A New Threat of Terror: U.S. Conservatism and the Value of Nature

---

Dec 3, 2025

Skyler Outler #36.3

Art by Alexa Cruz-Abarca

Skyler Outler

Intro Feminist Philosophy

Dr. Bonnie Mann

17 October 2024

A new threat of terror: U.S Conservatism and the value of “Nature”

Introduction:

“Sex differences are established in natural law; that is, the content of that law is established by nature and therefore, presumably, has universal validity.” (Butler 29). This quote from Judith Butler is from their 2024 book *Who’s Afraid of Gender? *In this book, Butler talks about the anti-gender movement¹ that conservatives around the world are supporting. In this quote, Butler describes U.S. conservatism’s core value: “Natural Order.” This idea of a “natural order” is what U.S conservatives use for their justification against progressive policies. If something doesn’t align with the “natural order,” it is wrong. However, what is “the natural order” of society that they are referring to? According to the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that wrote Project 2025,the natural order is “essential to a flourishing society, without it, everything will collapse.” Throughout the document, they point to things like DEI, Critical Race Theory, and Sex and Gender education as things that mess up this “natural order” of society. However, the change to the natural order that they are referring to is the changing social climate that is no longer championing white cis heteronormativity, or the White Phallocratic reality.

In this essay, I am going to illustrate how U.S. Conservative ideology is enacting terrorism on the American people through nationalism that is rooted in the idea of “Natural Social Order,” which coincides with upholding the white phallocratic reality. I am using Project 2025 and other documents and resources from the Heritage Foundation as my source of critique on American Conservatism. In particular, I will critique the notion of freedom that they are trying to protect as the Heritage Foundation attacks DEI initiatives in the Department of Education through book bans, conversations about gender, sexuality, and other attacks on diversity. I will carry out this critique through Emmanuel Levinas’ conception of freedom and responsibility to show the shortcomings of this narrow notion of freedom that Conservatives value.

White Phallocratic Reality and The Natural Order

The White Phallocratic reality is defined as male-centered. It correlates with the universal natural order of things, putting men as active agents who are the origins of truth and reality. In contrast, women are the inactive or passive agents who follow and support this version of truth and reality. This is described by Marilyn Frye as “Man understands his perception as simultaneously generating and being generated by a point of view. Insofar as the phallocratic scheme permits the understanding that women perceive at all, it features women’s perceptions as passive, repetitive of men’s perception, unauthorized.” (Frye 86-87). I am expanding this to include whiteness as well, as I believe that whiteness operates in the same way. Furthermore, the white phallocratic reality is what structures the natural order that conservatives are referring to and what they are trying to preserve. This idea of nature to conservatives is fundamental to their politics, as nature to them is described as follows: “That there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is constant, and moral truths are permanent.” (Heritage Foundation.com).

This idea of nature structured around the white phallocratic reality presupposes three elements: 1) The assumption that nature is also confined to a binary system, and anything outside of this binary is outside of nature. An example of this is the insistence that there are only two sexes, Male and Female, and no such thing as gender. 2) This strict binary setup presupposes nature to be hierarchical as well. 3) Nature is also universalized, which assumes that it is unchanging, constant, truthful, and ultimately good. Therefore, if you go against nature, you are rejecting the truth, you are rejecting goodness, and doing so leads to moral destruction and mayhem. You can see all three of these elements of nature working together in Project 2025 as they reiterate the importance of “Nature” through their issue with “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” in Title IX.

In Title IX, they claim that the Biden administration replaced or redefined sex, which in nature is fixed with “SOGI” (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity). Replacing sex with this term is acting outside of nature, and the actions that follow this are putting the natural order at risk. Conservatives state that doing so has led us astray from nature, as policies “redefine” natural categories such as sex, through gender-inclusive language in federal policy. In Title IX, they claim that “replacing” sex with “SOGI” is putting women and girls in danger of being assaulted by men in locker rooms and bathrooms stating that doing such is not only unfair to women and girls, but threatens the right of free speech and religion to those who disagree with this “redefinition”². I find that their issue with SOGI in Title IX is not “redefining” but the expansion of such categories, as well as expanding these civil rights and protections to those who defy or reject the binary categorization of sex/gender.

Through this rejection of the binary system of sex, it challenges its notion of it as natural and the idea that it is fixed. Project 2025 states that the new administration is going to fix this by restoring the Title IX regulation with “Insistence that ‘sex’ is properly understood as a FIXED biological fact.” (Project 2025, 334). Furthermore, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks use the idea of nature as their guiding principle against inclusivity, as this is acting outside of nature and threatening the social order. The principles of variety and the principle of imperfectability are principles that underlie this notion of nature, as well as impose an element of hierarchy on nature and the idea that inequality is natural and creates a hierarchy and unfair power relations. In the principle of variety, they think equality is “narrowing uniformity” and “all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation” (Kirk, Ten Conservative Principles). They believe that inequalities are just natural differences that must exist in a society. Adding to this sentiment is the principle of imperfectability, which expands the former principle even further, as trying to alleviate inequality is an act of utopian thinking, and not possible for a healthy, flourishing society. Stating: “To seek utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: We are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk” (Kirk). This principle then goes on to state that “By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order.” (Kirk). When conservatives say that they want to preserve or save American ideals, they want to preserve this “natural” order that is hierarchical, unfair and exploitative.

Nationalism

I find that this desire to preserve this natural order is rooted in nationalism, described by Charles Townsend, the author of Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction, describes nationalism as the “intolerance of diversity or plurality” (Townsend 78). Conservatives are not particularly trying to create an all-white nation, but a nation that upholds unfair power structures that are based on the subordination of many (women, people of color, LGBTQIA +) and the power of the few (white cis men). This desire to hold onto this structure of power is due to the current shift of society away from a White Phallocratic reality, and the way that they are responding to this changing shift is through tenets of nationalism. This can be seen in their fight against progressive education as they feel that it is radicalizing students and separating children from their parents. A way that they are trying to combat progressive education is through book bans. Conservatives use the term DEI interchangeably with CRT(critical race theory), social and emotional learning, and others to claim that progressive education is teaching children an ideology that treats people according to their identity, whether that is their race, gender, or sexuality, rather than as an individual human being.

This argument not only misleads and confuses the general public, as it entangles a multitude of different subjects, but it also loses the ability to be able to pinpoint the exact issue that is going on. In this section, I am going to talk about their attempt to save the education system through “Classical Education,” which aims to uphold a particular³ social order in America, and describe certain acts within classical education that are harmful. Classical Education Curriculum is focused on providing students with “ knowledge, wisdom, and virtue essential for appreciating, practicing, and preserving their American freedoms” (Cambre 2024). Through the teaching of liberal arts, classic books, religious traditions, and local traditions that allow parents to be the primary educators in their children’s lives, classical education is fighting against the progressive education curriculum. The teachings of the great books and religious traditions are what I am analyzing as the nationalist elements of classical education.

A way that classical education is fighting against progressive education is through book bans and formulating a curriculum solely on the Great Books list. The great books list are books that mostly consist of European and Western literature and philosophy that are considered essential to having a well-rounded education. The teachings of the great books focus on works by ancient, modern, and late philosophers, non-fiction writers, and literary works that have been influential in American society in terms of shaping norms and ethics. Teaching these books is not an issue in itself, but what the intentions behind them. The books they are reading on this list, and the values they are trying to implement through reading these books, are a concern. The Heritage Foundation’s vision for teaching great books is to “ground students in the good, the true, and the beautiful. Its highest aim is to form virtuous students grounded in the best of the Western canon.” (Roberts 2024).

The reading of these books is centered around religious faith, which reemphasizes the importance of “nature” as the highest good, and anything outside of that is a threat to our American ideals, such as freedom. They claim that progressive education rejects teaching the great books, and instead indoctrinates students with radical racial and gender ideologies and takes students away from the truth. This argument is not only exaggerated, but completely wrong as public schools that do not follow classical education curriculum, do teach great books, but recognize that their lack of diverse authors or content creates a limited scope of human history and experience, and in an attempt to reflect the times, and the life of students, they read other books alongside them to do so.

However, in recent years, book bans against literature that is reflective of students and current times have been rampant as they fear that students are being indoctrinated with CRT, gender ideology, and Marxist thought, and that targeted books are “radical”. The groups behind book bans are parent and community-led groups, such as Moms for Liberty, who believe that these books stray away from teaching American civics, history, and values. The books that they try to ban have “explicit sexual content, inflammatory racial references, mentioning of drugs and alcohol, and violence” (Moms for Liberty) among other things that they consider inappropriate for children who are in K-12 education. Some examples of this are *Intersection Allies, Because You Matter, and I Am Jazz, *just to name a few. The reason they give for the banning of these books is due to their content being “Controversial racial commentary, Alternative gender ideologies, and Controversial social commentary that promotes activism of young children” (Moms for Liberty).

The reason for banning these books is not only an exaggeration but a response to the shift away from the white phallocratic reality. These books have diverse characters, show children that sex and gender are not a natural binary system, racism is something that happens in different ways, and that white children can enact such behavior on others. It also gives those who have been existing in the foreground of the white phallocratic reality a voice to be seen and heard. By banning them, the white phallocratic reality is reestablished as the only way to understand life and experiences. The natural social order is also reestablished through the replacement of these books with the Western/European literature from the Great Books List. Furthermore, these book bans are an act of nationalism, as they are responding to the shift away from the white phallocratic reality, and are trying to reestablish it through the insistence on reading solely from the ‘great books” list, as these books reestablish the idea of not only what is “natural” but what is truthful and good in their eyes.

Terrorism: Fear of the Other

The attempts that are described above are how the upkeep of this natural order manifests into acts of terrorism against the American people. The terrorism that conservatives are enacting is enforcement terrorism, described as “violent actions used by states to maintain the status quo through the imposition of social control measures” (opj.gov). The violent actions that U.S. conservatives are taking are targeted at the LGBTQIA+ community. This includes undoing legislation that the Biden administration put in place that gave trans and gender non-conforming people protection from discrimination in the workplace, schools, and other public places. Conservatives feel that expanding anti-discrimination protection to trans and gender non-conforming people has “trampled women’s and girls’ athletic opportunities and due process on campus, threatened free speech and religious liberty, and eroded parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex.” (Project 2025 Pg, 33). This is also the same sentiment present in their fight against DEI, within school curricula. The issue that they have with trans and gender non-conforming individuals is that they represent the rejection of the gender binary system. The sex/gender binary system is a social category that helps us and others understand who we are, how to act, etc, and just like any other social category, it makes us intelligible to others.

People who do not conform to the sex/ gender binary are unintelligible, and being unintelligible, makes conservatives have to question themselves and their understanding of sex and gender, and how to interact and approach someone who defies such categories. The social category of sex is a tool of totality, totality described as “grasping being out of nothing or reducing it to nothing, removing from its alterity” (Lévinas 44). This concept of totality is from Emmanuel Levinas, and he thought that social categories were ways of totality, as they allowed us to view people as objects and concepts to be understood, not for a better understanding of them, but to dominate them. Through sex, we view people as a representation of either male or female, and we do not see them as the Other, as an infinite being, but as a concept that we must understand. Furthermore, trans and gender non-conforming people defy such categorization, and embody Levains concept of infinity, “To think infinite, the transcendent, the Stranger, is hence not to think an object. But to think what does not have the lineaments of an object is in reality to do more or better than think.”(Levinas 49). Furthermore, it is only through seeing the Other in terms of infinity that we come into relation with them.

Some of the acts of terrorism that conservatives are doing to gender non-conforming people are not respecting their chosen pronouns and rolling back protective legislation. This is stripping away not only who they are, but also preventing them from forming a relationship with them as well. Furthermore, Trans and gender non-conforming people defy such strict concepts of being and make conservatives feel the shift of a new potential social order that doesn’t rely on strict categories, but rejects them altogether. This new social categorization doesn’t rely on power dynamics, which threatens the white phallocratic reality’s legitimacy and its structure as a hierarchy. In Project 2025, they describe how they plan to tackle radical gender ideology in schools, stating, “No public institution may require an education employee or contractor to use a pronoun that does not match a person’s biological sex if contrary to the employee’s or contractor’s religious or moral convictions.” (Project 2025 346). This policy and others are acts of terrorism, as they strip the alterity of the Other, and reduce them to their sex that they may not identify with. Through viewing people strictly through the lens of sex, we are not seeing them as an infinite other that we are responsible for, but as a representation of a social category that allows us to see them as that, not beyond that.

Conservatives’ attack on DEI through book bans is an act of terrorism against people of color, as they are not only saying that talking about such topics through story time with young children is “inappropriate” but that those who identify with the characters or plot don’t matter, are unimportant. Essentially, they do not exist. This not only reestablishes the hierarchical structure around the White phallocratic reality, but it also emphasizes that those who are not white, straight, and cis cannot exist as the main character, but are always in the foreground as the “extra” within a world that revolves around helping advance the plot for others. It is through the legislation that legalizes this behavior that it is an act of enforcement terrorism, as it is using legality to force the subordination of others. It is instilling fear into teachers, government workers, parents, and students to uphold this system, and if not, they will be met with legal trouble. Through this, they are legalizing hurtful rhetoric and ideas as the norm. Overall, undoing protective legislation is an act of terrorism, as it is creating fear, as well as violence, to force subordination and justify it through policies that are founded in the “natural order”.

The price of freedom

Throughout Project 2025, talk about protecting American freedoms such as freedom of speech and religion, stating that the terms DEI, Gender, gender equality, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and other forms of inclusive language, “deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights.” (Project 2025, 5). Not only is this an exaggeration, but it also illustrates the true meaning of American freedom that Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, and other conservative organizations are trying so desperately to preserve through book bans, policy changes, and education curriculum. Freedom in this sense is strictly individualistic and self-serving, as it only sees their wants, needs, or fears at risk of being taken away. It views people who are different as a threat to their freedom. Levinas’ conception of freedom differs from the conservative American conception of freedom, as it is not grounded solely within oneself, but within the Other, stating “To welcome the Other is to put in question my freedom” (Levinas 85). Without the Other, our freedom is arbitrary and has no sense of good or bad. In welcoming the Other, they put my freedom into question because of their infinity; this infinity does not allow me to control or dominate the Other, but to come into relation with them.

This conception of freedom requires us to question how personal freedom could harm the Other’s alterity, and how one can uphold the Other’s alterity through their actions. This is what I see in the reluctance towards trans and gender non-conforming people, as they represent existing outside the gender binary system, and it is through that that conservatives find themselves having this moment of hesitation or reflection on the meaning of these strict and narrowing categories of being. It is through trans and gender non-conforming people that their freedom of speech is put into question. This moment of hesitation makes conservatives question their freedom of speech as facing the Other makes them question how words and language can hurt or offend the Other. How can my words uphold their alterity? Conservative organizations have a very strong stance on the First Amendment and believe that any action that threatens it, even if it leads to discrimination, should be protected. In Project 2025, they describe how they plan to prohibit the FBI from combating the spread of misinformation and disinformation by Americans, stating “The United States government and by extension, the FBI have absolutely no business policing speech, whether in the public square, in print or online. The first amendment prohibits it.” (Project 2025 550). This plan is not only allowing potential misinformation and hate speech to be spread in the name of freedom, but it is also preventing this moment of reflection that lets people see others as a non-threat to their freedom, and not or in opposition to them, which is preventing a positive relation to form with others as well. When the First Amendment is used to spew hate, it is not being used to uphold others’ alterity, the other is not being considered at all as they are not seen in relation to them, but in strict opposition to them.

An argument that white parents have against DEI and CRT in schools is that it makes white children feel bad about themselves, and confess that they have white privilege. Even if schools were teaching CRT, the guilt that they would experience isn’t a bad thing that some make it out to be. White guilt happens whenever the topic of race comes up, and what these parents are fighting against, is essential for this country to heal its wounds from American slavery as it is this guilt that white children experience that allows them to question the systems of oppression that allow for racism to still prevail in this country. It is through white guilt that they will see that it is their responsibility, even if they did not inflict racism or oppression on people of color, they have a responsibility to dismantle it. It is through guilt that we are called to respond to the Other, which allows us to develop empathy, compassion, and responsibility for the Other, and white guilt is a perfect example of this. Levinas’ conception of freedom describes this as “Freedom then is inhibited, not as countered by a resistance, but as arbitrary, guilty, and timid; but in its guilt, it rises to responsibility”(Levinas 203). Freedom is not solely within oneself but is grounded within others.

The parents and policymakers who claim that CRT is causing their white children to feel this way are not fighting against CRT, but normal history lessons regarding race and American history. They claim that CRT has been implemented in their child’s curriculum after the 2020 BLM protests, along with the push for a more diverse curriculum that features Black authors and other marginalized voices. They claim that this is an act from the left to push a “woke” agenda onto their children. However, racism has always been an issue within the United States, and white people have always felt white guilt, but after 2020, it became very apparent how deeply entrenched the country is with racism and it made white people feel this collective sense of guilt, which led schools to address such issues within the school curriculum. The experience of White guilt is an essential part of the process of dismantling systemic racism. Without it, it allows systematic racism to continue, and parents and lawmakers are against real conversations about race because they know that this guilt can be used to do so. Therefore, freedom is not strictly found within ourselves, as the ability to do whatever we please. Freedom expresses the power and responsibility one has to others. This responsibility upholds the dignity, respect, the infinity of the Other. When we understand freedom through such an individual stance, it allows us to use it in ways that allow us to harm others, however, through viewing freedom as something that is grounded not strictly within ourselves, but by others, we will start to see others, not people that we need to protect ourselves from, but people that we live among and in relation with.

Conclusion

In this essay, I illustrated how U.S. Conservatism is enacting terrorism on the American people, through nationalism that is rooted in the idea of “Natural Social Order,” which coincides with upholding the white phaScriptError: TypeError: gdc.getDoc(…).getSelection is not a functionllocratic reality. I also elaborated on the notion of freedom that they are trying to protect by attacking the DEI initiatives in the Department of Education through book bans, conversations about gender, and other attacks on diversity by using Emmanuel Levinas’s conceptions of freedom and responsibility.

Call to Action: Infinite Possibilities

How can we fight against this threat to our democracy, that is, U.S. Conservatism, and its narrow conception of freedom? We need to rethink freedom and what it looks like. Freedom comes with great responsibility to the Other. We need to see the Other, not as a threat or as an obstacle to my freedom, but as something that gives my actions meaning, value, and ultimately a way to become a better person. We shouldn’t repress feelings of shame or guilt, but truly embrace them, as these emotions will make us strive for relationality and connection with others. Through these actions, and others, this is how we will not only fight against U.S Conservatism, but also experience the freedom, creativity, and the expansiveness that infinity can offer us.

                Works Cited

Townshend, Charles. Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction. 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2018.

“Ten Conservative Principles.” The Russell Kirk Center, 1 Dec. 2021, kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/.

Frye, M. (1989). Chapter 5: To See and be Seen: The Politics of Reality. In Women, Knowledge, and Reality Explorations in Feminist Philosophy (2nd Edition, pp. 77–92).

Lévinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority by Emmanuel Lévinas ; Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Translated by Alphonso Lingis, Duquesne University Press, 2003.

Cambre, Rachel Alexander. “Classical Schools in America: A Movement of Hope.” The Heritage Foundation, 26 Aug. 2024, www.heritage.org/education/report/classical-schools-america-movement-hope.

Roberts, Kevin D. “Why America’s Kids Need to Learn from the Founders via ‘Classical Schooling.’” The Heritage Foundation, 20 May 2024, www.heritage.org/education/commentary/why-americas-kids-need-learn-the-founders-classical-schooling.

“WCS Library Books.” Moms 4 Liberty, momsforlibertywc.org/books/. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Wolf, J. (1981). NCJRS Virtual Library. Enforcement Terrorism | Office of Justice Programs. https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/enforcement-terrorism#:~:text=Enforcement%20terror%20involves%20violent%20actions,and%20is%20generally%20government%20sponsored.

Burke, Lindsey, and Gene Hamilton. “Project 2025 | Presidential Transition Project.” Project 2025, 2024, www.project2025.org/.

Butler, Judith. “The Global Scene .” Who’s Afraid of Gender, 1st Edition ed., Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York City, New York 2024, pp. 29–52.

Notes