The great liberal conservative project

Conservatism, in its truest sense, has always been about preserving the long-term health and survival of a society. It’s about continuity, tradition, and the stability necessary for a community to flourish across generations. Yet, modern iterations of conservatism often seem to forget that the most effective way to maintain a cohesive society isn't by enforcing homogeneity but by embracing and integrating diversity.
The rhetoric of some conservatives today promotes a nostalgia for a past that, while perhaps comforting in its simplicity, overlooks the complexities of maintaining a thriving, modern nation. It's tempting to imagine a uniform, unchanging society where everyone shares the same values, traditions, and identities. Such a vision is attractive because it feels safe and stable, a throwback to a perceived golden age when everything seemed simpler. But this desire to recreate a homogeneous society, even if well-intentioned, is fundamentally at odds with the reality of modern nations. It's not just impractical; it's a strategy that, while it may provide short-term satisfaction, sows the seeds of long-term division.
History shows that when societies attempt to enforce uniformity, they often end up creating fractures rather than unity. In seeking to assimilate everyone into one mold, they inadvertently build the conditions for disintegration. Enforcing a single standard of culture or identity tends to push those who don’t fit that standard to the margins, creating enclaves, ghettos, and communities that feel alienated from the broader society. These pockets of discontent may seem contained for a while, but they’re like mines waiting to detonate. Over time, these ignored and disenfranchised groups express their frustration in ways that destabilize the very social fabric that conservatism seeks to preserve.
The project of diversity and inclusion, often championed by liberals and progressives, is not just a matter of idealism or moral obligation; it’s an exercise in pragmatism. A diverse society that embraces various identities, cultures, and values isn’t one that is falling apart; it’s one that is resilient and adaptable. By acknowledging and incorporating differences, a society can continuously regenerate itself, pulling in new ideas, new energy, and new perspectives. This adaptability is what allows a society to survive the challenges of time—social changes, economic shifts, technological advancements, and unforeseen crises.
In this sense, diversity isn’t a threat to social cohesion; it’s a strategy for ensuring it. Embracing diversity is about making room for everyone, not just those who conform to an idealized past. It’s about absorbing different groups on their own terms, respecting their identities, and finding ways to integrate them meaningfully into the broader social fabric. This process can be uncomfortable and may challenge existing norms, but it’s a small price to pay for the long-term stability and prosperity of a nation. After all, it’s much easier to maintain unity when people feel seen and valued rather than forced into molds that don’t fit them.
There’s a curious irony here: the so-called liberals and progressives who advocate for diversity are, in many ways, the ones actually practicing long-term conservatism. They recognize that the future of a nation lies in its ability to evolve, to absorb new influences, and to accommodate change. They understand that you cannot go back to a mythical past, because history never really offers such an option. The past is always messier and more complex than nostalgic memories allow, often filled with exclusions and inequalities that modern societies have worked hard to overcome.
Harris is right about not going back, about avoiding the temptation to revert to this nostalgic vision. Going back means returning to a mindset that fears differences and marginalizes those who don’t fit neatly into the mainstream. It’s a mindset that builds walls instead of bridges, that sees diversity as a threat rather than an opportunity. This fear-based approach may rally support in the short term, appealing to those who long for a simpler, safer time. But it’s a reactionary stance, one that ultimately undermines the very continuity and stability it claims to protect.
The real conservative project—the one that genuinely seeks to maintain the long-term health of a nation—must recognize that inclusion and diversity are not antithetical to conservatism; they are its most pragmatic tools. Instead of fearing change and diversity, conservatives would do well to understand that the true preservation of society involves building a future that accommodates everyone. By acknowledging and respecting differences, by ensuring that all groups feel a part of the national narrative, we strengthen the social fabric rather than tearing it apart.
In the end, diversity and inclusion are not progressive luxuries; they’re also conservative necessities. Those who champion them are not undermining the nation; they are ensuring its survival.