As mentioned in Chap. 1 , there is an absence of anthropological literature on conservatism within the United States. Thus, the contents of this chapter draw primarily upon the experiences of my interlocutors, that is, how conservatism is defined by them, rather than how it is being defined by scholars and members of the academic community. In an effort to truly do right by our interlocutors (Borofsky, 2019), I continue to argue that conservatism, as it truly matters for the purpose of this book, is to be defined first and foremost by those whose voices make up this book. While I have chosen to include a brief summary of prominent conservative theorists in order to provide an appropriate context, relying strictly on these definitions remains problematic for several reasons. First, as I later discuss, these scholarly works are not widely known to those whose political imaginary makes up the heart of this book. To impose a top-down definition does little to address the problems at hand. Further, there is and never will be a universal definition of conservative or liberal. These terms have become a subjective web of faith, economic, and political-based ideologies and theologies that have slowly been absorbed by the Republican Party.