An AI Exploration of Conservative Thought

You might think this is a strange post on a newsletter focused on AI’s impact on organizations and society, but this article shows the power of AI’s ability, specifically Gemini 2.5 research mode, to help us learn and explore new ideas.

I am not a conservative in the modern sense. Yes, I’ve read many of conservative’s core books, but I wonder what modern conservatives really believe. What defines a conservative?

The administration recently asked universities to sign an “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” suggesting that they be more open to conservative thought. What does that mean?

This paper is my attempt to use AI to help educate me on “Conservative Thought.”

In a following post, I’ll include a checklist people can use to determine how they feel about conservative thought. Let’s be clear, this is not a partisan checklist such as we often find in the stuff the political parties send us.

This is sincere attempt to learn. I welcome your comments.

Here is the paper:

An Intellectual Genealogy of Conservative Thought: From Burke to the 21st Century

Introduction: Defining an Attitude, Not a Dogma

Conservatism, as a political philosophy, resists simple definition. Unlike ideologies that spring from a single text or a set of abstract axioms, conservatism is more accurately described as an “attitude” or a “disposition”.¹ It is a political philosophy that emphasizes the importance of traditional social structures and resists rapid or radical changes to established government and societal systems.² At its core lies what political scientist Noël O’Sullivan has termed a “philosophy of human imperfection,” a profound skepticism of utopian schemes and abstract plans for social reform that fail to account for the complexities and limitations of human nature.¹ The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears, making it a situational philosophy dedicated to defending the established institutions of its time.¹ As Quintin Hogg, a chairman of the British Conservative Party, noted in 1959, “Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself”.¹

This report seeks to provide a comprehensive intellectual history of this disposition. It will trace its origins, identify its core tenets, explore its foundational documents and thinkers, and dissect its modern variations. A central paradox will emerge, particularly in the American context: the challenge of conserving the principles of a liberal revolution. The American founding rejected the core tenets of European conservatism, such as a landed nobility, a hereditary monarchy, and an established church.⁵ Consequently, American conservatism has been a unique and often tense fusion of classical liberal principles—individualism, capitalism, and limited government—with traditionalist concerns for order, virtue, and community.⁵

A contemporary point of friction, and a catalyst for this report, is the perception that “conservatives” reject “valid research based on the scientific method, facts, and experimental results” as “liberal.” This paper will address this complex issue not as a simple matter of being “pro-” or “anti-science,” but as a critical entry point into the conservative mind. The conservative skepticism is often directed not at the scientific method itself, but at scientism—the ideological extension of scientific authority into the realms of morality and public policy—and at the political use of expert authority to enact sweeping social change.⁶ This philosophical skepticism of abstract rationalism has deep roots in conservative thought, dating back to its very origins.

To navigate this intricate intellectual landscape, this report is structured in four parts. Part I will examine the philosophical foundations of modern conservatism, focusing on the seminal work of Edmund Burke and the codification of his ideas by Russell Kirk. Part II will chart the unique development of conservatism in the United States, analyzing the key post-war texts that forged the modern American conservative movement. Part III will offer a taxonomy of the diverse and often conflicting branches of contemporary conservatism, from fiscal and social conservatives to neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. Finally, Part IV will directly address the relationship between conservatism, science, and reason, providing a nuanced analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of conservative skepticism toward scientific institutions and policy prescriptions. Through this genealogical approach, a clearer and more substantive understanding of conservative thought will emerge, moving beyond political caricature to reveal a rich and enduring intellectual tradition.

Part I: The Philosophical Foundations of Modern Conservatism

Modern conservatism as a self-conscious political philosophy was born in reaction. It did not emerge from a desire to create a new world based on abstract principles, but from an urgent need to defend an existing one from what was perceived as a catastrophic attempt at radical reconstruction. Its intellectual foundations were laid not in a quiet study, but in the midst of the political and social upheaval of the late 18th century. The central figure in this intellectual counter-revolution was the Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke, whose critique of the French Revolution established the foundational principles of order, tradition, and prudence that have defined conservative thought ever since.

1.1 The Burkean Inheritance: Order, Tradition, and Prudence

While precursors to conservative thought can be identified in figures as ancient as Aristotle and Cicero, modern conservatism begins with Edmund Burke.⁸ A Whig member of the British Parliament, Burke was, paradoxically, a supporter of the American Revolution, which he viewed as a justified defense of the traditional rights of Englishmen against monarchical overreach.¹ However, he was horrified by the events unfolding in France after 1789. His response, the 1790 polemic

Reflections on the Revolution in France, became the seminal text of the conservative tradition, articulating a profound critique of radicalism that continues to resonate.⁹

Burke’s central argument was a rejection of the abstract, metaphysical reasoning of the French revolutionaries. He did not deny the existence of human rights, but he vehemently opposed the concept of “abstract rights” detached from the customs, traditions, and concrete circumstances of a particular society.¹² He contrasted the French revolutionaries’ theoretical “rights of men” with the tangible, inherited rights of Englishmen, which had been secured over centuries through historical precedent, from the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Right of 1689.¹¹ For Burke, the practical application of governance was paramount. As he famously argued, “What is the use of discussing a man’s abstract right to food or to medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them”.¹¹ This focus on the practical over the theoretical, the concrete over the abstract, is a defining characteristic of the conservative disposition.

This reverence for the practical wisdom of the past led Burke to reconceptualize the social contract. He rejected the Lockean idea of a contract formed by living individuals for their mutual convenience. Instead, he envisioned society as a sacred, perpetual partnership “not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.¹⁴ This intergenerational compact implies a profound duty to preserve the inheritance of civilization—its laws, institutions, and liberties—for future generations.¹⁵ Society, in this view, is not a machine that can be taken apart and reassembled according to a new blueprint, but a living, complex organism that grows and evolves over time.¹¹ To interrupt its continuity, to sever the link between generations, is to risk social dissolution and chaos.¹⁷