Can Progressive Planners Appeal to Conservative Principles?

During my three decades as a planning consultant, I have worked with stakeholders ranging from conservative to liberal. Traditional conservative politicians took their civic responsibilities seriously; they tended to be courteous and thoughtful, and demanded detailed policy analysis. Regardless of whether you agreed with their priorities, you had to respect their principles. Conservative, after all, literally means caution and efficiency, as in less risky investments and more efficient resource consumption.

President Donald Trump’s opportunistic populism is the opposite. During his first two months in office, Trump imposed countless careless and wasteful policies. Some, such as firing and then unfiring nuclear experts and Federal Aviation Administration employees, and giving billionaire Elon Musk immense but unclear powers, are dangerous and irresponsible. Others, such as cutting energy efficiency programs, are foolish and costly.

How should rational people respond? My recent report Responsive Planning in Ideologically Conservative Communities provides practical guidance for working with conservative stakeholders. It describes traditional conservative principles and how they can be applied in public decision-making. By understanding these concepts, practitioners can reframe issues in ways that resonate with conservatives, point out inconsistency and hypocrisy, build ideological bridges, and redirect opponents’ energy back at them.

This suggests that for the next four years, policy debates will be less between conservatives and liberals and more between irrational populist policies and responsible, evidence-based policies that bridge ideologies. Success depends on framing policies in terms of different groups’ priorities. I recommend studying conservative principles and using them to challenge foolish and unfair policies. It might not change the minds of populist followers, but it may cause true conservatives to reconsider their support for Trump’s contradictory positions.