Home › Blogs › Soren Dayton's blog ›

Why fusionism makes sense

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 19:52
in

A lot of people ask whether fusionism -- libertarians and social conservatives joined in a political movement -- makes sense. It does, and there's a behavioral/sociological basis to it that Michael Gerson alludes to in his review of Robert Putnam's new book:

At a recent conference of journalists organized by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Putnam outlined the conclusions of "American Grace," based on research still being sifted and refined. Against the expectations of hard-core secularists, Putnam asserts, "religious Americans are nicer, happier and better citizens." They are more generous with their time and money, not only in giving to religious causes but to secular ones. They join more voluntary associations, attend more public meetings, even let people cut in line in front of them more readily. Religious Americans are three to four times more socially engaged than the unaffiliated. Ned Flanders is a better neighbor.

It doesn't stop there. Religious poeple live longer. Married people live longer too and make more money. I am not arguing causality, but co-occurence, which is all you need in a lot of political contexts.

Basically, religious people, on average, live lives more compatible with a libertarian economy message and system than others. Note the directionality on this. If a libertarian views their economic message (that is, they are what Europeans call "right-liberals", versus "left-liberals" who focus on social freedoms), then their most fertile ground for builing coalitions is with church-goers.

Thus fusionism.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Comments

"religious Americans are nicer, happier and better citizens."

Submitted by Repack Rider on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 20:39.

I'd like to know how those qualities are measured.

I'm an atheist, and I'm not going to get religion for any of those reasons.  My social networks are extensive, my marriage is happy, I hear about what a nice guy I am from total strangers, my health is off the charts and my kid is on the Dean's List in college.

Why would I want to screw my life up with religion?  Wouldn't I have to give up the Theory of Evolution before I could be accepted?

 

oh, you did NOT just say that!

Submitted by Maleficent on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 12:33.

One of my favorite prayerbooks discusses DNA! Maimonides said that the bible was not to be interpreted literally... (when you do interpret Genesis literally, G-d created hermaphrodites that he later broke apart into Adam and Eve).

St. Thomas Acquinas also talked about the Book of Nature superceeding the Bible.

It is not a requirement to give up evolution, in order to go to church!

 

wishing you a happy and successful life, however you choose to live it.

haocai

Submitted by haocai on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 22:55.

Thanks for the information,every people should take responsibilty as an obident citizen of their country. 好 彩 易 心 居 好彩 易 心 居好 彩

Of course it makes sense...

Submitted by Gherald on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 20:45.

If you focus on the economic message.  But many of us care about social freedoms and a sane foreign policy and competent governance as well--which is why I, for one, put a hold on my fusionism and went liber-al-tarian last election.

Here's to hoping you folks can get the party fixed within a few cycles so we can restore some balance.  But I ain't voting for a George W. Palin or Huckabee-style ignoramus--that's all I can tell you for sure at this point.  Eight years of low-brow conservatism has tarnished this country enough, and I'll take my lumps with a European-style social democracy over that.  Some crap sandwiches are better than others, in short.

Re: Of course it makes sense...

Submitted by gs on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 11:50.

IMO the theocratic part of the religious right wants Big Government as the instrument for imposing their values on the country.

 Some crap sandwiches are better than others, in short.

The theocrats are determined to ignore that, if the choice is restricted to Democrat or Republican Big Government, the country will pick the Democrat flavor.

After Huckabee called for a purge of libertarians a few months ago, I am more than skeptical of overtures from the theocrats. 

(Btw, I am a small-el libertarian who tries to be nondogmatic.  Harry Browne moved me to swear never to have anything to do with the Libertarian Party again.)

 

 

 

factions

Submitted by stl on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 23:10.

Every party has factions.  The Dems single animating principle is to buy off client groups one at a time.  It is amazing to watch groups with antagonistic goals to line up and vote Dem.  Example, unions + enviros, blacks + gays etc.

The basic reason for people with dissimilar views to vote for R is that we'll get to keep a country where we can disagree.  So Social-Cons meet Economic-Cons meet National Security Cons. 

If the Dems aren't stopped good luck with any of your values, we'll have a 51% nation that votes for large statist welfare systems, free healthcare, and affirmative rights that will strangle Defense and the Economy. 

The advantage Reagan had is that he was a Dem, so could say I was one of them and they are taking the country in a bad direction.

The problem in a nutshell

Submitted by jhaygood on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 19:57.

"It is amazing to watch groups with antagonistic goals to line up and vote Dem.  Example, unions + enviros, blacks + gays etc."

Your apparent misunderstanding of union workers, environmentalists, blacks AND gays pretty much explains why the GOP is getting everything wrong these days.  Check out the Apollo Alliance to see how unions & enviros work together, for example.  I'm afraid you, along with your leadership, are stuck somewhere in the past.

And to suggest the GOP as the route to national security and a strong economy - after these past 8 years - does not a convincing arguement make, to put it mildly.

The GOP may still have a place in the national dialog, but not until they get out of the old habit of saying things that conflict directly with what we see with our own eyes.  It still works for 20% of the country, but good luck winning any elections...

" many of us care about

Submitted by Nine-of-Diamonds on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 00:01.

" many of us care about social freedoms..."

 

Uh-huh. More "hate crimes" legislation, more coddling of minorities, and 0bamugabe's crop of "compassionate" USSC judges are sure to preserve "social freedoms" - don'tcha think?

 

 

 

Sorry, Nine, but saying

Submitted by Double D on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 04:38.

Sorry, Nine, but saying "those other guys will be worse" is not a strong sell.

You seem to have the bizarre

Submitted by Double D on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 02:52.

You seem to have the bizarre idea that all libertarians care about is money or economic freedom.  Bzzzt!  WRONG. Most of the real libertarians I know, in person and on the net, care passionately about social liberty as well.  That is, a libertarian is interested in free minds, as well as free markets.  Freer minds will naturally lead to freer markets and greater prosperity.

We have been bamboozled in the past, naively believing that Republicans were really interested in greater freedom and small government.  We were wrong, and we all know it.  From now on, bullshitting us with words is not enough.  Put your money, and your actions, where your mouth is.

And, though freedom will take a big hit, I would rather take an honest liberal over any dishonest, deceitful, bait-and-switch wannabe theocrat. A theocrat is no better than a liberal.  I don't want to be a slave to either, but at least under the liberal, science might advance.

Trampled underfoot

Submitted by The Last Rockef... on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 05:38.

The last eight years have been about as bad as it can get for Libertarians. The Democrats have some unlikely bedfellows in their big tent, but none of those factions disagree with each other as radically as social libertarians and social conservatives. Libertarians have been shafter on everything from free speech to drug policy to the "live-and-let-live" foreign policy. And with the subprime crisis and trillions of dollars of CDOs wiping out and leading to re-regulation, Libertarians can say that they haven't gotten anything lasting out of the Republican Party. This alliance is looking more and more like a Faustian pact from the Libertarian P.O.V.

What good is the freedom to earn money if you haven't got the right to spend it as you see fit?

And how, Rockefeller Repub!

Submitted by Double D on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 05:54.

And how, Rockefeller Repub!

Ding ding ding. Give that man a medal for saying it str8

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 10:41.

Last Rockefeller nails it: "The Democrats have some unlikely bedfellows in their big tent, but none of those factions disagree with each other as radically as social libertarians and social conservatives. Libertarians have been shafter on everything from free speech to drug policy to the "live-and-let-live" foreign policy."

Exactly.  A "fused" political entity along Soran's drift would spend more money on bandages and antiseptic at its convention than on making political progress through compromise.

and dagnabit, as an honest liberal

Submitted by Maleficent on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 12:38.

I do want the libertarians in the tent! cause I know how liberals like "one size fits Most", and libertarians are likely to toss out a "can't we have some choice here?" Conflict is good, criticism is good. Only through both can we get the best ideas.

I think the problem with the conservatives is that they forgot how to have a conversation with the folks in their tent. They started all walking in lockstep and taking three day weekends.

"Happiness" vs. empirical truth etc.

Submitted by mlindroo on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 10:29.

Also, I wonder which comes first -- the chicken or the egg.

TNR's Michelle Cottle commented that at the most fundamental level, good human relationships (not material wealth or religious faith) tend to bring happiness and satisfaction. The local religious community probably serves an important need in this regard ("It's Church not Prayer That Makes Us Good" as Cottle puts it ... if you pray alone, you're apparently less likely to be a "nice" person too!)

----

Anyway, even if it does turn out that the deeply religious are happier, my reaction as an agnostic is "so what!". This is a bit like saying children are happier if they believe in Santa Claus or think global warming is just a hoax made up by left-leaning egghead scientists.  Conversely, *if* e.g. Christianity matters it is because the Gospels accurately depict key historical events. You are not supposed to join the ranks of Christianity because you want to be a "winner" in life; what's important is what happens to you after you die.

 

MARCU$

What's the GOP without CrazyUncleRon & the farRight soccons?

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 10:37.

Free of a lot of deadwood that was dragging the Party down into the sewer.

If the Party is going to continue its move to Center-right and political restoration by rebuilding its pre-Reagan traditional constituencies, then it's a great first step to let the CrazyUncleRonnies take a walk --with all their cynicism, bitterness, the gold standard, dope legalization and piss-filled boots. 

Step 2: stay away from killer social issues like "EnglishOnlyDamnIt!!" and anti-gay marriage and the mostly ChristianCrusade to make intolerance the new MoralMajority's family value du jour.

I say let's let the libertarians take that walk back to their OWN party and put the soc-cons BACK in the pew praying for Divine deliverance to the next world. And for those who argue the LIbbies are an important base inside the Party? If the Libertarian philosophy is such a great "base" vote inside the Party, why did CrazyUncleRonnie lose the GOP primaries like a Huck-a-Bomb?  They already have a Party-- it's time to send them back home to their LibbieParty leaders with a note: "Use with care".

Fusionism won't work for a simple reason: the very two groups you argue are fusionismistically-inclined are the 2 groups inside the GOP that have caused the greatest problems in the last 20 yrs, are the most contentious, argumentative and unreasonable groups inside the GOP when it comes time to build a concensus on just about anything.  And, frankly, both groups think they are the ONLY answer to nearly every problem and will argue anyone into submission before moderating their positions to advance political goals.

BTW, this group has been tried before.  It was the BigEaredGiant Ross Perot's contribution to the election of SlickWilly.  Perot famously said his biggest job was to work to keep the people inside his Party from killing each other --and still move forward on a political agenda. Fusionism isn't the answer: those two groups are driven by fighting against any compromise -no matter how noble.

Fusionism may sense to the uninformed.  I really don't care as long as the end result is being able to say Good Riddance to the Libbies inside the GOP and putting the soc-cons back in their pew for a generation or two.

 

Reallllly...

Submitted by Double D on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 10:48.

Well, MM, I think we 'useless and divisive" libertarians have absolutely compromised with the GOP on political issues for a LONG time.  In fact, we haven't compromised so much as we rolled over and played dead.  Our votes have gained us absolutely nothing from our so-called allies.  We knew we wouldn't get the social liberty we wanted, but even on the "economic liberty" front, we got a big FAIL.  And we came back for second helpings.

And for all our mostly unearned support over the years, this is your attitude?  Well, if your attitude is the majority opinion then...good riddance indeed...

Not at all DoubleD...

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 11:01.

DoubleD offers: "Our votes have gained us absolutely nothing from our so-called allies." I'm trying to think of single instance in the last 20 yrs that the so-called Libertarians inside the GOP haven't been given the floor, the podium, leadership positions or access to both of the Congressional Caucus... whether that's on the Fair&FlatTax issue or a return to the Gold Standard or Legalizing Dope. Besides, my argument is that you and your ilk belong over in the Libertarian Party, not acting like GOPers while somehow preserving your political purity and urging all lemmings to jump over the cliff with you. The problem is that your ideas can't get sold. Not that you haven't been given the opportunity. As long as CrazyUncleRon is your posterboi, you are doomed to being managed on the political sidelines. You really, really do belong over in the Libertarian Party. Or were they just too damn crazy for even you to stand?

Well, no MM, the Libertarian

Submitted by Double D on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 11:38.

Well, no MM, the Libertarian Party is not "too crazy for even me."  The idea was that we were supporting each other to help guys GET ELECTED.  You know, to form a coalition.  When that coalition came together, it was with the awareness that everyone wasn't going to get what they wanted all at once (or even at all).  And as to Libertarian ideas being unsellable, look around.  Marijuana legalization?  It's a decent prospect in many parts of the country.  Individual right to bear arms?  We are winning!

The problem is that while some of our goals are quite possible to acheive, the party that we formed coalition with had no interest in REALLY supporting our goals.  Honestly, marijuana or whatever can be illegal forever, as long as the STATES get to make the choice.  Let the people make their own decisions, within the bounds of our Constitution.  That is the promise of true small government, which should make us natural allies.  That is what our alliance was supposed to be about.  Unfortunately, Republicans are not really interested in small government.

We could even support the SoCons on some things (or at least get out of the way) if they acted in accordance with small goverment principles.  Make your case, and let the will of the people prevail.

As to the Gold Standard, are you aware there are many different opinions on this?  Libertarians are no more monolithic than Republicans or Democrats.  The unifying philosophy of libertarianism is FREEDOM.  Not the Gold Standard, or the Silver Standard, or any other standard. Some (admittedly, not many) libertarians even support progressive taxation.  The problem isn't really taxation, it is what is taxed, where the taxes go, and how much the taxes are.  Only a few fringe loons really think you can run a country without taxes. Many libertarians want a Fair or Flat tax, but most would be satisfied with a serious simplification of the tax code.  Not too long ago, Reppublicans were all for that.  What happened?

 You're talking crap about us without even really knowing who we are.

But, whatevs.  You want to go it alone?  You think you can kill the coalition and suddenly prosper?  Good luck with that.  Like I said, if that's where we are, then...see ya around.

Good luck with purging the SoCons.  I think almost everyone else will be leaving before they go.

Nice try at spinning but it still ain't selling DoubleD

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 13:48.

DoubleD offers: "The idea was that we were supporting each other to help guys GET ELECTED.  You know, to form a coalition."

Yes, that is the idea behind this thread's topic of "fusionism" DoubleD.  The problem you avoid is the 750 pound purple gorilla in the room: namely, that of those two factions within the GOP, they've uniquely shown a high incidence of intolerance toward anyone who won't drink their version of political koolaid, a general willingness to be unyielding, entrenched and see fighting for political purity in policy better than compromising or building coalitions to achieve political success.  You gys wouldn't know coalitions or compromise if it bite you on the ass.

Frankly, the only thing in common among soc-cons and Libbies is their love of argument, endless debate, politically suicidal positions and antagonism toward anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly, fundamentally, conversion-like-agree with their world view.

Oh, that an appealing to about 3-5% of the non-voting populace... which is where on the polls we'll find militia types against the UN, people in favor of closing down the border at Mexico, isolationists that make the preWWII isolationists look like pikers, transgendered gay marriage activists and those who think Calhoun had it right on State Nullification.

DoubleD, the Libbies have a poltical party already; get out and let the GOP have theirs.  Or is the LibbieParty too discredited and whacked-out even for you?  Why not run over there and let the GOP return to building a center-right party based on our Party's traditions?  Why does the GOP get saddled with all these LIbbies trying to remake the world and commit political suicide every day, on every issue, with every voter?

Yeah, good riddance is right.  And it can't come too fast for my tastes.

Not going to argue in circles

Submitted by Double D on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 14:31.

Not going to argue in circles about this. You cannot or will not see where I'm coming from, and I am baffled as to how you think your purge will help your party.  As I said before, if your opinion is the majority opinion, then it's goodbye.  If not, then I still await hearing good ideas on how to revive the coalition.  Like you, I sometimes think it's impossible, but I;m still holding out for a while.

But arguing in circles is exactly what you're doing...

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 15:04.

Let;s see DoubleD, you first argued that "We have been bamboozled in the past, naively believing that Republicans were really interested in greater freedom and small government.  We were wrong, and we all know it.  From now on, bullshitting us with words is not enough.  Put your money, and your actions, where your mouth is."

The only thing bamboozled are the readers here who think Libbies have been earnest supporters of the GOP and their best promise for future political survival is to somehow link up with soc-cons via fusionism.

We've said that the Libbies have their own Party and are welcome to it.  Frankly, I'll pay passage for anyone who is a Libbie inside the GOP to "get back home" to the Libertarian Party.  We've had lots of Libbies in leadership positions in the Party and the Party, no surprise, has lost ground, lost votes and lost support under them.  TomDelay was a Libbie.  CrazyUncleRon is a Libbie.  DickArmey was a Libbie.  We don't need no sticking Libbies.

In Michigan, our state Party Chair was a closet Libbie who was quick to point his Libertarian allegiance.  In the end of his leadership, we lost the State House, we lost the SuprCt, we lost the Governorship, we lost the State Bd of Ed, we lost the majority on all 4 major university boards, we lost 2 Congressional seats, and we nearly lost the State Senate.

All because he was more intent on speaking about "liberty" and "free minds" and "free markets" instead of finding good candidates who could run effective campaigns for office... it don't get any more basic than that, DoubleD.

BTW, he was replaced with a moderate, center-right political activist who started his political life under uber-moderate GOP Governor Bill Milliken.

The Libbies have nothing -zero, nada, nothing- to offer the GOP.  Go back to the Libertarian Party where you rightly belong.  And while you're on your way out of the GOP, show the soc-cons the door, too.

You argue in circles with yourself and other Libbies, DoubleD.  It's what you're best at.

What I get from this is...

Submitted by TimW on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 11:38.

that the author is making the case for Libertarians to pursue the religious for help.  NOT that Libertarians have to transform into something awkward to align with the religious and/or back the so-con candidate.

BTW - Calling all religious people "social conservatives" is an error.   You'll find religious people of all political stripes... (though Libertarians may not be able to find a coalition with ALL of them, you might have a chance with most of them).

And they're not arguing about whether some studies findings are objectively true or not... arguing about "how can they be happy when I'm already happy" and "I disagree with what they believe about [fill in issue here] so why would I want to side with them?" is irrelevant.  You folks missed the point of the post.

Be the leader, not the follower.

Push the Libertarian candidate and get support from the religious in the areas of mutual agreement (like econ & free speech issues).  And don't be afraid to speak in places of worship (like with non-partisan debates, etc) - target your audience and stay on-message.  Show how the current office holder used their votes before and either didn't deliver or became part of the problem.

Excuse my language but this sounds like a pitty screw.

Submitted by cr on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 19:29.

First, giving makes you happier, but only when its by internal motivation to give. Giving just to be happy doesn't work. And religion I suspect is the same thing. How I approach religeon isn't going to be based on someone else's happiness. I base my life on my own decisions.

I'm not much for either of the parties (I am a libertarian . . . of the sane kind I hope), but why would I favor the religious right over the religious left (they do exist); especially since the Republican party sounds bat-shit crazier by the day?

I personally feel like they need us more than I need them. That might not be true, given the Republican party seems bent on alienating everyone but Rush and Newt. A strange party of two.

ED Hardy, Caps, Clothing,

Submitted by tengfei on Thu, 07/16/2009 - 00:08.

ED Hardy, Caps, Clothing, Shoes, Shirts, Swimwear, Belts, Sunglasses, Perfume, Dresses By Christian Audigier. cheap Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Children's T-shirts. Ed Hardy Men's Beach Shorts. Ed Hardy Men's Jeans Ed Hardy Women's Dresses. Ed Hardy Women's Hoodies. Ed Hardy Women's Jeans UK Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Sale links of london Jewellery Sale