On 'Fusionism'
Libertarianism Is No Friend Of Conservatives
Josh Hammer has an article at American Greatness today that is on point with some recent discussions here. The article arises out of an address that Hammer recently gave at the National Conservative Conference. Here’s how he describes it:
At last month’s National Conservatism Conference in Orlando, Florida, I used my speech to criticize “fusionism,” the postwar conservative movement’s default political alliance ... Fusionism, as formulated and popularized by the midcentury theorist Frank Meyer, “fused” together economic laissez-faire dogma with privately held social and cultural conservatism. Fusionism remains today the philosophical lodestar for many of the leading institutions of Conservatism, Inc., such as National Review and the Heritage Foundation.
In other words, “Fusionism” is simply Libertarianism—which is made explicit in the link to Meyer. Laissez-faire economics of the Classical Liberal variety—free trade and individual oriented liberty—is what matters, but it’s OK to privately hold “social and cultural conservatism”, i.e., the traditional culture of the Christian West. Implicit in this is the idea that such “social and cultural conservatism” is a personal matter, to be espoused in one’s private life. Individual liberty trumps social solidarity—there is no real place for a morality that is based on a vision of human nature, nor society wide norms of conduct outside the minimal strictures of the criminal law. It’s the tired old “social contract” theory. It’s Reaganism, but not Trumpist populism.
Here is Hammer’s critique. It leaves much unsaid, but Hammer eloquently attributes great responsibility to this form of Libertarianism the cultural and social crisis that we’re experiencing. Here is the gist of his views:
The overarching issue is that the fusionism of Conservatism, Inc., as a structural matter and due to the very nature of the liberal order on which it is necessarily dependent, is incapable of resisting the left’s “long march through the institutions,” let alone positing its own substantive vision of a good society and the good life. And it is incapable of doing so because it improperly relies upon the illusion of a values-neutral liberal order—a values-neutral free market, a values-neutral town square and a values-neutral U.S. Constitution—to secure its “private” culture at the same time that the progressive left champs at the bit to remold the nation in its dystopian image and subjugate us “deplorables” into second-class citizens.
History has shown that a values-neutral liberal order amounts to a one-way cultural ratchet. The wokesters are all too happy to fill the ever-larger void left behind by a “naked” public square. Indeed, the wokesters are abetted by fusionist right-liberals who refuse to inject any sense of overt value or morality into the national fabric as a matter of high-minded principle and who instead prefer the relative governing safety of slashing taxes and regulations and calling it a day. In a nutshell, the left knows precisely which (immoral) values it stands for, and it aggressively seeks to advance and disseminate those values. Against such an unrestrained adversary, Fusionism’s plea for liberal procedural neutrality rings hollow.
The predictable result has been the unprecedented metastasis of the woke ideology through more and more of the nation’s leading institutions, from elementary school classrooms to Fortune 500 boardrooms. Against this terrifying new threat, the fusionist playbook that reached its zenith during Ronald Reagan’s presidency is largely impotent. It makes no sense whatsoever to spout platitudes about corporate tax cuts and slashing unnecessary red tape when the new threats look more like critical race theory indoctrination in the classroom and forcing Christian bakers to bend the knee and “bake the damn cake” for a same-sex wedding. The issues confronting us have fundamentally changed. Any conservatism worthy of the name in 2021 must, to use a phrase associated with the “very online” right, “know what time it is.”
I’m well aware that many will say that a recovery of traditional Western Christian culture is impossible on a society wide scale. However, that only amounts to saying we have to accept more of the same stuff that got us where we are, because “values-neutral” Libertarianism has nothing to offer us in this crisis.
I forgot the link: https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/02/why-the-right-needs-a-more-muscular-and-masculine-conservatism/
I've said before that I can't find these "libertarians" in our modern political history. With few exceptions, Goldwater?, Ron Paul?, a small handful of others in between. Those guys are libertarians... Reagan? There's been some debating over that ... French is in a class of his own and RARE breed, my he stay largely unknown.
What Hammer is hitting at is mincing today's understanding of terminology with 1920-1960's (70s'ish) politics largely as a slur... a nice undercut that no one gets. By the comments some are offended but I don't think anyone has really hit on why.
So now maybe I understand the "libertarian reference" going on (finally) but I'd argue It's poorly deceptive if the pot calling the kettle black. I'd also say Hammer is picking on a political ghost they few would even understand well enough to argue about but it has implications that are horrific.
He is right that the conservative side has no fight in them and is being run over. I would contend that stems far more from being in debit and trapped into other more pressing issues like not becoming a target of the FBI. I've stated MANY times we absolutely suck like that.
But what is Hammer suggesting we do? Man up or reintroduce the flip side of Meyer? He really isn't saying it out loud but some seem to be "hearing that" and I'd flatly caution against it.
Maybe he's simply attacking French but it seems not?
To get to the root of Hammer's complaint of Fusionism which is a 100+ year old argument that's raged in-between even libertarians themselves... It isn't well known today but could be summed up into saying the following... Meyer is despised for generally showing conservatives that enforcing progressive Christian virtues by the state is, in fact, anti-Christian. Maybe more specifically he's despised by some for his early years of following Jewish faith and converting to Catholicism, that got him bashed as a heretic in many circles. Largely he simply didn't side with those who were undoubtedly attempting to justify their own brand of progressive ideology via government social policies.
What we're those other sides up to during that time frame though? Hello Prohibition!! ... as one of many historical examples of how this goes off a cliff.
That's a whole can of worms to open but I'll short cut it by saying there are direct parallels in the arguments made today by liberal progressives trying to institute today's crazy and the Judeo-Christian progressivism that helped inistute prohibition in the early 1900s. That duality in argument can't be ignored by cheering any "brand" of social reformerisum. It is what it is!
That I think is the main knock against Meyer, it what he is known for.
Awkward? Uncomfortable?... It should be but that's where Meyer stood up and said this isn't right to do and Hammer is not touching his meaning or ignoring how that all arrived.
I'll strongly note that I'm not defending Meyer in anything... I'm saying that guys like him largely don't exist in today's politics anymore. If they did they would be an extreme right of most conservatives from a constitutional perspective. But again, he's an easy safe target to pick on because you'll have little defence from yesteryears political dead guy.
Just like you'll find few conservatives lining up to back French. He's unknown in most circles.
But again, and I'm repeating myself here but what is Hammer suggesting? The undertones of returning to yesteryears neochristan socal reformers? I'm kinda concluding that knowing where Myers hails from. Does Hammer? I really don't want to believe that.
What I am decisively not mincing words with here is the *defense of progressivism* by trying to narrow or limit the dangers of its it's definition to "liberal progressives"... Let's call progression what it really is... ANY social political philosophy under the guise of "social reform" backed by a government gunpoint.
Selling that idea will largely fall on dear ears to most conservatives. These arguments with rare exception can be coated with enough sugar for them to swallow. Roe is a GREAT example of that and the duality between the liberal / conservative battle. Rarely in modern times do we see w better example... Each side semily wants our government to enforce their OWN brands of beliefs in that subject. There however many conservatives out there saying this never belonged to the Fed's and let the states sort it out.
Am I going overboard here? Maybe, maybe not.
Kavanaugh nailed this issue on the head the other day in the Louisiana case when he said very plainly... "You have to pick one interest over the other; they can't both prevail." For following that with the question of "what does the constitution say?"... I guess by Hammer's philosophy, because of Meyer's theroy Kavanaugh is firmly in rubbish bin of the classic liberal Fusionism? Im speculating but it's a valid question put towards a legitimate current issue, I'd kinda like to know!
Kavanaugh certainly isn't within my comfort zone of "conservatives", I would say he's far less of a constitutionalist than I would prefer... But he isn't wrong in understanding that issue's duality.
So do we really sink to the terms of defining conservatives as "non-conservatives" because of their political beliefs not falling directly upon the values held in religious faith? That's been suggested here more than once. That's a HARSH if not downright offensive path to beat through the underbrush, especially if your goal is unity.
But Hammer went further down this rabbit hole... not at French but Meyer.
If I were to name a "libertarian institution" I would probably first say the Cato or Mises Institutes? He is being incredibly deceptive there to create a boogie man that most wouldn't understand in today's modem terms by pointing at the Heritage Foundation and calling it libertarian. The Heritage Foundation certainly wouldn't agree, neither would the actual libertarians.
I don't frequent the National Review, I'd say today it's generally another brand of propaganda I find to be offensive to reality in the "Fox News" kind of way. But I understand the argument Hammer is trying to make in linking Myer to his founding editor status there in the 1970s with something that doesn't exist in todays world of what would be defined as "classic liberal". I know a few things about the Heritage Foundation and would describe it to be up there with other *so called* but NOT conservative groups such as The Club For Growth. Those groups speak of conservativism, liberty and constitutional values wrapped in a cloak of big government! They are no friend of conservatives or follower of Trump.
Plainly, when I hear "Heritage" I think "Sean Hannity Republicans" and they are why the majority of modern conservatives are forever confused about why their expected representative party "says" one thing while actually "doing" another.
Mr Tick Tock / "99% are good" is one of those favorite propagandist I can't stand, I had no idea his audience was libertarians though... Kinda funny.
Again I'm connecting the dots given but Hammer seems more to me to be looking for blame and avoiding the historical blowback associated with social neochristan exceptionalisum. He seems to want to do this while avoiding plainly stating what he's after... I gather why is because like many he believes The Grand Ole Party been infiltrated by "something" and it must be some form of evil liberalism.
It's largely destroyed itself from within...
I offer a different take... And in all reality it doesn't side with any name in this. But what it does side strongly with is today's lack of moral character and sound political principles.
The GOP (to me) hasn't so much failed in it's lack of "fighting back" or playing too far into the game of "going along to get along" by placating any semblance of classic liberal principal. It's failed because it's become a wolf in sheeps clothing and has no actual principal except the principal of big government, that's been crafted by careful design. I often say most Republicans are not conservative but most conservatives identify as Republicans. The party speaks of conservative values to their base as a propaganda outlet while acting as a quazi agent of the government it's self. Why would it not? It's in the parties better interest of self enrichment and power. They are after all as a group in their own category of being another government entity.
At that point... Asking for party morality is like asking a government to police it's self.
Essentially, the result of that is what the populist Trump movement sees as "the problem" but largely refrains from concluding the full picture because its just to damn painful to accept... though I do see people coming around.
Also I'm not an absolutist here, my beliefs on this have migrated over time as evidence comes fourth. I'm wholly open to alternative theories but I have yet to find a better one that remotely comes close in the big picture.
And again maybe I've just overshot Hammer's implication but with the references given...I suspect not, as I said I doubt most even correctly understood them.