R: Fusionism is Dead

Over the years, many people have tried to describe what exactly we mean when we call ourselves “conservatives.” Are we an intellectual movement with clear boundaries and goals or is conservatism – as one beloved Fed alum likes to say – really a methodology of approaching the world? It can, perhaps, be both. For decades in the American conservative sphere, the two major extremes have been the free-market libertarians and the socially conservative traditionalists. These two extremes were able to cooperate and achieve political success through what Frank Myer termed “fusionism.” This conservative political framework, with elements of both an ideology and a methodology, was able to unite the disparate factions of conservatives in the latter half of the 20th century and bring about major conservative political success like Reagan’s election. Yet, in this day and age of shifting social norms and rising populism, is fusionism still valid? We will attempt to answer that question this week by debating Resolved: Fusionism is Dead.

On the one hand, Trump’s rise to power his affect on the political climate for conservatives has, for many, signaled the funeral dirge of classical fusionism. Whether one views his brand of populism and strong-man arguments as morally appropriate or not, it worked. He defied all odds to win the presidency, something that would seem to fly in the face of those who would claim that fusionism is the method by which effective conservative coalition building must take place. In the wake of this movement, many social conservatives and religious traditionalists have decided to embrace the Benedict Option in its various forms, retreating from any serious attempt to unite with their libertarian, nationalist counterparts in favor of carving out local sanctuaries of conservative value from which to weather the storm of liberalism. Fusionism, for both the pro-Trump populists and the never-Trump trads has faded from the West with the setting sun of the previous century. For those familiar with the debate among conservative pundits today, this would mainly be the Sohrab Ahmari camp.

On the other hand, many conservatives argue that fusionism is not dead – or rather if it is that, like Lazarus, it can be raised. The idea that the two wings of conservative thought cannot be brought back together seems fatalistic and blatantly incorrect. Modern conservatives have to exist within a pluralistic society and many of them learn how to maintain their values and champion the conservative cause without alienating the “enemy” in the culture war. The idea that traditionalists and libertarians must embrace the populist, “scorched-earth” approach to the cultural and political sphere seems like a ridiculously small-minded way of thinking. For those who fall along the same line of thought as writer David French, fusionism is a meaningful and necessary aspect of the conservative movement because embracing it forces conservatives to first treat one another with the kind of civility and decency we would hope to also offer our enemies when confronting them. Fusionism holds us as a movement and as individuals to embody what is true and good and beautiful amongst friends and enemies alike.

This debate is not clear-cut by any means, and it will force us to consider a wide array of issues and questions. What is the future of the conservative movement in America? What was its past? Is Trump a necessary evil or an example of the new strategies the right must employ in order to win in this most brutal new age of politics? Is there anything of value left over if the conservative movement is based only upon the things all types of conservatives can agree are good? What might some alternatives to fusionism be? Populism? If fusionism is indeed dead, should we work to revive it or let its tombstone weather into obscurity?