Why the Right Forgot Its Own Best Arguments

And would you say that fusionism is effectively kind of independently from the political aspect, something that has been, you know, like kind of the dominant force, intellectual force on the conservative side for 40 years? But actually, I mean, you wrote a piece for the 250th anniversary of the U.S.

where you actually make the case that it seemed that it's been going on for much, much longer than this.

Yes, right.

So I argued in our America 250 issue of Reason that the American founders were fusionists.

That is to say they were heavily influenced by both those traditions, the classical liberal tradition or what we would now call that, and as well as the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, even though many of the founders were themselves somewhat heterodox in their own personal religious beliefs.

They believed that Christianity or religion was a necessary force for helping to form people's moral consciences.

And they believed that there was no way that this experiment in liberty that they were trying to begin by founding this country, there was no way that it could succeed unless the populace was... steeped in a virtuous culture and learned to be self-governing in a way, not just self-governing in the sense of democracy, like democratic governance, but self-governing in the sense of knowing how to restrain ourselves from doing things that we shouldn't do.

Because if people aren't able to restrain themselves and act virtuously in their interactions with each other, if we then necessarily government will be called upon to do that, to play that role for us.

And so they were believers in this.

And I even quote Tocqueville, you know, in the 1830s.

So 50 years later, he comes and he says, you know, in Europe, we're used to thinking of the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty as marching in opposite directions.

But here in America, they march together.

And that's something that he noticed was just different.

That's fusionism, the spirit of liberty and the spirit of religion marching together.

The idea that we don't see these two things as pulling against each other.

They may be in tension at some time, you know, in some cases, but that we need to care about both of them.

And we see like our religious beliefs imbue our belief, our reasons for supporting equal rights for everybody and all of the sort of things that come under liberalism.

So let me ask you to maybe tell us the story a little bit of fusionism itself, the movement, because though it has, I mean, it has existed in America for 250 years and lived through the founder, it actually kind of really emerged as a kind of, as a position to which some intellectual belonged to and committed to in the 60s, right? And so you talk about, And interestingly, I was surprised about the incredibly important role that Frederick Hayek played in that story.

For whatever reason, I obviously I thought he was part of the movement.

I just never thought about how in a way he's kind of he's like such an essential part of this story.

But but you also talk a lot about Frank Meyer.

So can you talk to us a little bit about that story? kind of these debates that took place around that time.

This is after the Second World War.

I mean, arguably it starts, there's a baby step with the foundation of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947, and then goes on really in the 60s, I guess, with Frank Myers and National Review and all of this.

Yeah, late 50s into the 60s.

And would you say that fusionism is effectively kind of independently from the political aspect, something that has been, you know, like kind of the dominant force, intellectual force on the conservative side for 40 years? But actually, I mean, you wrote a piece for the 250th anniversary of the U.S.

where you actually make the case that it seemed that it's been going on for much, much longer than this.

Yes, right.

So I argued in our America 250 issue of Reason that the American founders were fusionists.

That is to say they were heavily influenced by both those traditions, the classical liberal tradition or what we would now call that, and as well as the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, even though many of the founders were themselves somewhat heterodox in their own personal religious beliefs.

They believed that Christianity or religion was a necessary force for helping to form people's moral consciences.

And they believed that there was no way that this experiment in liberty that they were trying to begin by founding this country, there was no way that it could succeed unless the populace was... steeped in a virtuous culture and learned to be self-governing in a way, not just self-governing in the sense of democracy, like democratic governance, but self-governing in the sense of knowing how to restrain ourselves from doing things that we shouldn't do.

Because if people aren't able to restrain themselves and act virtuously in their interactions with each other, if we then necessarily government will be called upon to do that, to play that role for us.

And so they were believers in this.

And I even quote Tocqueville, you know, in the 1830s.

So 50 years later, he comes and he says, you know, in Europe, we're used to thinking of the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty as marching in opposite directions.

But here in America, they march together.

And that's something that he noticed was just different.

That's fusionism, the spirit of liberty and the spirit of religion marching together.

The idea that we don't see these two things as pulling against each other.

They may be in tension at some time, you know, in some cases, but that we need to care about both of them.

And we see like our religious beliefs imbue our belief, our reasons for supporting equal rights for everybody and all of the sort of things that come under liberalism.

So let me ask you to maybe tell us the story a little bit of fusionism itself, the movement, because though it has, I mean, it has existed in America for 250 years and lived through the founder, it actually kind of really emerged as a kind of, as a position to which some intellectual belonged to and committed to in the 60s, right? And so you talk about, And interestingly, I was surprised about the incredibly important role that Frederick Hayek played in that story.

For whatever reason, I obviously I thought he was part of the movement.

I just never thought about how in a way he's kind of he's like such an essential part of this story.

But but you also talk a lot about Frank Meyer.

So can you talk to us a little bit about that story? kind of these debates that took place around that time.

This is after the Second World War.

I mean, arguably it starts, there's a baby step with the foundation of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947, and then goes on really in the 60s, I guess, with Frank Myers and National Review and all of this.

Yeah, late 50s into the 60s.