RSSIs Movement Conservatism Coming Together on Romney?
W.H. Chellis
First, it was the legendary Paul Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Educational Foundation.
Second, it was the surprising announcement of American Conservative Union chairman David Keen. Keene, lion like defender of the fusionist conservative position declared, “In recent months, however, Governor Romney has emerged as the single candidate most worthy of conservative support.”
Today, the National Review editors have announced their endorsement.
It looks like the fusionist conservatism of Reagan is coalescing around Mitt Romney.
jbasinger
December 12th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I’m not familiar with ‘fusionist’ conservatives. Does this mean both social & fiscal conservatives?
W.H. Chellis
December 12th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Fusionism is the union of libertarianism and traditionalism working together toward common goals. It is meant to co-hear in the individual conservative who is a classical liberal in his economics and a traditionalist on social questions. Frank Meyer at National Review was the great architect of the union… although this union is found in historical conservatives such as Edmund Burke and John Randolph.
W.H. Chellis
December 12th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
The problem with the equation is not the liberal economics but the libertarianism which does not co-exist well with traditionalism.
johnfielding
December 19th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Yes, but Frank Meyer was heavily critical of conservatism as represented by Burke and Kirk.
johnfielding
December 24th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Furthermore, I can live with everyone except Giuliani and Paul (the latter exclusively for his foreign policy stance).
W.H. Chellis
December 24th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Yes. Frank was wrong. To much the ideologue. Funny, I actually sway toward Paul precisely because of his foreign policy stance.
johnfielding
December 28th, 2007 at 2:24 am
“When we look at global situations today, the words of our founding fathers are becoming more relevant daily. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage. Pakistan should not be getting an “allowance” from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.”
This is a quote from comments made by Paul on November 11, 2007. While I follow a generally small government line of thought, I am prepared to live with a little less of that and a little more realism in foreign policy.
Paul wants to follow Washington’s advice against entangling alliances, but in another set of comments is dreadfully concerned regarding our “isolation” from other nations (October 21, 2007, found at http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml, under “Texas Straight Talk”) One cannot have it both ways.
Further, Thomas Jefferson tried it Washington’s way and inadvertantly brought on the War of 1812. There is no foreign policy that will make us “less targeted.” We are targeted (1) because we are big, and (2)we are seen as a Christian nation standing in the way of a worldwide Islamic jihad. While it is tempting to jibe at Paul that he will not fight “unless they invade Manhatten,” actually they have already. We are in a war; whether we show up to fight it is another matter. The way I see it, Paul will get us attacked while naively following a “simple, humble foreign policy.”
His point about “oppressive taxation” would not be true if government were returned to its consitutiional size, but since the maintenance of a military and defense is among the enumerated powers, it surely is not foreign policy that is overtaxing us since that is at least legitimate taxation constitutionally. (And frankly, I think that bribery, while not always the most stable guarantee of loyalty, is a legitimate expenditure in the foreign policy area; I have not noticed Scriptural condemnation of offering bribes, just accepting them).
It would be nice to have the nation survive long enough to try all of his libertarian nostrums and experiments with the economy.