Is Conservative and Libertarian Fusionism Possible?
This article is part of an ongoing series exploring the tensions between, coalitions within, and futures of conservatism and libertarianism. We are looking at ideas that divide conservatives and libertarians, as well as ideas that bring them together.
How many of us describe ourselves as conservative/libertarian-ish? Apparently a lot of us. I said in an earlier post, "social conservatives accuse me of being too libertarian, libertarians accuse me of being too socially conservative." You guys chimed in saying:
For forty years I've considered myself a libertarian, but find myself cringing at some of the current libertarian strategies and wishing libertarians were a little more conservative. — Brian Eenigenburg
My take on this is that labels such as "libertarian" and "conservative" and even "Christian" tend to be fuzzy around the edges. They represent a set of beliefs, centered around a core concept, but there is a lot of room for variation between individuals under the same umbrella. Thus, the debate is faulty from the beginning—there's no true answer. — Wesley Gant, V&C blogger
While I believe in liberty as much as anyone, I do not consider myself a libertarian. I do not call myself a conservative either (I refer myself as a traditionalist) because I do not agree with much of what goes by the name "conservatism" these days. — James Berry
It would be so much easier if there was a generally accepted term for those of us in the philosophical grey areas between conservatism and libertarianism. Ideally, this term would be absent of the stigmas associated with the conservative and libertarian labels.
"Fusionism" is a term suggested for this purpose. Of course, anything can be "fused," but in this case we mean conservatism and libertarianism. I first heard it used in this context at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier this spring.
At a panel called "God & Man at CPAC: What Can We Learn From the Enduring Legacy of William F. Buckley," historian Alvin Felzenberg listed several lessons the conservative movement should learn from Buckley's legacy.
While all of the lessons are worth reviewing, the final, and I'm assuming pinnacle, lesson was to practice fusionism. Building a movement, Felzenberg says, "means practicing addition, not subtraction."
After attending a recent debate hosted by the American Enterprise Institute and America's Future Foundation, between Jonah Goldberg, and Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, I concluded that:
Cutting ties with the conservative movement and the Republican Party could be crippling for the libertarian movement. Many young people find libertarianism through the economic giants which conservatism shares with libertarianism or through Republican elected officials such as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
Conversely, can the conservative movement afford to lose the libertarians? While it is understandable for conservatives to get frustrated with the rabble-rousing, free market-loving libertarians, pushing them away could mean the loss of a significant voting bloc. As Goldberg said, “you can’t pull out the libertarians and leave the conservative movement standing in America.”
(On a side note, I should introduce a feature called "What Would Jonah Goldberg Say?" for all the times I quote him. Or maybe start the Twitter hashtag #WWJGS)
Initially, I was all about the term fusionism. I even drafted a blog titled "Why I Am a Fusionist." But when I took a second look at the arguments, I see that they are entirely ends-based. Essentially, conservatives and libertarians won't accomplish anything alone so let's play nice and eventually, when we have the luxury, we can argue over our differences.
In terms of a political strategy, this idea has many merits. When it comes to federal policy, our quibbles are inconsequential if liberals control two of the three branches of government.
But I'm not sure this is a functional philosophy for a personal worldview. Last year I took on Matt Zwolinski, associate professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, and founder of BleedingHeartLibertarians.com for taking an ends-over-means approach to libertarianism.
Dr. Zwolinski and his fellow bleeding heart libertarians should be warned that their position is a precarious one. To believe that libertarianism, free markets and limited government are morally superior only because of their ends, completely ignores the very valid moral superiority of their means.
To ignore this argument means that one must be willing to abandon his free market convictions if ever enough data is found to prove that a controlled market is more just in its results. Zwolinski admits this saying, "if it turned out that we were absolutely wrong about all of this, we would give up libertarianism." But he dismisses the seriously of this condition, saying with a laugh, "we don't think that is likely to happen."
But data can be a dangerous thing. One's convictions should run deeper than the numbers, because statistics can be interpreted to say almost anything. Not to mention that economic conditions tend to be cyclical. If one is willing to change their convictions along with changing statistics, is it accurate then to say that person has convictions?
Applied to the discussion about conservative/libertarian fusionism, again, one's convictions should run deeper than political expediency. If one is willing to change their convictions along with changing conditions in Washington, is it accurate then to say that person has convictions?
What do you think? Is fusionism possible as a political strategy?
Is there a way to define fusionism as a philosophical middle ground between conservatism and libertarianism?
If you have a comment about this article or a question for this column, leave a comment below. Also send your comments and questions to Values & Capitalism or me, Jacqueline Otto, on Twitter.
5 people are talking about this
I wish Libertarians would simply go away. They are not conservatives, and have as much in common with social progressives as they do with fiscal conservatives. Conservatives believe in free market economics, so what do we really need libertarians for, aside from aligning us with social progressives? Libertarianism has no functional political constructs. I've never heard anyone actually define what a Libertarian government would even consist of. The constitution is not a libertarian document (although, the Declaration of Independence can be considered an early statement of the Libertarian ideal to some extent), it would certainly not be useful for the establishment of Libertarian rule. So, I think the constitution would be as endangered by a Libertarian government as it is by a progressive one.
"In terms of a political strategy, this idea has many merits. [...] But I'm not sure this is a functional philosophy for a personal worldview."
Fusionism, as I understand it anyway, isn't meant to supply a "philosophy for a personal worldview." At a bare minimum, it denotes the common ground among groups of people that appear to be fundamentally at odds with one another philosophically and politically. At a higher level, it describes how these groups' ideas (or some of them, anyway) complement and perhaps even support one other. I've never heard anyone claim much more for fusionism than this. It is ultimately about the relations between ideas of people who disagree at some level, not about the ideas held by a single person.
"What do you think? Is fusionism possible as a political strategy?"
It *has* worked as a political strategy, according to the account of Lee Edwards in his essay "The Conservative Consensus: Frank Meyer, Barry Goldwater, and the Politics of Fusionism," which I recommend to those interested in fusionism:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/the-conservative-consen...
I think that it has the potential to work at the federal level at the present and into the future. I'll refrain from describing what it might look like because I find it difficult to summarize my ideas without being unfair to conservatives and libertarians in my generalizations--and I'd rather not take the time to post a lengthy treatment of the matter. I will say though that there is probably less separating your average conservative and libertarian voter than disagreements between conservative and libertarian thinkers might lead you to believe.
What would be a good measure of whether a political strategy or a personal worldview is successful? But first, make a distinction between the two. One can operate from a consistent worldview through a political strategy and simultaneously appear to be compromising on both. This is because practically politics is always a compromise, or as some would have it, a Coasian bargain.
Individuals may adopt personal worldviews. I'm not sure that worldviews can ever be entirely shared. Spouses rarely see eye to eye on everything. On the other hand, political strategies are only embodied in groups or factions, to use an ugly word, but alas, the one Adam Smith preferred. What may separate some sets of individuals is their perspective toward political strategy.
Most political strategies attempt to gain purchase of some degree of power, to use that power to make changes in the governmental or legal structure, and to prevent opponents from gaining access to the power needed to undoing the changes they have made. It is all about manipulating the political mechanism.
It is hardly ever about destroying the mechanism itself.
Here, some among the libertarians will want to remind us of Burke's claim "that the thing itself is the abuse!" (See Munger on this!) But to actually dismantle the machine seems to be impossible, particularly when Gordon Tullock's Transitional Gains Trap theory is fully appreciated.
What then is to be done?!? In most cases Christians will align with whichever policy does the least harm. Conservatism has a Hayekian precedent when it truly is being conservative and resisting change just for change's sake. Yet modern liberalism sometimes proposes a change which will eliminate obvious injustices which the status quo bias of conservatism could never advocate in favor of.
The Christian in the mix has another alternative, and that is to follow the model given to us by our Lord, sacrificial altruism. How shall the injustice be reconciled? The Christian can ransom the victim and redeem the oppressor by taking the cost upon themselves. How can Christians end the horrors of abortion, for example? By offering to pay expecting mothers to carry their children to term and volunteering to adopt the babies, and the mothers, too. However much we are willing to pay sacrificially to save the baby's life is the true demonstration of that baby's worth to us.
That some will abuse such charity is obvious. That's why it is called charity. But love has a transformative effect, it saves the victim, and provides redemption for the perpetrator.
Stan1026 wrote: "Conservatives believe in free market economics, so what do we really need libertarians for, aside from aligning us with social progressives?"
Actually, plenty of conservatives *don't* "believe in free market economics." But I'm going to guess that you don't recommend that free-market conservatives shun non-free-market conservatives as "fiscal progressives" to maintain a philosophically pure political coalition. There is a strain of conservatism that libertarians and others might describe as collectivist but whose adherents would perhaps describe as traditionalist or communitarian, and for some flavors of this strain the libertarians have a point. Sometimes such conservatives call for protectionist economic policies and libertarians are often better at combating them than other conservatives are.
Stan1026 wrote: "Libertarianism has no functional political constructs. I've never heard anyone actually define what a Libertarian government would even consist of."
Just because you haven't come across something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Andrew Napolitano, for example, is a libertarian who has consistently appealed to the Constitution as a guide for the activity of the federal government. (I'm excluding here theories pertaining to local government because the topic is a national political coalition.)
The prospect of fusionism can seem to become impossible if we think in terms of a monolithic "Conservatism" and a monolithic "Libertarianism." But in politics we immediately contend not with such Isms but with people who identify as conservative, libertarian, etc., often because the term serves as a useful political shorthand rather than an all-encompassing philosophical designation.
Nathanael Snow: Is "sacrificial altruism" the only licit option for Christians, or can they legitimately advocate for the punishment of certain activities? For example, instead of making theft illegal and putting thieves in prison, Christians can simply pay the thieves whatever amount they require to keep them from committing theft. The same goes for murder and rape.
Join the Discussion