This is how well-born men used to think:

The Liberal school regards it as certain, that there is no other evil but what is in the political institutions which we have inherited from time to time, and that the supreme good consists in levelling those institutions in the dust. The greater part of Socialists look upon it as settled, that there is no other evil but what is in society, and that the grand remedy is in the complete destruction of social institutions. All agree that the evil comes to us from times past; the Liberals affirm that the good can be realised at the present time, and the Socialists that the golden age cannot commence till the future.

The supreme good consisting, according to one and the other, in a supreme disarrangement, which, according to the Liberal school, must be realised in the political, and according to the Socialists, in the social, regions, the one and the other agree in the substantial and intrinsic goodness of man, who is to be the intelligent and free agent of both disarrangements. This conclusion has been explicitly enunciated by the Socialistic schools, and is implicitly involved in the theory which the Liberal schools hold. That conclusion follows from their theory, in such a way, that if the conclusion be denied, the theory itself comes to the ground. In fact, the theory, according to which the evil is in man and proceeds from man, is contradictory of the other, according to which, the evil is in the social or political institutions, and proceeds from the political and social institutions. Supposing the former, what logically follows is, to extirpate the evil in man, with which its extirpation in society and in government must necessarily be secured. Supposing the latter, what logically follows is, to extirpate the evil directly in society or in government, in which are its centre and its origin.

From which we see that the Catholic, and the rationalistic, theories are not only incompatible, but even contradictory. By the Catholic, disturbance, whether political or social, is condemned as mad and useless. The rationalistic theories condemn all moral reform of man as useless and mad. And the one and the other are consistent in their condemnations; for if the evil be not in government or in society, why will you disturb society or government? And on the contrary, if the evil is not in individuals, nor proceeds from individuals, why will you attempt an interior reform of man? ~ Donoso Cortes

In a nutshell, Donoso Cortes points out the fundamental worldview of the three schools. Since no one ever reaches down to their fundamental assumptions, dialogue is literally impossible. There can only be incessant and fruitless debate. As Donoso puts it:

The supreme interest of that school is in preventing the arrival of the day of radical negations or of sovereign affirmations; and that it may not arrive, it confounds by means of discussion all notions, and propagates scepticism, knowing as it does, that a people which perpetually hears in the mouth of its sophists the pro and the contra of everything, ends by not knowing which side to take, and by asking itself whether truth and error, injustice and justice, stupidity and honesty, are things opposed among themselves, or are only the same things regarded from different points of view.

So we are forced to take one or the other “side” of the debate, when what is really necessary is to understand one’s fundamental assumptions. And many so-called conservatives hold a reactionary position on political or social issues, more or less out of old habit, while their fundamental worldview differs little from liberals or socialists. To summarize:

From this chart we can see where each school is logically compelled to find a solution:

• Liberals look to change political institutions
• Socialists look to change social mores
• Tradition looks to the moral regeneration of man

As Donoso points out, the liberals are ultimately incoherent. Their political institutions are lifeless and without soul. The liberal regards them as self-existent apart from the peoples, their values, history and consciousness. The conservative senses this but is unable to articulate it properly, primarily because he is a believer himself in his political institutions.

The socialist believes that the solution lies in the overthrow of traditional societal norms; only then will justice and happiness be achieved. Here we see the constant push against and challenge to traditional morality and social norms.

So we hear the cry from the conservative that the battle must be fought in the social arena. However, he himself absorbs the socialist view on issues — if not now, then eventually — due to the constant flow of propaganda. Hence, he gradually concedes the ground that he had initially won.

The war is really about worldview but no one notices. Metaphysics must be opposed to the rationalism of the liberals and socialists; the moral regeneration of man must be given primary place before political and social change. These voices are few, and where they do exist, they are unconvincing and their philosophy is inconsistent.