The World We Seek
Listening to Aspirations:
Conservative and Liberal
see also What the World Needs Now: World Loyalty & Local Love
Conservatism is not a monolith, but a spectrum of views.
Traditional conservatives emphasize continuity with inherited institutions—family, religion, and cultural norms—seeing these as time-tested sources of order and meaning. Libertarian conservatives prioritize individual liberty and free markets, often wary of government intervention in both economics and personal life. National conservatives stress the importance of national identity, sovereignty, and the cohesion of shared traditions, sometimes resisting globalist or cosmopolitan values. Meanwhile, religious conservatives seek to uphold moral codes derived from faith, particularly in matters of family, sexuality, and education.
Liberalism contains a rich variety of outlooks.
Classical liberals champion individual rights, free speech, and limited government, with an emphasis on personal responsibility and open markets. Social liberals advocate for greater government involvement in addressing social inequalities through education, healthcare, and welfare policies. Progressive liberals focus on systemic injustice and seek transformation in areas like racial equity, gender rights, and environmental sustainability. Cosmopolitan liberals, often aligned with global human rights agendas, prioritize international cooperation and cultural openness. Across these variations, liberalism tends to view change as a path to justice and believes that society can and should be reformed to expand dignity and opportunity for all.
Traditional conservatives emphasize continuity with inherited institutions—family, religion, and cultural norms—seeing these as time-tested sources of order and meaning. Libertarian conservatives prioritize individual liberty and free markets, often wary of government intervention in both economics and personal life. National conservatives stress the importance of national identity, sovereignty, and the cohesion of shared traditions, sometimes resisting globalist or cosmopolitan values. Meanwhile, religious conservatives seek to uphold moral codes derived from faith, particularly in matters of family, sexuality, and education.
Liberalism contains a rich variety of outlooks.
Classical liberals champion individual rights, free speech, and limited government, with an emphasis on personal responsibility and open markets. Social liberals advocate for greater government involvement in addressing social inequalities through education, healthcare, and welfare policies. Progressive liberals focus on systemic injustice and seek transformation in areas like racial equity, gender rights, and environmental sustainability. Cosmopolitan liberals, often aligned with global human rights agendas, prioritize international cooperation and cultural openness. Across these variations, liberalism tends to view change as a path to justice and believes that society can and should be reformed to expand dignity and opportunity for all.
Why This Page?
The reason is simple. I want liberals to understand conservatives and I want conservative to understand liberals, seeing at least the plausibility of other point of view. Toward that end I offer imaginary voices representing national conservatism and cosmopolitan liberalism - both of which seem to appear anathema to one another. Nationalist conservatives are sometimes called right-wing fascists by their liberal counterparts - and cosmopolitan liberals are called left wing lunatics by their conservative counterparts.
The page was created for an adult Sunday School class at a local church. The class includes people with a range of political views—some leaning conservative, others liberal, and many somewhere in between. Recently, members of the class asked me to develop a resource that might help them reflect more thoughtfully and compassionately on these differences.
The goal is not to resolve every disagreement, but to create space for deeper listening and understanding. Political differences are real. They shape our debates, our votes, and our visions for society. Conservatives and liberals often differ on issues like taxation, healthcare, immigration, environmental policy, education, and the role of government. These are important conversations. But beneath them lies something deeper: an aspiration, a hope, a vision of what a good and just world might look like.
Too often, our conversations stop at disagreement, without exploring the moral imaginations that animate each side.
For many conservatives, the good society is rooted in strong, self-reliant communities, bound together by shared stories and enduring moral frameworks. For many liberals, the good society is one in which humanity comes together across differences to uphold dignity, justice, and care for the earth.
These hopes are not the same. But both are attempts to respond to the human condition with integrity and moral vision. One emphasizes continuity, the other change; one finds strength in rootedness, the other in openness. And yet, both express shared longings—for order and meaning, for justice and peace, for a world in which people can truly flourish.
The Conservative Hope presented below is influenced by the Jewish philosopher Yoram Hazony, whose emphasis on national identity, cultural tradition, and the importance of local communities has resonated deeply within certain strands of conservative politics.
The Liberal Hope presented here is influenced by the idea of world loyalty, which the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead—drawing from Josiah Royce—understood as the very essence of healthy religion.
I best emphasize at the outset that I am offering "a" vision of conservative and liberal thinking, not "the" vision.
The page was created for an adult Sunday School class at a local church. The class includes people with a range of political views—some leaning conservative, others liberal, and many somewhere in between. Recently, members of the class asked me to develop a resource that might help them reflect more thoughtfully and compassionately on these differences.
The goal is not to resolve every disagreement, but to create space for deeper listening and understanding. Political differences are real. They shape our debates, our votes, and our visions for society. Conservatives and liberals often differ on issues like taxation, healthcare, immigration, environmental policy, education, and the role of government. These are important conversations. But beneath them lies something deeper: an aspiration, a hope, a vision of what a good and just world might look like.
Too often, our conversations stop at disagreement, without exploring the moral imaginations that animate each side.
For many conservatives, the good society is rooted in strong, self-reliant communities, bound together by shared stories and enduring moral frameworks. For many liberals, the good society is one in which humanity comes together across differences to uphold dignity, justice, and care for the earth.
These hopes are not the same. But both are attempts to respond to the human condition with integrity and moral vision. One emphasizes continuity, the other change; one finds strength in rootedness, the other in openness. And yet, both express shared longings—for order and meaning, for justice and peace, for a world in which people can truly flourish.
The Conservative Hope presented below is influenced by the Jewish philosopher Yoram Hazony, whose emphasis on national identity, cultural tradition, and the importance of local communities has resonated deeply within certain strands of conservative politics.
The Liberal Hope presented here is influenced by the idea of world loyalty, which the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead—drawing from Josiah Royce—understood as the very essence of healthy religion.
I best emphasize at the outset that I am offering "a" vision of conservative and liberal thinking, not "the" vision.
A Conservative Hope
Imagine a world where the richness of human life is woven through many threads—threads of language, story, ritual, and memory. Each community, each nation, carries its own tale: shaped by the land, the ancestors, the festivals, the songs, and the sacred. These communities are not sealed off from one another. They trade, they converse, they form alliances. But they do not try to erase one another’s uniqueness. They understand that the health of the whole depends on the vitality of the parts.
In this world, people grow up learning the wisdom of their own traditions—religious, moral, cultural. Some believe in God; others in the authority of enduring moral truths. But even those with strong convictions walk humbly. They do not imagine that their tradition is the sole guardian of truth. Rather, they see it as a glimpse—one window among many. Other cultures, other stories, hold wisdom too.
Here, reason is not the cold light of abstraction, claiming to judge the world from above. It is something warmer, closer to the ground: shaped by time and place, by experience and community. Truth emerges from within the soil of tradition. It is not imposed from without.
And yet, this is not a world blind to suffering. When atrocities occur—when people are crushed by the machinery of oppression—this conservative hope does not remain silent. It speaks. It may even act. But it does so with restraint, knowing the dangers of righteousness untempered by humility. Intervention is not domination; it is solidarity. The hand extended is not a fist but a gesture of shared humanity, mindful of its own limits.
This is a world that treasures continuity: the passing down of stories, the weaving of generations into a shared fabric. It sees strength not in sameness but in difference—sacred difference. It honors covenants, the bonds that tie us not just to each other but to the past and to the future.
And it sees a danger. Not in diversity, but in empire—in the force that would flatten the world into a single pattern, erase its textures, and declare one way to be the only way. Against that imperial impulse, this hope offers something quieter, more rooted: a world where people dwell in the dignity of their own traditions, and reach out to others not to conquer, but to converse.
It is a hope grounded in limits. And in those very limits, it finds freedom.
Imagine a world where the richness of human life is woven through many threads—threads of language, story, ritual, and memory. Each community, each nation, carries its own tale: shaped by the land, the ancestors, the festivals, the songs, and the sacred. These communities are not sealed off from one another. They trade, they converse, they form alliances. But they do not try to erase one another’s uniqueness. They understand that the health of the whole depends on the vitality of the parts.
In this world, people grow up learning the wisdom of their own traditions—religious, moral, cultural. Some believe in God; others in the authority of enduring moral truths. But even those with strong convictions walk humbly. They do not imagine that their tradition is the sole guardian of truth. Rather, they see it as a glimpse—one window among many. Other cultures, other stories, hold wisdom too.
Here, reason is not the cold light of abstraction, claiming to judge the world from above. It is something warmer, closer to the ground: shaped by time and place, by experience and community. Truth emerges from within the soil of tradition. It is not imposed from without.
And yet, this is not a world blind to suffering. When atrocities occur—when people are crushed by the machinery of oppression—this conservative hope does not remain silent. It speaks. It may even act. But it does so with restraint, knowing the dangers of righteousness untempered by humility. Intervention is not domination; it is solidarity. The hand extended is not a fist but a gesture of shared humanity, mindful of its own limits.
This is a world that treasures continuity: the passing down of stories, the weaving of generations into a shared fabric. It sees strength not in sameness but in difference—sacred difference. It honors covenants, the bonds that tie us not just to each other but to the past and to the future.
And it sees a danger. Not in diversity, but in empire—in the force that would flatten the world into a single pattern, erase its textures, and declare one way to be the only way. Against that imperial impulse, this hope offers something quieter, more rooted: a world where people dwell in the dignity of their own traditions, and reach out to others not to conquer, but to converse.
It is a hope grounded in limits. And in those very limits, it finds freedom.
A Liberal Hope
Imagine a world where the first thing we see in one another is not our difference, but our shared humanity. A world where people look across borders and boundaries and recognize a deeper bond—one not of sameness, but of mutual dignity. We are, in this vision, citizens of a single human community. Our languages differ, our customs vary, but beneath it all flows a common current: the desire for peace, for freedom, for fairness, for care.
In this world, national flags still wave and cultural traditions still thrive. But they are not walls; they are windows. The moral center lies not in the preservation of boundary, but in the weaving of connection. Human rights, ecological responsibility, and the well-being of the vulnerable are not merely regional preferences—they are calls of conscience that echo across the planet.
Many here believe in God—or in something just as sacred: the intrinsic worth of every person. They hear, in divine wisdom or human compassion, an invitation to build a more just and peaceful world. They trust that, through honest dialogue and shared reflection, people can come together to solve the great challenges of our time—war, poverty, climate collapse, injustice. Not by coercion, but by reason, empathy, and collaboration.
This hope believes in universal values—not as weapons, but as guides. It affirms that some truths matter everywhere: the right of a child to be fed, the duty to care for the earth, the obligation to protect the weak. These are not parochial concerns. They are human ones.
And yet, this vision knows its own shadow. It recognizes how easy it is to mistake moral conviction for superiority—to speak of “humanity” while trampling the particular. There is a danger: that in trying to uplift the world, one culture’s vision becomes the map for all others. That the language of justice becomes a language of control.
This liberal hope resists that temptation by remembering its heart: humility, curiosity, and listening. It insists that global concern must be coupled with cultural respect—that one can seek the good of all without erasing the wisdom of the few.
It is a hope rooted in openness. It dreams of a world where no one is left behind. Where diversity is not a problem to be solved, but a richness to be cherished. Where systems of power are reimagined to serve not the privileged few, but the common good.
It is not afraid of complexity. It does not claim to have all the answers. But it believes—deeply—that we can find better answers together.
Resources from the Bible
for Each Aspiration
Both the conservative and liberal visions of the world find deep resonance within the biblical tradition. Each draws on different threads of Scripture, reflecting distinct but complementary aspects of biblical faith.
The conservative vision finds support in biblical themes that emphasize:
The liberal vision is rooted in biblical themes that emphasize:
Both visions reflect faithful biblical impulses. One emphasizes covenantal particularity and moral humility, the other universal justice and global compassion. The Bible does not collapse these into one framework, but holds them in creative and sometimes tension-filled dialogue—suggesting that wisdom may lie in seeking a balance between them.
The conservative vision finds support in biblical themes that emphasize:
- Covenant and community — the importance of belonging to a particular people with shared history and obligations (e.g., the covenant with Israel in Exodus and Deuteronomy).
- Respect for tradition and law — guidance rooted in received wisdom and sacred texts (e.g., Psalm 119; the role of Torah in shaping communal life).
- Moral humility and the limits of human understanding — reminders that no one fully grasps the mind of God (e.g., Job; Proverbs 3:5 – “lean not on your own understanding”).
- Plurality of nations and cultures — the idea that many nations may walk in the light of God without losing their identity (e.g., Isaiah 2:2–4; Acts 17:26–27).
The liberal vision is rooted in biblical themes that emphasize:
- Universal human dignity — the belief that all people are created in the image of God (e.g., Genesis 1:27).
- Justice for the oppressed — the prophetic call to defend the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger (e.g., Amos 5:24; Micah 6:8; Luke 4:18–19).
- Hospitality to the stranger — an ethic of welcoming the outsider and extending care across boundaries (e.g., Deuteronomy 10:19; Matthew 25:35).
- Unity and peace among peoples — a vision of reconciliation and shared humanity (e.g., Isaiah 2:4; Galatians 3:28 – “neither Jew nor Greek…”).
Both visions reflect faithful biblical impulses. One emphasizes covenantal particularity and moral humility, the other universal justice and global compassion. The Bible does not collapse these into one framework, but holds them in creative and sometimes tension-filled dialogue—suggesting that wisdom may lie in seeking a balance between them.
Questions for Reflection
- Which of these two visions of the world would you prefer to live in, and why?
- If you are conservative, what would you add to the description of conservatism? If you are liberal, what would you add to the description of liberalism?
- Which vision do you believe is more realistic in the world as it is today? Which is more aspirational?
- If you believe in a transcendent source of wisdom and guidance, e.g. God, which vision is closest to your understanding of God's will for the world?
- If you don't believe in, or have serious doubts, about a transcendent and divine source of wisdom and guidance, do you think the views can be based on Reason?
- Imagine that you hope the world will become a “community of communities of communities.” Which vision is closest to that image?
- If you lean toward the liberal vision, can you appreciate the wisdom in the conservative vision—its emphasis on tradition, humility, and rootedness?
- If you lean toward the conservative vision, can you appreciate the wisdom in the liberal vision—its emphasis on universal dignity, global justice, and shared responsibility?
- Which vision is most promising if you are concerned for the common good - understood as a community of communities of communities - and not simply for yourself and your family and clan?
- Can a third way be imagined—one that combines the moral humility of the conservative vision with the global compassion of the liberal vision?
Summary: Two Political Visions
Conservative Vision
1. Historical Communities over Abstract Universals
- Nations are formed through inherited loyalties—family, faith, land, tradition.
- Emphasis on rootedness and cultural particularism.
- Global engagement is welcomed only when it respects local autonomy.
2. Moral Conviction without Arrogance
- Moral truths exist but are approached with humility.
- Traditions are sources of wisdom, not absolute authority.
- Reason is fallible and shaped by culture.
3. Humble Interventionism
- Moral restraint in foreign policy is essential.
- Opposes moral imperialism.
- Advocates cautious, relationship-based solidarity.
4. Covenantal Relationships
- Inherited bonds shape identity and moral obligation.
- Emphasizes loyalty to family, community, and tradition.
- Seeks difference without domination.
5. Rejection of American Empire
- Opposes global dominance in the name of progress.
- Critiques consumerism and technocratic globalization.
- Defends national sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness.
Liberal Vision
1. Shared Humanity over Tribal Boundaries
- All people share basic dignity and moral worth.
- Universal values transcend tribal and national boundaries.
- Cooperation is built across, not despite, difference.
2. Moral Universals with Open Dialogue
- Certain values are universal (e.g., equality, nonviolence).
- Emphasizes reason, empathy, and self-critique.
- Dialogue across cultures enriches moral understanding.
3. Just Institutions for a Just World
- Institutions should reflect fairness and equity.
- Supports international cooperation on global issues.
- Values reform of laws and systems for justice.
4. Radical Openness to the Other
- Welcomes marginalized voices into the social fabric.
- Diversity is a source of strength, not threat.
- Inclusion is both ethical and enriching.
5. Resistance to Nationalism and Ethnic Supremacy
- Rejects exclusionary or supremacist nationalism.
- Opposes authoritarian tendencies.
- Promotes global solidarity and a cosmopolitan ethic.
For Further Study
Understanding National Conservatism
as envisioned by Yoram Hazony
National conservatism is exerting a growing influence in national political discourse, especially in the United States and parts of Europe. One of its most prominent spokespersons is Yoram Hazony, an Israeli-American political philosopher and the chair of the Edmund Burke Foundation, which sponsors the National Conservatism Conference (NatCon). Hazony’s work has become a cornerstone for articulating the intellectual framework of this movement.
Hazony advocates a strong emphasis on national identity, traditional values, and the importance of religion—particularly the Judeo-Christian heritage—as foundational to a healthy and cohesive society. He is sharply critical of liberal universalism and globalism, proposing instead a world composed of independent nations, each preserving its distinctive moral and cultural traditions.
Core Tenets of Hazony’s National Conservatism
- Nationalism over Globalism
Hazony contends that national independence and self-determination provide the most stable and just basis for political order. He criticizes supranational institutions—such as the EU and UN—and the ideology of global liberalism, arguing that they threaten to erode national sovereignty, weaken cultural identity, and impose moral uniformity across diverse peoples. - Traditionalism
He calls for a revival of traditional moral values rooted in the authority of the family, religion, and inherited customs. This includes a strong defense of the nuclear family, the role of religious institutions, and a moral code informed by biblical teachings. - Skepticism Toward Classical Liberalism
While acknowledging the historical importance of Enlightenment liberalism, Hazony argues that it has evolved into a corrosive force. The liberal emphasis on individual autonomy and universal rights, he believes, has become untethered from tradition and has morphed into a progressive ideology hostile to national and religious identities. - Public Role of Religion
Hazony rejects secularism as a sufficient moral foundation for modern societies. He champions the idea that religion—particularly the Bible-based moral order—should play a visible and guiding role in public life, including the legal and educational systems. - Critique of “Wokeness” and Progressive Ideology
Hazony is a vocal opponent of cultural progressivism, particularly identity politics, critical race theory, and other ideologies he associates with “wokeness.” He sees these movements as inherently divisive, undermining social cohesion, national unity, and shared moral norms. - Economic Nationalism
Although not opposed to capitalism, Hazony supports a more restrained market economy, one that protects national industries and the working class. He calls for limits on globalized free markets in order to preserve economic sovereignty and social stability. - Anti-Imperialism in Foreign Policy
Hazony critiques the neoconservative project of spreading democracy abroad. Instead, he advocates for foreign policy realism and non-interventionism, asserting that no nation has the right—or the competence—to impose its values or political systems on others. -
A Liberal-Conservative Conversation:
Ezra Klein and Yoram Hazony
Process Theology: Affirming Both Hopes
through Local Beauty and World Loyalty
Process theology, inspired by the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, invites us into a way of seeing that values both rootedness and relation, both tradition and transformation. It recognizes that every living being, every community, and every moment of experience is interconnected—emerging not in isolation, but through relationship.
In this light, both conservative and liberal hopes carry wisdom.
From the conservative vision, process theology affirms the strength of beauty in local bonds. Communities are not accidental clusters of people, but living ecosystems of memory, culture, and meaning. The stories we inherit, the rituals we cherish, the languages we speak—these are more than social constructs. They are sacred vessels of value. Local autonomy, cultural continuity, and humility before the wisdom of tradition are not obstacles to justice but essential to it. In the language of Whitehead, they are part of the order that makes life possible and meaningful.
From the liberal vision, process theology affirms the call to world loyalty. As Whitehead once wrote, “The aim of philosophy is to promote the adventure of ideas.” This adventure is not confined to one nation, one tribe, or one tradition. It seeks the flourishing of the planet and its peoples. In this light, justice, compassion, and ecological care are not parochial concerns—they are expressions of what Whitehead called the divine Eros: the lure toward richer, deeper, more harmonious forms of life. The liberal hope—centered on dignity, human rights, and global cooperation—is aligned with this divine aim.
But process theology does more than affirm each hope separately. It offers a metamodern perspective that holds their tensions together—not by collapsing them into a bland middle, but by synthesizing their deepest values into a creative tension.
In a metamodern spirit, process theology calls us not to choose between the local and the global, the old and the new, the familiar and the foreign—but to negotiate, indeed to dance, between them. It invites us to become creative agents of transformation who are shaped by tradition and attuned to novelty, loyal to our communities and committed to the planetary common good. In this synthesis, we may discover not only deeper understanding—but a shared calling: to help build a world that is both home and horizon, rooted and reaching, particular and planetary.