Problems With Fusionism
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
I’ve written often about the need for renewing the conservative- libertarian fusion, why I think this is a natural alliance, and the terms on which I think it should be forged. The actions of an assertive liberal (in the contemporary American sense) government are starting to illustrate this to the most interesting of those writers often termed crunchy cons, who often think of themselves in direct opposition to a hyper-individualized, commercial political culture on the Right. That is, as among the least natural candidates for fusionism imaginable.
The nature of this alliance is simple: crunchy cons want government to be limited to allow space for idiosyncratic local communities. It is a grudging acceptance of limits, rather than a full-throated embrace of large-scale politics. This strikes me as a healthy view of the role of politics. ~Jim Manzi
Manzi is correct that some of the crunchier dissidents (he has linked to Rod and John in this post) are interested in a sort of fusionism in that they, we, remain convinced that moral restraint and limited government, or virtue and liberty (to use old-fashioned fusionist language) rightly understood, are mutually reinforcing, and indeed that one cannot long have any meaningful kind of liberty without both a human-scale way of life and an ethic of restraint. My guess is that Rod and John would tend to agree that decentralist resistance to any large-scale polity, and thus of large-scale politics, is needed to preserve customary and chartered liberties.
The problem I have always had with fusionism in practice as a matter of political alliances is that typically the far more numerous traditionalist or social conservative part of the alliance is compelled to define and express its views through the distorting language of rights, and as a result the ostensible partisans of liberty end up not only dictating priorities for any such alliance but also end up defining what everyone is supposed to mean when referring to liberty. This is inevitably liberty-as-emancipation and not liberty-through-restraint, and partisans of the former are always going to portray liberty-through-restraint as creeping statism/socialism/authoritarianism, despite the fact that they and their understanding of freedom are paving/have paved the way for the very things they accuse us of wanting to impose.
If most libertarians were like John or Dylan Hales, there would be no problem, but a great many libertarians are a lot more like this, for whom idiosyncratic local communities are “islands of moral chauvinism” and the intellectual riches of Christian civilization are meaningless scribble. This is what makes a fusionist alliance with such fiercely anti-patriotic, anti-religious and globalist types so implausible, fruitless and inherently unattractive.
Filed under: politics
“… but a great many libertarians are a lot more like this, for whom idiosyncratic local communities are “islands of moral chauvinism†and the intellectual riches of Christian civilization are meaningless scribble. This is what makes a fusionist alliance with such fiercely anti-patriotic, anti-religious and globalist types so implausible, fruitless and inherently unattractive.”
Agreed!
I have come to actively resist conservative-libertarian fusionism, the reason you cite being one of my own. My primary reason, though, is that I am no longer willing to see so many Christian minds poisoned by Libertarian thought. Politics be damned! The Libertarian creep of the Church (especially among Evangelicals) is the far greater danger.
“Libertarianism is applied autism.”
–C Van Carter.
Can’t we “fuse” with these people to oppose the wars?
I respect Mr. Schwenkler, and I can understand describing his a crunchy con. However, he is a through and through libertarian. I’m not sure I should take the place of mediating tradionalist and libertarian debates, since I wouldn’t want to be in the latter camp and the former camp I’m not sure want me. Regardless, I think the reason for the alliance is being glossed. Traditionalists became fusionists because they saw religious practice threatened by communionism, and libertarians became fusionists because they saw individual liberty threatened. That just isn’t the situation today. Libertarians can’t hold their contempt for belief in God. Take Manzi’s statement, “crunchy cons want government to be limited to allow space for idiosyncratic local communities.” My goodness. Crunchy cons don’t need libertarians to be Amish. Their agenda doesn’t end at free association. They actually happen to believe that destructive behaviors are destructive and not just lifestyle choices (e.g. a couple commuting 60 miles each way to their job.)
This is a good point. The fusionist alliance isn’t even necessary, except perhaps for the libertarians, who have needed to keep traditionalists on board with their economic platform because they haven’t the numbers to support it on their own. As libertarians become more interested in cultural libertarian habits, the less interest they have in the limited government side of things.
@M.Z. Forrest -
I thought JFK’s presidency more or less put to rest fears of communionism among the mainstream American right.
You did mean “communism”, did you not?
I’m a libertarian. I not an atheist, but a Unitarian (might be better, might be worse, depending) . I have eunomia as a “must read” RSS feed. Even though I agree with Larison (and most writers at AmCom) about 85% of the time, I get that fusion does not necessarily make sense.
On a practical level, a united front of conservatives and libertarians cannot overcome the progressives on economic matters (for the time being). In that light, might as well be true to our roots.
Having said that, I don’t get a couple of points raised above.
How are the rights crowd “paving the way” for “creeping statism/socialism/authoritarianism”?
“[A]nti-patriotic, anti-religious and globalist types” … what libertarians have you been hanging around with? Granted, beyond first principles, getting libertarians to agree is like herding cats, but that list shows a bit of cherry picking. I seem to be as patriotic as you are, i.e., I can be critical of the excesses of my government while still loving my country. While I don’t place Christianity at the root of the American experience, I’m certainly not anti-religious. As for globalism, other than free trade (and I could be convinced to support “fair trade”) I’m as non-interventionist as any of you AmCom guys.
bayesian,
It would be quicker to pick the words I spelled correctly and sentences I used proper grammer than to correct all the mistakes. Long couple of weeks here. I did mean communism.
I think Clinton’s election was the first one not influenced by the fears of communism. I think Bush and Reagan were elected to spread the evanagelical message of anti-communism.
Daniel,
I think you and the others are correct in this that it is now, and always has been, libertarians who benefit from “fusionism.” That’s why a libertarian came up with it.
Admittedly, libertarians of the Rothbard stripe can maintain their goodwill toward traditionalists, but the unfortunate reality of libertarianism is it now dominated by the “pot and hookers” camp of Reason magazine, rather than the rugged individualist/Old Republic camp of Rothbard, et al. The Reason folks exalt their appetites above all else and will side with the central state against localities as they see localities as the most present threat to their self-indulgence.
You can’t ultimately fuse together a philosophy based on the recognition of man’s limitations and weakness with one ultimately premised on man’s limitless capability. Sure, you can do it on discrete policy issues. (“End the Fed!”) But the two sides will return to what truly animates them, and those things are irreconcilable.
In fairness, USC90, I was aiming that barb at Wilkinson and his sort of libertarians, to whom I think those descriptors apply pretty well. If that doesn’t fit you or other libertarians you know, I’m very pleased to hear it and I apologize for over-generalizing.
The basic idea I am getting at is that if people do not exercise self-restraint, restraints will be imposed from outside, so that liberty–political, economic, and so on–depends on personal restraint and discipline, without which people easily slide into dependence and servility to one set of masters or another. The idea derives from one of Burke’s more frequently-quoted statements. The main point is that if one does not govern himself, he will not long be able to practice or enjoy self-government politically.
@ Daniel Larison
No worries on the over-generalizing … not all conservatives hang out at the NRO and not all libertarians hang out at reason.com.
Besides, as a fellow ex pat of the Land of Entrapment, you’ll always get a pass from me (I’m sure that you’re breathing easier).
I get the concerns about self-restraint … I’m not sure that I get the connection to “paving the way†for “creeping statism/socialism/authoritarianismâ€. Without restraints, some who are prone to excess will lose their liberty. No argument there. I suppose that the punch line is that these lost souls will create the impetus for government expansion, but does that argument scale down from the anarchy-leaning libertarian to the more moderate small government types? Aren’t the real policy questions “when” and “how” to apply restraints instead of simply “whether” we should?