Josh Hammer, speaking at the November 2021 National Conservatism Conference, said “Every important political issue in the year 2021 is a ‘cultural’ issue. ‘Fusionism’ and libertarianism are impotent, in light of this reality. Only national conservatism will suffice.”
Hammer is hardly an isolated voice. Natcons generally are reacting to what they see as the failure of “fusionism,” the always fraught alliance between libertarians and conservatives. Many have written about fusionism, but my own go-to source is Stephanie Slade, of Reason, who wrote this OLL piece and also this article. Jonathan Adler had this piece on fusionism as federalism. One definition of fusion is that American-style conservatism has a dual mandate to preserve both liberty and virtue. Trading off between them is an impoverishment of the ideals of the American founding and, indeed, a rejection of the ideals of Western civilization itself. On the other hand, if one must choose, virtue is the more essential value.
That kind of “why not both?” priority is a recipe for tension, at best. Conservatives are more likely to hold to some notion of virtue, based on cultural tradition, the application of right reason, or revelation of the sacred, and if virtue requires coercion so be it. Libertarians are more likely to hold to some notion of virtue as being defined by the individual and for the individual, so that values start with my own beliefs, and if we disagree that difference can never be a basis for coercion or force. The Frank Meyer synthesis in fusionism was the claim that the two notions of virtue and liberty cannot be separated. This is hardly a new idea; in The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu clearly had the same idea:
The problem with any view of America other than national conservatism, according to natcons, is that fusionists would say that all those value judgments that should properly animate the nation are consigned to the private sphere, left to the individual and his (or her) conscience. I don’t always use the “or her” addition, but since Hammer actually calls fusionism “effete, limp, and unmasculine,” it seems appropriate.
Hammer is clear about what must be accomplished: the goal is to fight, and win, the culture war, using all possible means of gaining and controlling political power.
This made me think of one of the key conflicts in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. (To be fair, everything else also makes me think of Tolkien, so it’s not that surprising). When Frodo has run away from the others in the Fellowship, Boromir comes up to Amon Hen, the “Seat of Seeing,” to talk about power. Frodo believes (with Lord Acton) that the absolute power of the Ring will corrupt the person who wields it; Boromir desires the Ring, but genuinely believes that he can use that power for good.
“The world is changing… [You say] Minas Tirith will fall, if the Ring lasts. But why? Certainly, if the Ring were with the Enemy. But why, if it were with us?”
“Were you not at the Council?” answered Frodo. “Because we cannot use it, and what is done with it turns to evil.”
Boromir got up and walked about impatiently. “These elves and half-elves and wizards, they would come to grief perhaps. Yet often I doubt if they are wise and not merely timid. But each to his own kind. True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted. We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through long years of trial. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! in our need chance brings to light the Ring of Power. It is a gift, I say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the power of the Enemy against him. The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory. What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!”
The “elves and wizards” are those limp, unmasculine libertarian fusionists, folks. All we need to do is hand over the ring of power to the natcons, and finally admit that the strictures of the Constitution enable our enemies but fetter our own actions. Then, we can win! Once the real conservatives are allowed to retake our birthright, by wielding unlimited extra-constitutional power, but for good, all men will flock to their banner.
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Apr 25 2022 at 4:14pm
I think there is another lesson here, too:
Recall that the Ring of Power always seeks to return to Sauron. Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron’s hand and kept it for his own. He did not do any evil with the Ring (not that he had much of a chance). When the Ring fell to Gollum, he did not do much true evil with it, either.
But throughout all of its existence, the One Ring sought to return to Mordor and many agents sought to make it happen.
Even if we could entrust the natcons to honorably and carefully wield the kind of power they desire, that power would still seek those who would unleash it.
Power corrupts, ’tis true, though some wield it responsibly. But power also seeks those it can corrupt.
Andrew_FL
Apr 26 2022 at 9:47am
I preface my comments with a disavowal of National Conservativism, so I can dispense with being replied to assuming that is where I am coming from
It is difficult for me to take seriously the idea that you really honestly believe morality is a purely private, individual matter. Really? If a murderer and I disagree whether his crime is immoral, that can’t be the basis of coercion or force to punish him for murdering someone?
You cannot defend fusionism from National Conservatism from a point of view hostile to fusionism, which is the other thing about this post which is strange to me. You agree with the NatCons that fusionism is bad, you simply view it as bad because you want the Right to lose the culture wars. Small wonder they want a divorce!
Kevin Corcoran
Apr 26 2022 at 10:05am
I think you’re conflating two different things. In moral philosophy, morality and virtue are different concepts. You can behave in a way that does everything morality requires of you, and still lack virtue. So a statement that sees “virtue as being defined by the individual and for the individual” does not entail the belief that “morality is a purely private, individual matter.” Treating the former as if it leads to the latter is to commit a category error.
johnson85
Apr 26 2022 at 10:53am
I certainly don’t care for some of what’s coming out from current populist, conservatish movements, but the choice isn’t really between the left and libertarianism or small l liberalism. We’ve operated for decades with a more or less one way ratchet against those values (with some notable exceptions such as self defense and gun rights) while virtually all of our institutions, public and private, have been corrupted and coopted to anti-liberal/libertarian means.
At some point, someone on the right has to actually win and wield power. There’s going to be some unpleasant results from this and there’s of course the risk that instead of a slow loss for liberty, we end up with a rapid one as there is no one left to exercise restraint. But at this point, that’s a relatively small risk considering where we are. It’s either just continue moving certainly (and generally more quickly) towards a more statist, illiberal society, or move away from it and hope that enough leftists reconsider when they realize there are eventually consequences to repeated abuse of power, or hope that the right is successful enough that they are in a position of strength and the new political equilibrium promotes more liberal/libertarian policies.
Michael Sandifer
Apr 29 2022 at 9:42pm
Amazing, how many on the right are open traitors now.
steve
Apr 26 2022 at 11:37am
“At some point, someone on the right has to actually win and wield power. ”
POTUS has been held more often by the right since 1980. Congress has been controlled by the right for lengthy periods. At the state and local levels the right has dominated for long periods of time, like right now. There has been no hesitation to wield power to do the things that appear to really matter, like getting re-elected. If you want to have virtue you ought to at least have leadership that can fake virtue and God knows that does not exist.
Steve
Michael Sandifer
Apr 29 2022 at 9:46pm
Cultural conservatives always lose in the long run. Change is the only constant. Acting like babies and clinging to ancient Semitic religions won’t help them.
Monte
Apr 26 2022 at 11:27pm
Consider the One Ring’s DNA: “Cruelty, malice, and the will to dominate all life”, forged by Sauron “with the help of the enchantment of the dark arts.” And where the One Ring sought to consolidate power, our Constitution, conceived by men with with the most honorable intentions, was designed to separate them. A classic good vs evil paradigm, the battle of evermore.
Can our Constitution then, being inherently good, even in the hands of an evil dictator (as many choose to describe Trump), be used to sow the seeds of our or another nation’s destruction, when “the strictures of the Constitution enable our enemies but fetter our own actions?
Matthias
May 6 2022 at 8:37pm
The One Ring is a literary device. As such it can be inherently bad. It’s just fiction after all.
The American constitution is a real world artefact produced by real world flawed people with many real world compromises.
It’s a legal framework that makes provisions for slavery for example. It’s not particularly ‘good’.
It might be pragmatic etc, and there might have been historic circumstances for the US constitution’s stance on slavery. But all those excuses are at best messy real world considerations. They are not the unalloyed ‘good’ of fiction.
Even amongst real world constituons, there’s more morally ‘good’ to be had.
Look at how eg, born out of the experience of the actual tyranny of the Nazi regime (instead of the imagined tyranny of the British) the modern German constitution puts human dignity, rights and freedoms front and centre. And mostly delivers on those promises.
Or look at how the old Soviet constitution had an impressive array of individual rights and freedoms (that in practice were totally ignored).
EconLog and EconTalk had some interesting issues about ‘presidential greatness’ and how George Washington was a big time landowner who just ‘coïncidentally’ benefitted financially from the regime change he helped bring about..
Mark Z
Apr 27 2022 at 3:51pm
I don’t know if this reflects so much a change in philosophy as a change in perceived circumstance. For example, a sincere Christian may support separation of church and state but will tend to value Christianity more than separation of church and state. To the extent that separation of church in state leads to a society that is socially and economically inhospitable to Christians, Christians will tend to become less supportive of it. If you value anti-racism more than individual liberty, then if racism becomes sufficiently prevalent, you’ll abandon your support for individual liberty to combat racism (see anti-discrimination laws, a widely accepted use case of the ‘ring of power’). Almost no one values neutral norms/institutions above all else.
Most national conservatives seem to be erstwhile fusionists who’ve come to believe – rightly or wrongly – that their fundamental values, which are more important than their support for value-neutral governance, are now endangered under value-neutral governance. The thing is, does Munger even disagree? It’s not clear if he’s saying: 1) national conservatives are mistaken that their values need to be politically supported to win; 2) they would be more successful at promoting their values through voluntarist means, or 3) they just have the wrong values, and that’s why they’re losing the culture wars, and they should admit defeat rather than try to impose them politically.
nobody.really
May 6 2022 at 2:50pm
That’s really thoughtful.
Comments are closed.