Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: billybudd

“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new in your writing, just some of the same generalities about the conservative movement, which have clearly become outdated.”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 As for outdated, well stuff does get outdated.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 I don’t see how fusionism is just outdated.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.


11 posted on 06/03/2007 9:39:16 PM PDT by Witchman63 ("Don't immanentize the eschaton!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Witchman63
I just think that this "let's get along" plan ignores political reality, which is partly due to the fact that "conservative" is an artificial construction which is breaking down right now. 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. 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.

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). This is why "fusionism" is outdated - because it was the political theory that led to this social con/libertarian alliance. 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)?
12 posted on 06/03/2007 11:20:02 PM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson