The old fusionist coalition of traditional values and supply-side economics that delivered the Reagan presidency is falling apart. "Supply-side economics had a good run, but continual tax cuts can no longer be the centerpiece of Republican economic policy," advises New York Times conservative David Brooks. "The demographics have changed. The U.S. is an aging society. We have made expensive promises to our seniors. We can’t keep those promises at the current tax levels, let alone at reduced ones." Goldwater-Reagan conservatives can finally, and ironically, empathize with the Rockefeller Republicans who felt politically homeless in the wake of the Goldwaterization of the GOP. The Republican Party, on so many different levels, is changing again--and not for the better.

When you call David Brooks a "conservative," is that a joke, or just lapsus linguae?

Or do you mean "conservative for a New York Times writer," hence the phrase "New York Times conservative?"

Alan, my understanding is that Dan is being context sensitive. David Brooks is a NY Times "conservative" which does not necessarily place him as a conservative in any other sense.

During the 1980s conservatism was defined by economics: less government and tax cuts. During the 1990s the conservative movement was about fighting the culture war: feminism, race, affirmative action, illegitimacy etc. Now, the conservative movement just defends the security state: illegal wiretapping, torture, private mercenary armies, executive privilege, surveillance, endless wars, and the general erosion of civil liberties. That is why big spenders and social liberals, like Giuliani, are acceptable to the conservative movement, while anti-security state conservatives(Buchanan and Ron Paul) are persona non grata in the conservative field.

If it wasn't for the war in Iraq and the other security state issues, what issues could conservatives support? We no longer have the option for any significant tax cuts because the deficit is out of control, and they've thrown in the towel on big government. Cultural issues are not important to the Neocons, and conservatives have already made a bargain with the devil, so to speak, as long as one is committed to war and the security state.

In Bush's first term, his domestic agenda was a new cabinet department (Homeland Security) a new entitlement, and lots of spending. His big domestic push in his 2nd term was amnesty for illegal immigrants. There is no domestic conservative agenda.

The conservative movement is now a total farce because it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the security state, which means that the conservative agenda will always be about promoting war because they've abandoned everything else.

Middle of the road leads inevitably to socialism. The fusionist movement was not the first to learn this, and likely will not be the last.

"Fusionism" wasn't "middle of the road," but an attempt to combine the the Libertarian emphasis on liberty with the conservative emphasis on virtue.

Government control begets government control. If you turn to the state to regulate morality, rather than to the family, the church, etc, then it is inevitable that others will open up the state to regulation of the economy.

Ben-T,

By that rationale, any law whatsoever already puts us on the slippery slope to totalitarianism. Do you think that's right?

Eric,

I think fusionism is better described as the failed attempt to combine the Libertarian emphasis on liberty with the conservative emphasis on virtue.

In what ways would a "New York Times conservative" differ from, say, a "Ronald Reagan conservative"?

"By that rationale, any law whatsoever already puts us on the slippery slope to totalitarianism. Do you think that's right?" - Ralph

You already know that I am a market anarchist, and I think that the state is an inherently tyrannical institution, so you already have your answer.

Of course, liberty soon withers away without virtue and virtue is an empty concept without liberty, so if the fusion between the libertarians and conservatives failed it must mean that one and, likely, both groups have only a superficial knowledge of how to achieve or sustain their goals.

My perspective is that the libertarians have taken the goal of strong, virtuous, autonomous individuals and assumed, counterfactually, that such individuals naturally exist rather than trying to understand how such individuals are nurtured; and that too many conservatives forgot that virtue can't be purchased, even if you have all the credit of the federal government to buy things with.

While this is a direct response to Ralph's observation, I believe it also addresses Dan Flynn's question about how N. Y. Times conservatives differ from a Ronald Reagan conservative.

The conservative impulse to use the state to enforce virtue not only fails at that objective, but actually constitutes an unintentional assault against the real vanguards of virtue, the family and the church. It is impossible to have a state that will legally enforce virtuous behavior without turning that coercive power over to the creation of a liberal egalitarian welfare state.

For example, if you want to reduce the problem of drugs, making them illegal will not work. All prohibition has accomplished is creating a massive criminal empire in Latin America and in creating unnecessary, drug-related crimes, both violent and nonviolent, in the US.

Rather, the only solution to the problem of drugs is to abolish the welfare state. Force drug-users to directly face the costs of using drugs, and to get their support from interested parties, such as charity, the church, etc, which will not simply hand over checks, but rather will insist that the addicts also change their lives for the better. The current situation erodes the influence of traditional upholders of virtue, because the regulated market has allowed people to function in society while refusing to obey the implicit, non-state laws of the community, through relying on the government dole. This is hardly the only example, it is quite pervasive. For example: Young men can dress as and act like thugs, safe in the knowledge that this will not hurt their chances for employment, lest firms be faced with the charge of "discrimination".

Furthermore, in the case of many currently illegal drugs, such as opium, marijuana, cocaine, etc, there is no reason its users cannot function in society just as well as tobacco and alcohol users function in society now. Should they be illegal?

You cannot have eat your cake and have it, too. If you open up the floodgates of coercive state power to regulate society, it will regulate ALL aspects of society, not just the ones that you would like. And the end result is the current liberal egalitarian nightmare: A society in which people are able to exist, if they so choose, almost totally independently of the true enforcer of virtue: the sanction and approval of their peers in the community.

"If you open up the floodgates of coercive state power to regulate society, it will regulate ALL aspects of society, not just the ones that you would like." Ben T

But this is proven false by history. There has been coercive power to regulate society for many thousands of years, and there has not yet been a human force that has been able to control all aspects of society.

I mean, I'm not just being obtuse here. I get your point. But there are certain common flaws in libertarian thinking that you are displaying here.

Of course not *literally* all aspects of society, that is simply logistically impossible, and its not the point I was making.

"Of course, liberty soon withers away without virtue and virtue is an empty concept without liberty, so if the fusion between the libertarians and conservatives failed it must mean that one and, likely, both groups have only a superficial knowledge of how to achieve or sustain their goals."

I don't have any quibble with this, but this is the "fusionist" perspective only at an abstract level. The real dilemma is how you translate the "fusionist" idea into practical politics. Does it sometimes demand government involvement? And if so, how much? Or does one see the need for government involvement as an indication that society has already lost its virtue? I don't think some of the more radical Libertarians e.g.Murray Rothbard would disagree that virtue is a prerequisite for liberty, but they would disagree on the efficacy of any government meddling to promote or maintain virtue.

"But this is proven false by history. There has been coercive power to regulate society for many thousands of years, and there has not yet been a human force that has been able to control all aspects of society."

The point that Ben, I think, is trying to make is that government intervention begets more government intervention. Except for the rare circumstances in which states are overthrown, the tendency is for all governments to soak up more private wealth and regulate more aspects of civil society.

"The real dilemma is how you translate the "fusionist" idea into practical politics."

The answers to this dilemma are subsidiarity and a recognition of the "sacredness" of the social compacts on which subsidiarity depend.

Public opinion is the one force that can control a government, but for this force to be practically effective it must be free from manipulative control by that government or by government-allied elites. Subsidiarity (for national purposes this means federalism) is the primary force that had restrained this manipulative control, giving us, for a while, one of the most free and the most virtuous populations the world had ever seen.

But in the end, it didn't work, did it? The subsidiarity method of containing government expansion failed in the long run, like all attempts before and since.

The perspective that anything that was rejected in the past must have not "worked," is a progressive lie that destroys any hope, except the usually sterile hope in the "new" (or in Ben-T's case the hope in anarchy, which always appears new but is really the oldest, most failed system). Tell a drunk that he was prosperous before he started drinking too much and he can say "Well not drinking too much obviously failed for me in the long run, like all attempts before or since."

DocMcG,

Your last comment has to be one of the best things I have ever read on this site. Chesterton couldn't have struck at the heart of the progressive lie better!