Conservatism vs. Republicanism: The Moral Divide

In modern American politics, “conservative” and “Republican” are treated as synonyms. Political commentators use them interchangeably, voters conflate them, and campaigns blur the distinction for convenience. But this confusion has produced a crisis of meaning.

Being a Republican is about party affiliation. Being a conservative is about moral conviction.

And nowhere is this difference more visible — or more consequential — than in the debate over abortion.

The Republican Party: A Political Machine, Not a Moral Compass

The Republican Party was not always what it is today. Founded in the 1850s as the party of abolition, it stood for an absolute moral truth: that slavery was evil and must end. The early Republicans — men like Abraham Lincoln and the radical abolitionists who fueled his cause — were guided not by pragmatism but by principle. They were conservatives in the truest sense: they sought to conserve the moral law against the corrupt tides of their age.

Today’s Republican Party, however, is primarily pragmatic. It has become a coalition of interest groups, donors, and voters rather than a movement united by transcendent moral principles. To be a Republican is to belong to a political tribe; it does not necessarily mean one believes in the immutable moral truths that conservatives are called to preserve.

This distinction becomes clear when we examine figures like Donald Trump.

Donald Trump: The Republican Without a Conservative Foundation

Donald Trump is a Republican — and a highly successful one. But he is not, and has never been, a philosophical conservative.

For decades, Trump identified as a Democrat. He supported abortion rights, praised Planned Parenthood, and lived a lifestyle marked by serial marriages, ostentatious wealth, and secular values. He has defended in vitro fertilization (IVF), which many conservatives oppose because it routinely involves the destruction of embryos — nascent human lives. He rarely attends church, and his moral compass is pragmatic, not transcendent.

Trump’s appeal is populist, not philosophical. He channels public frustration, not theological conviction. He fights the “woke left,” but not always from a clear moral foundation. His politics are transactional: what works, what wins, what rallies the base.

That is not conservatism. That is Republicanism — a partisan identity built on power, not on principle.

Conservatism: To Conserve What Is True and Good

True conservatism is not about nostalgia, economics, or party loyalty. It is about conserving what is true, good, and beautiful — the moral order established by God and revealed through natural law. A conservative does not merely resist change for its own sake; he resists evil because he recognizes the permanence of moral truth.

This means that conservatism is not about “small government” or “free markets” alone. It is about conserving the moral structure upon which freedom and prosperity rest — the sanctity of life, the integrity of the family, and the belief that law must conform to justice, not convenience.

And it is here that the difference between being pro-life and being an abolitionist becomes decisive.

Pro-Life vs. Abolition: The Great Moral Divide

To be pro-life in modern political discourse often means supporting certain regulations on abortion — banning late-term procedures, restricting federal funding, or promoting alternatives like adoption. The pro-life movement has saved lives and changed hearts, but it has also become institutionally comfortable.

Many self-described “pro-life Republicans” now treat abortion as a policy issue rather than a moral absolute. They advocate for incremental restrictions rather than full abolition. They celebrate the overturning of Roe v. Wade but stop short of calling abortion what it truly is: murder.

A pro-life stance says, “Let’s reduce abortion.”
An abolitionist stance says, “Let’s end abortion, because it is the unjust taking of innocent human life.”

The conservative, in his truest form, cannot stop at “pro-life.” He must be abolitionist.
Why? Because conservatism is about conserving moral truth — and moral truth does not tolerate compromise with evil.

Slavery was not to be regulated; it was to be abolished.
Abortion is not to be limited; it is to be abolished.

Just as the 19th-century abolitionists refused to accept the legality of human bondage, the modern conservative cannot accept the legality of human slaughter in the womb. Anything less than total abolition is moral complacency disguised as political prudence.

The Abolitionist View of Justice

Within the abortion abolitionist movement — a distinct and often controversial strand of conservative thought — justice is understood as a matter of moral consistency.

Abolitionists hold that if abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, then the law must recognize it as homicide. They argue that moral truth requires consistent application: all parties directly involved in an intentional killing are accountable under justice.

A analogy within abolitionists is the “hitman” example. If a person hires a hitman to commit murder, both the killer and the one who commissioned the act are culpable. In this view, abortion is morally equivalent — the abortion provider is the agent of death, and the person seeking the abortion participates in the act.

Not all conservatives or pro-life advocates share this position, and it remains a subject of deep debate even within conservative circles. But it is central to abolitionist conservatism, which insists that to truly conserve moral order, one cannot make exceptions to justice.

Why Abolition Reflects True Conservatism

Conservatism, rightly understood, is not the preservation of culture as it is, but the preservation of truth as it should be. To conserve means to defend what is inherently valuable and ordained by moral order.

A conservative who tolerates legalized abortion is not conserving anything; he is surrendering.

Abortion abolitionism, then, is not radical — it is conservative in the most literal and moral sense. It seeks to conserve the sanctity of human life, the moral law, and the divine image in man. It acknowledges that justice must reflect moral truth, even when that truth is difficult or unpopular.

The Conservative President We’ve Never Had

America has had Republican presidents, but never a truly conservative one. Even those with conservative instincts — like Reagan or Coolidge — governed pragmatically. None sought to re-anchor the nation in the divine moral law.

The conservative president we have yet to see would not merely balance budgets or appoint judges. He would call for national repentance — a moral restoration. He would seek not to “reform” abortion but to end it, as the abolitionists did with slavery.

He would understand that conservatism divorced from theology is hollow — because without God, there is nothing permanent to conserve.

Conserving the Permanent Things

To be conservative is not to defend the status quo. It is to defend the permanent things: life, family, faith, and truth. A “pro-life” movement that refuses to call abortion what it is — and refuses to apply justice consistently — does not conserve anything. It simply delays decay.

To be an abortion abolitionist is to stand where the original conservatives stood: on the unchanging ground of moral law. It is to say that there are some evils that cannot be tolerated, moderated, or managed — only abolished.

In this sense, the abolitionist is not an extremist but the only true conservative left.