Conservatives' Individualism Problem
If conservatives wish to conserve the culture, they must fight for the townships, counties, and people which created that culture in the first place.
Rugged individualism is a staple of modern American conservatism. William F. Buckley’s National Review transformed a multimorphic Republican apparatus into a solidly conservative and individualistic party, coalescing in its standard-bearer of Ronald Reagan. This individualism exalts individual responsibility and effort above all else, translating in a fierce rejection of government and institutional involvement in all facets of life, and the sole moral maxim of “do no harm”. Yet, conservatism’s overabundance in this individualism — in its policies and zeitgeist — is ill-suited to remedy the digital and isolated world that Generation Z inhabits. For its own ideological vitality, a 21st century conservatism must embrace the individual as a fundamental aspect of his community and nation — not as an atomized end-in-itself.
Conservatism’s infatuation with individualism, particularly in the United States, was not always an established norm. The midcentury clash of conservatism between traditionalists and libertarians included the role of individualism, which the latter sought to extol as “collectivism” supposedly entrenched in American life. Keynesian economics of government intervention during the Great Depression suppressed the free market economy, itself an expression of individualistic entrepreneurship, while academics in elite universities were said to pursue collectivist hegemony against the dual American ideals of Christianity and individualism. Such was the thesis of Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, a pivotal work in conservatism instilling this individualistic zeitgeist in American conservatism. Buckley’s contours bear a striking resemblance to conservative motifs today — that institutional economic intervention (often deemed as “socialism”) is inherently bad, and elites in American universities remain staunchly leftist.
Where individualism finds its highest exaltation, however, is in Buckley’s ideological rival Ayn Rand. Rand’s objectivism, which Buckley objected to on its unequivocal atheism, replaces the traditional religiosity of the right with the cult of the self; or rather, the virtue of selfishness. This strain of individualism is best summarized from Rand’s Textbook of Americanism: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.”
Buckley’s version of individualism, more so serving as a proxy against a perceived collectivist intelligentsia, places him at odds with Rand’s religious self-reliance. Rand’s individualism is the end-in-itself, the virtue pursued above all else; it would be shortsighted to believe that it ends merely with a mantra of non-aggression. Rand attacks the “loose aggregate of the ‘community,’” in studying man, as if man is not fundamentally altered and formed by the community. The streaks of reactionary individualism — rational egoism — permeate Rand’s, and by extension conservatism’s, thought and spirit.
Manifestly, the “New Right” of the 1980s represented most prominently by President Ronald Reagan solidified the strain of individualism that embodies modern conservatism. “Individual freedom and profit motive,” he believed, “were the engines of progress which transformed an American wilderness into an economic dynamo that provided the American people with a standard of living that is still the envy of the world.” The profit motive in particular reflected in his economic policy, alongside his individualism. Pursuant to individual entrepreneurship, his administration cut taxes, deregulated business, and “got the government out of the way” for this individual entrepreneurship. Many associate this economic philosophy with the prosperity of the 1980s in the Western world, with the collapse of the Soviet system serving as a reinforcement of this prosperity. Endorsed by history itself — so it seemed — this neoliberal moment became the mainstay of conservatism and the Republican Party.
Geopolitically, the rise in individualist ideology can be attributed in large part to the Cold War, against a perceived collectivist enemy bent on the eradication of the United States. Yet, as the dissolution of the Soviet Union becomes a far more distant memory, this individualism becomes more incongruous with our times. The economic prosperity associated with New Right individualism seems entirely gone, replaced by real wage stagnation and an excruciating job market. Socially, the continued decline of social capital and Generation Z’s unprecedented isolation make rugged individualism anachronistic. Human connection, in spite of the internet’s most optimistic predictions, seems harder than ever. To exalt the individual as an atomized end-in-itself, then, exacerbates the issue — and as the threat of collectivism declines in potency, individualism cannot continue solely as conservatism’s governing philosophy.
Does this mean that conservatism must concede to New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani’s “warmth of collectivism”? No. Ideological collectivism is not the remedy for these issues, and faces many of the same problems. Exalting the community-in-itself risks denigrating the real accomplishments of individuals as well as economic incentives for entrepreneurship. Real community cannot be imposed top-down, and instead must grow naturally to maintain vitality. While collectivism is a tempting solution to the decades of decayed individualism, its issues render it an ill-fated overreaction to modern issues.
Conservatives may look back on American history for the answer to the individualist problem. Undoubtedly, America represented a lauding of the individual above that of European nations, who would be subsumed by those same Enlightenment principles which spurred the Revolution. Anti-Federalists in particular fought for the necessary individual rights in the Constitution, both drawing from and contributing to the broader individualist spirit of America. Upon a cursory glance at this history, individualism may be conceded as a facet of the American system – a facet that conservatism overly aggrandizes.
However, that American system which at the same time championed individualism only functioned through the abundance of community and social life in early and middle America. The ideals of the individualist are matched in aptitude with the realities of the township, county, and state. Alexis de Tocqueville describes these three components of the American system in Democracy in America, particularly the township, which is where “the strength of free nations” resides. The township, to the American, is the “aim of his ambition and of his future exertions.” Prima facie this may seem as an endorsement of the aforementioned imposed collectivism — but this is not the case. Rather, the individual is a central part to the township, as “he takes a part in every occurrence in the place; he practises the art of government in the small sphere within his reach.” To Tocqueville, the individual is a central aspect of the township, an aspect to be cherished, not idolized. Thus, individuals working for the common good need not resign themselves for the betterment of the “collective”; instead, they work for the very township which they themselves are a foundational part of.
A return to this township model is the golden mean that conservatives should pursue. Individualism in the 21st century is deficient for an isolated, socially anxious and lonely United States. Instead, the conservative should praise policies which facilitate the community which brought about the very nation they wish to conserve. The geopolitical threat of collectivism is mostly gone, itself replaced by an excess of isolation — which threatens the nation’s social fabric as did collectivism in the past. If conservatives wish to conserve the culture, they must fight for the townships, counties, and people which created that culture in the first place.