Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fusionism, 60 Years Later
National Review ^ | JONAH GOLDBERG

Posted on 11/08/2015 3:27:22 PM PST by TBP

Who lost the libertarians?” It’s a question you hear a lot from conservatives of late. The reason should be obvious to anyone who has followed the conservative movement’s internecine intellectual frictions over the last decade — or decades. Self-described libertarians are a minority, even among the ranks of people one could properly describe as libertarian. On many, or even most, contentious public-policy issues — economics, gun rights, health care, free speech, regulation, constitutional interpretation — most support for the libertarian position actually comes from people who describe themselves as conservatives. In other words, conservatives tend to be libertarian, but libertarians tend not to be conservative.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: conservatism; frankmeyer; fusionism; goldberg; karlhess; kirk; libertarianism; russellkirk; trixiesson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
This is an interesting philosophical discussion of the history of relations between conservatives and libertarians and the effort to bridge that gap.
1 posted on 11/08/2015 3:27:23 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ADemocratNoMore; Aggie Mama; alarm rider; alexander_busek; AlligatorEyes; AmericanGirlRising; ...
Rand ping.

Ayn Rand, the anti-statist titan, was "read out" of the conservative movement in these pages by Whittaker Chambers for her views on religion and morality. Rand held "that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself." She even denounced the crucifixion as "the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal." It's not hard to see why such views would not sit well at a magazine with a strong Catholic bent.

2 posted on 11/08/2015 3:41:10 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Rand’s Humanist bent is well known and grounds for a lot of conservatives rejecting her. I find that I can take the best of her ideas and leave the rest. She can be wrong about things too, but when she’s right, she’s RIGHT.


3 posted on 11/08/2015 3:49:17 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TBP
FTA
appears towards the end of the article

". . .a certain wealthy real-estate magnate and reality-show star threatens to become the titular leader of the conservative movement . . ."

The Donald is not, nor pretends to be, the leader of the Conservative movement.
The Republican party abandoned conservative principals and actively fights grass roots conservative efforts.

The Donald ain't a Conservative.

Supporters know this.
Many are behind Trump because of two big ideas:

and NO OTHER candidate is close.

4 posted on 11/08/2015 3:55:07 PM PST by Macoozie ("Estoy votando por Ted 2016!" bumper stickers available)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

” Self-described libertarians are a minority, even among the ranks of people one could properly describe as libertarian. “

I lack the mental energy to plow through this pretentious muck.


5 posted on 11/08/2015 4:03:32 PM PST by sparklite2 (All will become clear when it is too late to matter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Goldberg covers the history well.


6 posted on 11/08/2015 4:19:05 PM PST by KC Burke (Ceterum censeo Islam esse delendam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke

Covers the history well? Not really. He just has a slick narrative. His “church and throne” comment is historically illiterate, and he doesn’t know much about serious libertarianism, including it’s strengths, divisions, and and weaknesses. His comments about Rothbard aren’t serious, nor are his comments about the Old Right. Goldberg sometimes makes sense on current issues, but even then he far to GOPe/neocon.


7 posted on 11/08/2015 5:52:05 PM PST by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Rand was far and away not a humanist. Humanism exhorts a morality that comes from man but dependent on the collective will of man. Therefore any concept of individual rights in humanism exist solely at the behest of whatever laws men decide to right.

Rand correctly identified individual rights as part of and inseperateable from mans nature.

Only some conservatives reject Rand and as best I can tell its mostly from spite. Rands atheism was a consequence of her philosophy but she never translated her atheism into public policy. She again correctly felt it didn’t belong in politics


8 posted on 11/08/2015 6:20:08 PM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000; TBP

libertarian thought started with Joshua: “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” That is followed by the book of Judges observing that everyone did what he thought was right in his own eyes.

Judeo-Christian libertarianism is the basis for all libertarianism in the US. Rand is just branched off from Judeo libertarianism by leaving “the Lord” out of it.

The theology of Cain is the constant enemy of Judeo-Christianity. God asked Cain “Where is your brother?” Cain did not want to answer God. So Cain raised a non-sequitor: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Of course, the Judeo-Christian answer is “No, I am not my brother’s keeper. I am my brother’s brother.” A keeper is superior to his brother. Zoos have keepers. Prisons have keepers. Plantations have keepers.

I am my brother’s brother is the true Judeo-Christian position. But our sinful nature of pride wants to believe that we know what is best for the brothers. Thus, our sinful nature leads us away from Judeo-Christian libertarianism and into the brothers-keeper theology of Cain, the first theologian who tried to improve on God’s idea.


9 posted on 11/08/2015 6:21:40 PM PST by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob

When God is left out of it the libertarian entire position collapses into a form of existentialism. Rothbard knew this, but lacked a satisfactory answer - other than being inclined toward Natural Law theory.


10 posted on 11/08/2015 6:32:48 PM PST by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

You’re more forgiving of her than I am. She could not bring herself to contemplate that the rights “innate in man’s being” were either a completely arbitrary construct possessed of only whatever moral authority Man gave them, or they were divinely vouchsafed us by some Being greater than ourselves.

Nevertheless, in elevating Man to the status of self-Creator, she prescribed a philosophy that gave no man power over any other ...the ultimate in human-centric liberty.


11 posted on 11/08/2015 7:43:43 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

You’d still need some meta-being in the picture to be an enforcer of the “oughts.”

In the end it looks like yet another lame attempt to help God.


12 posted on 11/08/2015 7:45:44 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

Agree


13 posted on 11/08/2015 7:46:55 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob

Excellent point.

In fact Cain had arrogated to be Abel’s “keeper” going along those lines. “This uppity dude ought to die” seems to have been his idea.


14 posted on 11/08/2015 7:50:06 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
"that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself."

I feel that man cannot allow himself to be coerced or forced to sacrifice himself to others and I will meet every individual on these same terms. I as an individual, reserve the right to freely give to others as I see fit. Charitable giving must be recognized as a valid enterprise if it improves my world and those within it. As such, Socialism is the greatest evil mankind has created.

15 posted on 11/08/2015 11:08:57 PM PST by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

>> In other words, conservatives tend to be libertarian, but libertarians tend not to be conservative.

As a conservative libertarian, I’m inclined to agree, but a healthy percentage of conservatives prefer regulations to ensure the desired outcome.


16 posted on 11/08/2015 11:26:33 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Russell Kirk's Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries
17 posted on 11/08/2015 11:34:03 PM PST by Pelham (A refusal to deport is defacto amnesty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Murray Rothbard's The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult
18 posted on 11/08/2015 11:45:40 PM PST by Pelham (A refusal to deport is defacto amnesty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad most conservatives recognize the contribution Ayn Rand gave to the philosophical justification of individual rights but I’ve read all her books. What you said she could not bring herself to contemplate was central to her argument. It’s hard to sum up her work in one quote but I’ve found one:

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A, and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.”

Whatever you think of mans origin, our purpose...at least in part...is to live here, on earth. In order to best do that, certain objective conditions to protect the individual must exist and it is up to us as a society to enforce them. That’s her basic message and it’s a very Christian one as well. The only claim her supposed ‘liberty loving’ christian detractors have is that it wasn’t meant to be. And as Whittaker Chambers that pisses some of them off.


19 posted on 11/09/2015 12:04:41 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob

Interesting post.


20 posted on 11/09/2015 12:17:38 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Without God, all you are left with are empty "isms.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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