by Brandon James Smith
Fusionism is not merely a form of coalition building. It provides a common language for the broader conservative movement and a positive vision for the future of the country.
The current state of American politics is troubling for those who seek to defend the tradition of liberty. Progressivism relentlessly threatens human flourishing and free civilization. Self-proclaimed leaders of the conservative movement migrate to the center, so as to become nearly indistinguishable from the political left, or even further to the right, not even bothering to try to persuade others of the merits of American conservatism.
We are in the midst of a great battle of ideas. It is deeper than the political debates about Obamacare, over-criminalization, and a lack of respect for life, liberty, and property. The liberal-progressive idea that government is the primary means of binding mankind to one another inevitably leads down a dark path, and the twentieth century has clearly demonstrated that progressive ideas fail on nearly every measure. American conservatives should take advantage of this opportunity to offer a different vision for the future.
As Hayek warned many years ago, “If we are to succeed in the great struggle of ideas that is under way, we must first of all know what we believe.” Toward this end, a deeper understanding of fusionism provides a foundation upon which true conservatism may overcome its opponents. The common language of fusionism, which embraces the beneficial tension between virtue and freedom, will encourage greater cooperation between conservatives and libertarians and help them make a stronger case against the rise of progressivism. This positive vision of America will also help conservatives win elections.
Virtue and Freedom
American conservatism has long been rooted in both traditionalist and libertarian values. That is to say, while emphasizing virtue, value, and order, American conservatism also affirms human freedom and the integrity of the individual as a precondition of virtue. Frank Meyer argued that this combination of values constitutes “the highest expression of Western Civilization.” This unique understanding of American conservatism has the potential to be the solid foundation on which political and intellectual leaders can build an affirmative vision for America’s future. We must reject the idea that the conservative movement should become nothing more thanprogressive-lite.
Many conservatives view fusionism as old fashioned, as if it is a relic of the Cold War era not applicable to contemporary political discourse. There is something about even the term fusionism that leads students of man’s nature astray in their attempt to articulate or critique it. Frank Meyer himself, at the1965 meeting of the Philadelphia Society, called “fusionism” an “inelegant and hideous name.” Yet the name has stuck.
But what is fusionism? Is it actually a philosophy distinct from conservatism and libertarianism?
Some critics of fusionism claim that the inability to perfectly reconcile Burkean traditionalism and libertarianism is proof that the two traditions can be little more than a working coalition. Daniel Larson of The American Conservative has argued that fusionism is an “artificial compromise,” which once had use in building coalitions but now is “mostly a fiction that movement conservatives perpetuate to maintain the appearance of continuity.” Larson is correct, to some extent. Proponents of fusionism risk sugar-coating philosophical differences between different types of conservatives. He is wrong, however, to assert that fusionism is merely a form of coalition building whose purpose is to blend nineteenth-century classical liberalism and traditional conservatism.
Jonah Goldberg, writing in National Review, has boldly defended fusionism and should be lauded for his efforts. His rhetoric, however, like Larson’s, mischaracterizes fusionism as an alloy, a blending of two distinctly different substances. This makes for great prose but bad philosophy. Fusionism never tried to make such grandiose claims as to blend nineteenth-century liberalism and conservatism. Rather, fusionists argue that American conservatism has circumvented both.
Fusionism is rooted in late eighteenth-century American constitutionalism. It firmly rejects the dehumanizing utilitarianism of nineteenth-century classical liberalism as well as the authoritarianism of nineteenth-century conservatism. It took, in Meyer’s words, “a tension, a balance between tradition and freedom, and raised it to the highest political forms.”
As Don Devine pointed out, the common language of fusionism—liberty and virtue rooted in constitutionalism—allowed various factions to unite under one banner in the Reagan era. This was not a forced capitulation of some sort, but an understanding that virtue is the rightful end of man’s efforts and that liberty is the means to achieve that end. The fusionism of American conservatism is rooted not in electoral strategy, data points, and polling, but in the Constitution itself.
Fusionism is not merely a means of building a coalition, though those who pursue it will certainly do so. It is a recognition of the shared intellectual heritage of American conservatism that steadfastly defends both virtue and freedom despite the tension between them.
Fusionism and Constitutionalism
Frank Meyer provided the basic elements of what he described as theAmerican Conservative Position. These shared principles are:
1. Belief in objective moral order
2. Acknowledgment of the individual “as the necessary center of political and social thought”
3. Rejection of the use of the State to impose uniform ideology
4. Rejection of collectivism and central planning
5. Support for the Constitution, and by extension, the limitation of government power
6. Strong defense of Western civilization against Communism
Though these principles were often stated differently, Meyer accurately described these principles as a “consensus among divergence.” The divergences among those on the right are little more than differences in the emphasis placed on particular principles, according to Meyer.
On a practical level, present day conservatives and libertarians can stand united on these principles in most, if not all, political battles.
...............
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario