Posted on 03/01/2008 6:15:53 AM PST by kellynla
Conservative intellectual William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder of National Reivew, died Wednesday morning at the age of 82. The editors of National Review are hardly an impartial source, but they are nevertheless largely correct when they write that "he created modern conservatism as an intellectual and then a political movement."
Buckley's central contribution was to forge an alliance between religious traditionalists, pro-free-marketers, and foreign policy hawks. National Review describes this task as convincing "anti-Communists, traditionalists, constitutionalists, and enthusiasts for free markets" to "all...take shelter under the same tent."
The idea that was supposed to hold up this conservative "big tent" was the theory of "fusionism." Buckley didn't originate fusionism (it was articulated by Frank Meyer), but the idea was vigorously promoted by National Review. Fusionism was the idea that the three wings of conservatism could not only find common cause but could cobble themselves together into a semi-integrated ideology. The theory was that the religionists would defend traditional American values, which would provide cultural support for the ideals of limited government and American patriotism.
This ideological coalition first found expression with the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, which failed to win the presidency but succeeded in launching a political movement. And the long-term legacy of that movement was the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who succeeded not only in winning two terms in office, but in braking America's descent into socialism and precipitating the collapse of the Soviet Union.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
‘tis true.
The stool of three legs has to have the pan, the flat part, the seat that brings them all together and provides a common platform.
That platform was respect for the individual, and protection of individual rights.
Social conservatives have discarded this...as have the other two. So conservatism is left sitting upon the legs without the platform....and you can imagine why it doesn’t feel so good. :-/
A point well made and on target.
“A point well made and on target?”
what point is that?
“That platform was respect for the individual, and protection of individual rights.
Social conservatives have discarded this?”
I would consider myself a “social conservative” and I and millions of others who are “social conservatives” and Pro-Life and anti-abortion have certainly not “discarded” the “respect for the individual, and protection of individual rights.”
We certainly have & are paying in life & treasure.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
“The left has never learned the moral lessons of this history—but neither has the right.”
“But fusionism is ultimately untenable, and there is an irony in the fact that Buckley died at the conclusion of the 2008 Republican primary—a contest which offers a profound warning of the inherent instability of the fusionist coalition.”
No need to quote the author.
Since I posted the piece; you can be sure I read the piece. LOL
So you too think that the “right” has “never learned the moral issues of history”?
And just what “moral issues of history” has the “right” not learned?
“fusionism is ultimately untenable?”
History has proven the author wrong now hasn’t it...
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
That aside, Tracinski is correct about the difficulties of fusionism. His failures are threefold
1) He fails to understand that Traditionalists and Evangelicals are not the same thing. Tracinski should look up the "New Right" of the 1970s.
2. He ignores anti-communism as the glue of fusionism. The truth is that Traditionalist Conservatives have already split into paleocons, those who opt out of corrupted politics, and those who seek to reshape the fusionist compromise.
3. Tracinski is under the delusion, fostered by hte left and the media, that it is only religious conservatives who have broken the faith. The truth is taht there is no "free market" per se and that American corporations are not conservative. They seek money above all and far too many have been taken over by the 1960s kids, the anti-wasp sentiments of other groups, and the global zitgeist of Transnational corporatism. American companies moving to communist China are neither American nor Conservative. Biomed companies playing Mengelian games with fetuses aren't conservative. Fortune 500 companies instituting Multi-culturalism and funding the left aren't conservative.
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.