Posted on 06/02/2007 8:12:40 PM PDT by Witchman63
I politically came of age in the early 80s. Reagan was president and fusionism was what got him there. He walked a tight rope of liberty versus virtue that are/were conservatism's highest ideals. I think too many conservatives either have forgotten about fusionsism, or disregard it, or never heard of it. I'll admit that this is an unabashed plea to social cons to willingly step down from their control of the republican party and join the rest of us in winning the next presidential election. I will be collecting and posting as many blog posts and articles as I can find regarding fusionism. I'll start with these links. I only ask that you replace communism with either the words totalitarianism, radical islam or utopianism in the older articles.
Fusionism is an American political term for the combination or "fusion" of libertarians and traditional conservatives in the American conservative movement. The strategy was advocated by National Review editor Frank Meyer, who believed that the holders of various disparate conservative beliefs should work together to combat the threats of Cold War communism, increasing government power domestically, and what seen as a decline in civil society (especially during the Great Society era of the mid-1960s).
Fusionism saw its height during the presidency of Ronald Reagan and in the immediate aftermath of the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Fusionist impulses began to decline during the presidency of George W. Bush. The social conservative element of the Republican Party was seen on the ascent (at least with respect to domestic politics), leading to increased domestic spending on "moral" issues that angered fiscal conservatives and libertarians. In addition, the long standing tensions between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives bubbled over in the wake of the Iraq War.
Following the Republican Party's defeat in the 2006 midterm elections, some are calling for a new "fusionism" between libertarians and liberals in the Democratic Party to address what is seen as increasing governmental interference in private activity. (editorial insert: lmao) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_(politics)
It is perhaps a paradox that it was a politician who not only communicated fusionism most effectively but also expressed its essence best. Ronald Reagan told a meeting of conservative leaders in Washington just after being sworn in as president:
It was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture. He pointed out that a respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions, these civilized ideas must still motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace.
It was Meyer who “in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought -- a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.”
That synthesis or “tension” in Western political thought as Meyer called it consisted of both libertarian economic means and traditional value ends. Reagan, again, explained it as it related to his own program of reform:
Our goals complement each other. We're not cutting the budget simply for the sake of sounder financial management. This is only a first step toward returning power to the States and communities, only a first step toward reordering the relationship between citizen and government. We can make government again responsive to the people by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly. Because ours is a consistent philosophy of government, we can be very clear: We do not have a social agenda, separate economic agenda, and a separate foreign agenda. We have one agenda. Just as surely as we seek to put our financial house in order and rebuild our nation's defenses, so too we seek to protect the unborn, to end the manipulation of schoolchildren by utopian planners, and permit the acknowledgement of a Supreme Being in our classrooms just as we allow such acknowledgements in other public institutions.
That synthesis built a modern conservative movement that culminated in the election of Reagan as president.
and also...The name fusionism is not important. A review of a new book of Kirk essays mentions that Kirk did not consider himself a fusionist. Neither did Meyer by that name but they both believed in a synthesis between tradition and freedom, order and reason. Indeed, as Meyer taught, Western civilization itself was and is a harmony of both. Not a simple uniform tune but a harmonic masterpiece, not simple libertarianism nor univocal traditionalism but both. As Reagan said, this “was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture” that created Europe and its offspring and imitators around the world, very much including the United States. This vision has lost much of its inspirational force in Europe and is weakened in the U.S. But the AFF debate suggests that Reagan and Meyer have left some “children” to carry on the philosophy, or at least to continue the debate.
http://acuf.org/issues/issue77/070204news.asp
What spending on moral issues? It doesn't cost anything to not fund abortions. It doesn't even cost any more to ban abortions than it does to protect the so-called "right." It doesn't cost anything to not promote homosexuality and promiscuity. It doesn't cost anything to not fund embryonic stem-cell research. Socialism is expensive, but that's the baby of "progressives" and also the inevitable result of radical libertarianism where gov't enforces communities to recognize no collective values. In the name of freedom they lose their freedom to distinguish between moral and immoral. "Diversity" and non-judgmentalism and tolerance of perversity are the new values. That may feel like freedom to some, but it is tyranny to others -- to those who want to raise their children to be virtuous and decent. Once everyone makes a disaster of their lives, you can bet they will demand gov't fixes. Look at AIDS. I am not talking about massive social control. I am talking about not slaughtering babies and not corrupting the minds of children and not condoning perverted sex acts and rewarding them with gov't benefits.
Social conservatives believe it is immoral to take away the fruits of one person's labor in order to give it to someone who has not earned it. That's theft.
Social conservatism is what enables fiscal conservatism to work.
And Jerry Brown was a Libertarian....
Oh come on. If a govt has to make people do what they would otherwise not do then that govt has to enforce it. In this instance, to make abortion illegal. That is work and work costs money. As I said, if a state wants to enforce any social/religious agenda and pay the money to do so and it turns out to attract more businesses and people there and it evolves into a more harmonious community then God bless them. Lets try it at the state lever first. Any federal wide enforcement of anything costs people money, time and effort outside of their day to day path of least resistance. That cost will be paid for by the tax on the “fruits of your/mine/their labor”. That is a cost. I don’t deny its a cost sometimes worth paying but lets try any social con measure at a state level first. When it gains enough popularity across enough states then maybe we can put it up for an amendment to the constitution. In the meantime, if you try to impose your social/religious agenda on the federal govt then you are a utopianist as bad as the socialists. Remember they want to house, feed, cloth, and provide heathcare to the poor through the federal govt. Sounds pretty moral to me.
You don't sound like someone who wants to rebuild a coalition. You sound like someone who wants to bully some people into voting how you tell them to.
I can’t help that. Its a very well known term amongst conservatives. You have never heard of Frank Meyer, its leading proponent? How about the National Review which Meyer was one of its original editors? Or William F Buckley, who worked with Meyer to expound on the benefits of fusionism for almost two decades within the pages of the National Review. How about The American Conservative Union Foundation the online sister organization to the ACU from which I culled that article on fusionism in my original post. No offense but its astounding to me that you haven’t heard about fusionism.
“If that’s true, why bother using it, since no one else has ever heard of it?”
Again, every conservative politician and wonk and a great deal of Main Street conservatives and quite a few liberals have heard of it. Actually Meyer didnt invent the term fusionism and didn’t like it and didn’t use it much to identify his method of looking at the whole of conservatism and finding ways that its disparate factions could come together. Much like neocons didnt invent that term and originally didn’t embrace it as a term for themselves. But the term fusionism stuck. I am including a section of an article thats titled “The Conservative Consensus: Frank Meyer, Barry Goldwater, and the Politics of Fusionism”. Its dated January of this year. Its a good article. Oh and it was done by the Heritage Foundation. You’ve heard of them haven’t you?
“Fusionist Renewal and the Future of Conservatism
Today, in the wake of the 2006 elections and the escalating debate among neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, libertarians, and just plain conservatives about the future of conservatism—with some arguing that it has none—a “new” fusionism has been proposed as a solution. It is time, some say, for Republicans and conservatives to return to their small-government roots and get away from so-called religious extremism. They point to Barry Goldwater as the historical model, claiming that he had little interest in the moral side of the political equation.
As we have seen, this is a serious misreading of Goldwater’s fundamental views as best-selling author and presidential candidate. Goldwater consistently offered a blend of traditionalist and libertarian ideas. In 1964, for example, he said that “it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions.” A little earlier, he wrote that if the Christian Church doesn’t fight totalitarianism, “then who on earth is left to resist this evil which is determined to destroy all virtue, all decency”? Jerry Falwell couldn’t have phrased it any better.
Republicans and conservatives must remember, says Dick Armey, House Majority leader from 1995 to 2003 and himself a libertarian, that “the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. [We] must keep both in the fold.”
Frank Meyer, the intellectual father of fusionism, and Barry Goldwater, the first political apostle of fusionism, sought to unite, not divide, all conservatives. Their goal was a national movement guided by constitutional principles of ordered liberty. The solution for the American conservative movement in these challenging times is not a new but a renewed fusionism.
Donald Devine of the American Conservative Union, an old-line fusionist like M. Stanton Evans, has called for “utilizing libertarian means for traditionalist ends”—the ends being the return of political power to states, communities, and the people. His proposal, applauded by traditionalists and libertarians, is a response to the Big Government conservatism of recent vintage. In his latest book, Getting America Right, President Ed Feulner of The Heritage Foundation lays out a six-point program to begin rolling back the welfare state and reinforcing traditional American values. As governor of our most populous state and then President for a total of 16 years, Ronald Reagan demonstrated conclusively that fusionism works.
But fusionism requires more than a consensus as to goals: It needs a foe common to all conservatives. Militant communism served as a unifying threat from the late 1940s through the late 1980s. In the early 1990s, without the soothing presence of Ronald Reagan and with the collapse of communism, large fissures appeared in American conservatism. These fissures produced paleoconservatives pining for the isolationist 1930s and neoconservatives resurrecting Wilsonian dreams of a world made safe through democracy.
Leviathan’s lengthening shadow across America did not suffice to bring conservatives together until Newt Gingrich and his merry band of congressional revolutionaries offered America a Contract that was fusionist in spirit and helped them win a majority in the House of Representatives. President Bill Clinton countered with his own brand of Democratic fusionism, proclaiming that the era of Big Government was over and signing a conservative welfare reform bill.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the jihad proclaimed by Islamic fundamentalists temporarily united the nation and the conservative movement, but political partisanship quickly reemerged to make prudential governance and reasoned discourse difficult if not impossible.
The impasse can be broken with a renewed fusionism based on limited government, the free market, individual freedom and responsibility, a balance between liberty and law, and a commitment to moral order and to virtue, both private and public. These are the core beliefs, bounded by the Constitution, on which American conservatism rests and by which its leaders have always sought to govern.”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/fp8.cfm
Just getting it out of the way for the Libertarian bashers.
Like anyone could take the wind out of the sails of the libertarian bashers. Thanks for trying though. For clarification though, I am not a libertarian. I am a fiscal/small government con. I do, however, have a strong respect fot the libertarian ideal and hope that shades of it run through every faction of the conservative movement. That libertarian instict to ask the question “Does the government need to do this?”.
“I have read the people and organizations you refer to and I’ve seriously never heard the term “fusionism” before. It sounds made up - so why bother using it?”
Again I can’t help that. Its the excepted term. Its been around for a long time. The Heritage Foundation, the ACU and the National Review use it in common parlance to name just a few of the leading journals and media outlets of the conservative movement. What more do you want?
“Also, I don’t see anything new in your writing, just some of the same generalities about the conservative movement, which have clearly become outdated.”
Well I didnt right it but I agree with it. See what I do is read up on stuff written by people who are clearly smarter than I. I hope to understand it and if I agree with it then I express my support. As for outdated, well stuff does get outdated. Some stuff falls in and out a popularity. Some stuff stands the test of time. I don’t see how fusionism is just outdated. I think there has to be away for all the factions of the conservative movement to come together and still be politically relevant, dominant even. I dont think towing the social con line is the answer anymore. I didnt like it when it was. I do think that fusionism is. It will require the social cons to relinquish some of there governmental power. This doesnt mean relinquishing their goals. It means reframing the debate for the american people and the republican party. Reframing to methods we use to attain those goals.
“People need to ask themselves where their ideological loyalties really lie. The question for libertarian Republicans is: what exactly is your constituency? How are you going to organize yourself so you don’t get taken for a ride by the RINOs exploiting the social conservative vote? These are the real issues today. Wishing for a return to some “fusionism” is not gonna cut it.”
That is a pov with which I totally disagree. Its anti-fusionism. It also completely misses the point of fusionism. RINO is someone who is a liberal in sheeps clothing. Fusionism doesnt ask conservatives to allow liberals into its midst. It asks conservatives to allow all factions of the conservative movement to have a say using certain factions methods to attain other factions goals.
Oy.
“I just think that this “let’s get along” ...
Fusionism is not a “let’s get along” plan. It acknowleges the differences between the factions. It states that there is a way to utilize the methods of the small govt, fiscal and small govt conservatives to achieve social con ends. It even lauds and doesnt dismiss the social con goals. It states that those ends are good and worthy of striving for. It goes further says that small govt cons and libertarian cons and even fiscal cons, all cons should make virtue their goal. A classic example is the abortion issue. Do you realize we have the most liberal most pro abortion laws in the world because of Roe V Wade. The federal judiciary ruled on this issue when it should have been left to the states? Now social cons want to find some way to illegalize abortion at a federal level when their best bet is to get it sent back down to the states. It takes power away from the federal govt. It is acceptable to fiscal cons and small govt cons and quite a few libertarians amd libertarian cons who would be ok that this is fought out on a state by state level. And if it was left up to the states and since most people want some level of illegalization of abortion(can you say partial birth) libs would lose big time in state ellections.
“which is partly due to the fact that “conservative” is an artificial construction which is breaking down right now”
It was breaking down in the late 60s and early 70s when the liberal Republicans ruled the party(they didnt need to call themselves RINOS). When Goldwater was cast out. When Nixon felt completely comfortable approaching China and enacting price controls. Then fusionism kicked in as articulated by Buckley and Meyer. It got us Reagan as president. It held on through the contract with America. It could happen again. It wasn’t that long ago.
” I think it’s pretty clear that the liberal RINOs, like Bush, have been using the social conservative vote to keep control of the Republican party.”
He isnt a RINO. He is a social con. Social cons have no problem with a big all powerful govt as long as it forwards their agenda. We should try to convince social cons that big govt conservatism hurts them in the long run. And if Bush isnt a perfect example of that then I dont know what is.
“That’s why the constituency question is important. The GOP at this point simply doesn’t depend on libertarians, so they get screwed big time. The government has grown more than during the Clinton years.”
No, thats why fusionism is important. Stop looking at libertarians as a constituency and start looking them as a group that can bring something philosophically and tacticly to the table. Kinda ironic that the govt has grown more under a social conservative who refused to embrace any of the ideas of the libertarians, small govt and fiscal conservatives while it came close to getting its house in order under a liberal who embraced a few conservative ideas.
“I simply don’t get your plan. Why should any group want to give up any power? The social conservatives are getting what they want (supposedly).”
Lets debate that.
“This is why “fusionism” is outdated - because it was the political theory that led to this social con/libertarian alliance.”
Lets debate that as well.
“And that alliance has broken down for very obvious reasons. Seriously, why should anyone listen to the libertarians unless they prove they have some sort of political muscle (of which right now they have almost none)?”
As a constituency you may be right. As a philosophy that runs through most strands of conservatism, I think you are wrong. But lets debate that too.
Rudy: A Knife to the Throat of the Reagan Coalition?
Posted by Ryan Sager
Mon, 7 May 2007 at 9:13 AM
For anyone ready to accuse me of being an anti-Giuliani operative, please remember the Great Law of Headline Question Marks (if a headline asks a yes or no question, the answer is always no).
That said, there’s been some interesting back and forth over at the American Spectator’s Web site over whether Rudy Giuliani would destroy the Reagan Coalition. Last Tuesday, G. Tracy Mehan, III, a former EPA official in both Bush administrations, wrote an article calling Mr. Giuliani a “knife to the throat” of the Reagan Coalition.
Mehan wrote that Mr. Giuliani “could be the death knell of the Reagan Coalition, that successful alliance of economic, defense, and social conservatives forged in the 1976 Republican primary.”
This is wrong on any number of levels. The most important one, I think, being that the “successful alliance of economic, defense, and social conservatives” happened in 1964, with the candidacy of Barry Goldwater — and it would more properly be called the “fusionist coalition” as opposed to the “Reagan Coalition.” That fusionist coalition took over the Republican Party in 1964, but it didn’t win the presidency until 1980, and that’s where the Reagan Coalition comes in — bringing into the Republican fold a large pool of blue-collar Democrats.
A more likely view of what Mr. Giuliani would mean for both the fusionist and Reagan coalitions is provided in a response to Mehan’s article by Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas (it’s so good I’ve taken the liberty of quoting it in full):
In regard to Tracy Mehan’s article “A Knife to the Throat”, I am compelled to respond to his main contention that Rudy Giuliani could be the “death knell of the Reagan Coalition.”
Mehan asserts that Rudy Giuliani would disrupt “that successful alliance of economic, defense, and social conservatives forged in the 1976 Republican primary.” Not only has the opposite proved true, but this very alliance has already begun to unite behind the Mayor, making him the front-running conservative in the Republican presidential primary.
Mayor Giuliani is a results-oriented leader who believes that “the private economy, not government, creates opportunity.” By cutting taxes 23 times, Mayor Giuliani spurred economic growth in NYC and saved taxpayers over $9 billion. Additionally, he cut spending, reducing the number of full-time non-security, non-education city workers by nearly 20%. The result: Mayor Giuliani turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus.
As mayor of New York City on 9/11, Giuliani understands the threat of terrorism firsthand, and he remains committed to fighting the primary threat against our nation — the rise of Islamo-fascism. With a well-documented commitment to the security of America and her interests, the Mayor understands that we are engaged in a long-term War on Terror which will determine our very existence and, more specifically, determine whether we will enjoy the luxury of debating economic and social issues at all.
As a pro-life Member of Congress who receives a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union, I believe that social conservatives across the nation are discovering common ground with Giuliani — discovering that his record is much closer to their own belief than what his political opponents represent. The facts speak for themselves — because of the policies he supported, abortions decreased over 16% in New York City while adoptions increased by 66% while he was mayor.
Giuliani shares with social conservatives the strong conviction that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. He maintains the conservative belief that behavior, not our economic system, is responsible for intergenerational poverty, and that to reduce poverty our nation must change its attitude toward marriage and raising children responsibly. “If you wanted a social program that would really save these kids,” Giuliani commented, “...the social program would be called fatherhood.”
In addition to the growing strength of Giuliani’s “Reagan Coalition,” Mehan overlooks Giuliani’s ability to resurrect one of Reagan’s most important coalitions — Reagan Democrats. Rudy Giuliani will compete in all fifty states, overturning red state/blue state conventional wisdom by placing Democrats on the defense in states that have been solidly blue for years — states such as New York, New Jersey, and California.
The Reagan Coalitions are more alive today than at anytime since his presidency as economic, defense and social conservatives, and yes, even Reagan Democrats, discover the leadership qualities and conservative government record of Mayor Rudy Giuliani — qualities that I believe will make him our nation’s next President.
— Congressman Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Mr. Giuliani has a very strong argument to make that his reforms in New York City were a massive triumph of social conservatism, or at the very least a shining example of how small-government means can lead to social-conservative ends.
I’d also note one of the other responses to Mehan’s article that the Spectator printed: namely, that President Bush has already destroyed the fusionist coalition with his spending and exploitation of divisive social issues.
While Mr. Bush may not have completely destroyed fusionism, it’s clear that it’s in need of major repairs. Mr. Giuliani may or may not be the best candidate to effect such repairs. But it seems clear that he is the most likely to attract Reagan Democrats — in an election where Republicans desperately need such support to hold the White House.
http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/rudy-a-knife-to-the-throat-of-the.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.