Why do so many citizens identify as conservatives without holding—or even being aware of what constitutes—operationally conservative issue positions? This analysis suggests that different self-identified conservatives approach the meaning of the term “conservative” in substantively different ways. Unlike liberals, who by and large identify as liberals because of—or at least in reflection of—a consistent political worldview, many conservatives may identify as such because of meanings of “conservative” not grounded in real-world politics.

The first “nonoperational” route by which citizens might come to a conservative self-identification stems from the way ideology and issues are framed in elite discourse. Liberals, of course, never use the word “liberal” in political messages, instead choosing to emphasize specific programs and support for specific targeted groups. Conservatives, by contrast, frame messages in general terms, talking about the positive aspects of a conservative approach to policymaking (and, even more prominently, the dangers of a liberal one), while being reluctant to discuss the implications of political conservatism—in most cases, cutting spending on popular programs—for policy.

The dominant political messages—the ways in which liberals and conservatives describe and defend their own political actions—thus emphasize both “operational liberalism” and “symbolic conservatism.” It is obvious to sophisticated observers that these messages are functional opposites, but for many, the contrast between liberal programs and conservative philosophy may not be readily apparent—a claim buttressed by scientific evidence suggesting ideology is formed in response to broad, general appeals, while specific issue preferences are often based upon evaluation of the specific program or targeted social group itself.

It is thus not surprising that many citizens—those who receive some political messages but lack the contextual information to sort through them and reconcile their competing claims—having received conflicting elite messages, may accept both, holding operational and symbolic beliefs that are themselves in conflict.

Perhaps just as important is the connotation of the term “conservative” in the context of religion. The conservative–liberal religious divide has clear implications for some political issues, particularly ones that involve lifestyle choices such as abortion, gay rights, and pornography. But this conception of conservatism is principally a biblical worldview, not a political ideology. Given that religious beliefs are usually more central to people’s identities than political beliefs, it is possible that the political meaning of “conservative” is less important to most than its religious meaning. Citizens may thus directly translate theological worldview to political ideology, regardless of policy positions on issues not directly related to doctrinal orthodoxy, and regardless of their understanding (or lack of understanding) of the political meaning of the terms themselves.

Many religious conservatives are, of course, consistent political conservatives. But many others are not—often, at least in part, because their churches send operationally liberal cues on most redistributive or crime and punishment issues.

Finally, the label “conservative” is popular in a general lifestyle sense, bringing to mind popular values: temperance, prudence, caution, tradition. In the context of family life, a conservative value system places emphasis on strong family ties, respect for authority and one’s elders, and other popular social conventions. Americans with little knowledge of the explicitly political connotations of the term—or even the ways in which it is used in elite political discourse—may nevertheless identify with it because of their approval of these lifestyle choices. Indeed, support for traditionally conservative approaches to family life and childrearing seem to be among the few points of unity among the three types of conservatives (Table 8).