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.