religious traditionalists may combine faith-based morality with monarchist or agrarian ideals. Business conservatives may ally with libertarians on economics while partnering with law-and-order advocates on security.
Key tensions persist between:
Globalists vs. Nationalists Free-market advocates vs. Protectionists Moral traditionalists vs. Libertarians Interventionists vs. Non-interventionists
5. Implications for Political Strategy
Coalition Management: Right-of-center movements succeed electorally when they unite divergent factions around shared threats or common goals. Policy Trade-offs: In practice, governments must prioritize some conservative priorities over others—e.g., free trade vs. domestic manufacturing. Global Adaptation: U.S. conservatism’s free-market emphasis doesn’t always translate abroad, where conservatism may be more monarchist, nationalist, or religious.
6. Conclusion
Conservatism is not a single ideology but a family of traditions with overlapping values and competing priorities. Its adaptability—shaping itself to local culture, history, and institutions—explains its persistence across time and geography. However, this very diversity also ensures internal conflict, making coalition-building both a necessity and a challenge.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
The basic political science definition of Right versus Left is, of course, traditional versus innovational, to boil it down. So many on the conservative/Right, uneducated in such things, have twisted it into “freedom” versus “tyranny.” It is absolutely frustrating to me, and counterproductive to the cause.
About 10 or 15 years ago, a relatively unknown conservative writeri had an article posted on a conservative blog site. In it, she matter-of-factly — and correctly — identified Nazism as on the Right. I posted a comment thanking her for getting it correct. Soon I got a reply facetiously asking me what I was talking about, that she had not done so. Figuring this to be a slam dunk, I returned to the post only to find that the line in question had been altered. As I recall, it even showed some signs of having been edited. You see, these Teabrainers know better, and know that Nazis are LEFTwing — “‘cuz they’ze soshalists! Itz rit dere in dere name!” When I tracked down the writer and asked why she had changed it, she said simply of the heat she was getting, “It just wasn’t worth it.”
Again, an explanation of Teabrainery below: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-daily-fudd-e132-special-report.html?m=1
Regular readers of my blog posts going back years know I speak often of “Teabrainery” or “Teabrainers.” The reference should be obvious–namely, to the unsophisticated, often uneducated hick conservative-types that composed or mimic the post-2008 election “TEA Party” movement. Simply put, they are what happens when Jeff Foxworthy rednecks decide to get into “politicks.” (Misspellings are a distinctive hallmark of the movement–it’s almost pathological with them.)
“One-dimensional, one-layer” is a way of describing their analysis. Their lack of base academic knowledge prevents them from having perspective–hence, “one-dimensional”–and their academic laziness prevents them from seriously digging into a matter–hence, “one-layer.” (And when they do go deeper, they stay one-dimensional.) They don’t really relish reading books without pictures or doing research, and never really have done so on anything that didn’t involve their career, football, or NASCAR. (Or guns, their only redeeming academic point–see below.) Rather, they go by first impressions–“Weeeell, I jes’ kinda theenk…”
Yet they INSIST on talking about whatever they are talking about from that academically worthless perspective. They don’t understand political terminology, basically accusing decades-old dictionaries of modern biases. In one sense, “Teabrainery” can be described at its base level as, “Not knowing what one is talking about, and (thus) insisting on talking about it.”
…
Now, to be fair, we all “Teabrain” occasionally. We all miss the obvious occasionally. We all have gaps in knowledge we don’t know we have, and yet speak occasionally. Occasionally.
Teabrainers, though, seem to make a lifestyle choice out of it…
Yea. We all Teabrain. And people will accuse each other of Teabraining. That is the nature of things. The best answer is to always rely on facts. Not intuition. Not what some authority figure tells you despite the facts. And not simply what supports your preconceived notions. And, of course, try to be clear in your communication. Sun Tse famously said that if an order is unclear, the problem is the generals fault. If an order is clear, the problem is the troop leader’s fault. We all have room for improvement.
LikeLike