What Went Wrong with the Anti-Woke Movement (Part 2): The Fusionism Factor
We can't make things right without dealing with the aftermath of fusionism
In recent weeks, I've talked a lot about why the anti-woke movement, or at least some parts of it, descended into an authoritarian reactionary politics. However, one important reason that is often overlooked is the background all this is happening in: the rot of conservative politics in the 20th century thanks to 'fusionism', and its possible deterioration into something even worse going forward. In hindsight, I guess I should have been more aware that an anti-woke movement that operated in this atmosphere, with strong influences from organized right-wing politics, could be easily pulled into reactionary authoritarianism. To stop this from happening, I think we need to seriously deal with the reality of 'fusionism' and its legacy of failure.
In recent years, a lot has been said about 20th century 'fusionism', how it has failed, and where we should go next. On the last point, in particular, is where classical liberals like myself and the 'postliberal' right strongly disagree. Fusionism, otherwise known as the 'three legged stool', was a combination of 'neoliberal' economics, 'cultural conservatism', and a hawkish foreign policy, and claimed to be a 'fusion' of classical liberalism and conservatism. In this article, I will demonstrate why fusionism, while arguably the dominant ideology of the 20th century, especially in the latter part of the century, was essentially a dishonest ideology, and our current problems are largely its product. I will also discuss the path we should take in moving beyond fusionism, and why the postliberal solution is misguided and dangerous.
What Was Fusionism?
Fusionism claimed to be a fusion of classical liberalism and conservatism. However, in reality, there was never any need for this 'new' fusion, because the English-speaking conservative tradition and the classical liberal tradition were already highly compatible, as long as classical liberal reforms didn't take place along theoretical, abstract lines. To understand what fusionism actually was, I think we should examine, in depth, the 'three legs' of the 'stool'.
Firstly, we had the neoliberal economics, which was a clear example of libertarian reform along abstract, philosophical lines, in clear violation of the conservative tradition. It was the very type of change that a conservative should have resisted. Secondly, we had the 'cultural conservatism', which in practice pandered strongly to reactionary elements in the post-desegregation south as well as the Roe v. Wade era religious right. This meant the 'cultural conservatism' was reactionarily opposed to basically all cultural change, which is not in line with the conservative tradition either. Finally, we had the hawkish, interventionist foreign policy, which is not going to be my focus here. The only thing I want to say is that this type of foreign policy was totally alien to the American tradition before World War II, and was by definition radical. This just shows how insincere 'fusionism' was about being truly conservative.
Therefore, fusionism was basically an intellectually inconsistent set of ideas used to gather a voting coalition for the Republican Party in America, and to some extent similar parties in other Western countries. Its function was basically to hide a very radical change in economic (and foreign) policy by promoting reactionary culture wars. The supplantation of real conservatism by fusionism led to economic policies that devastated local communities across America, Britain and other Western countries, eventually providing fuel for the rise of Trumpism, Brexit and the European 'New Right'. Meanwhile, the reactionary culture wars started by fusionist politicians took on a life of their own, and have evolved into an authoritarian movement with worrying similarities to fascism. The reactionary culture wars also provoked a strong counter-reaction among the younger generations, leading to postmodern 'woke' ideology becoming mainstream, and a vicious cycle of polarization forming between the woke left and the reactionary right. I believe all this can be blamed on fusionism, which is why it should never be revived.
Classical liberals and the postliberal right agree that fusionism was bad, and must end. But while classical liberals believe in restoring the true Burkean-Lockean conservative-liberal tradition that prevailed before fusionism, the postliberal right believes in getting rid of classical liberalism altogether, and fully embracing the reactionary culture wars that are themselves a product of fusionism. Hence, while classical liberals believe in reversing the mistake, the postliberal right believe in getting deeper into it, by embracing the most toxic part of the fusionist legacy, even if it means burying the whole Burkean-Lockean tradition, and supplanting it with foreign ideas borrowed mainly from Eastern Europe, in doing so. This would represent a change that is both very radical and very destructive, and should be strongly resisted by all liberals and conservatives alike.
The conservative-liberal solution to fixing the mistakes of fusionism is twofold: we need to reign in the neoliberal excesses of the past 40 years, and we also need to end the reactionary culture war style of politics, and replace it with a gradualist, practical reality-driven orientation to social change. The problem is, the right is no longer conservative, and we should be brave enough to say so loudly.
The Relationship Between the Classical Liberal Tradition and the Conservative Tradition
I want to expand on what I mean by 'end the reactionary culture war style of politics, and replace it with a gradualist, practical reality-driven orientation to social change'. Last time, I said that the true conservative, in the context of the 21st century Western English-speaking society, is necessarily a classical liberal, because our societies have long been underpinned by a classical liberal consensus. However, some of you might ask, while it is not controversial that conservatives should defend existing freedoms, how should we approach the ongoing classical liberal demand to expand individual freedoms over time? After all, classical liberalism is ultimately an abstract, philosophical position to some extent, and the conservative tradition is skeptical of all abstract, philosophical cases for change. So how do we reconcile these two positions?
As the British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli noted, society is inevitably in an ongoing process of change, and new demands for individual liberty and equal treatment under the law will inevitably be made over time. Looking at history, it is the acceptance of such demands that has strengthened our traditions, and made our society what it is today. Even the most ardent conservative would have to agree that the abolition of slavery, the extension of the vote to all adults, and the end of legally enforced racial segregation, were all proper and necessary changes, even though they were indeed major changes to how society functioned at the time. This means that the conservative must not reject all social change by default, and must not even reject all major social change by default. If we did, we would risk making the same mistake as those who were pro-slavery and pro-segregation, for example. Furthermore, if society has up until now accepted certain demands for change, and we decide to take a reactionary, 'just say no' attitude to all social change now, this would actually represent a break with long-standing tradition, which is clearly not the conservative thing to do. Therefore, conservatives have to accept at least some social change. The question is what kind of change to accept.
One important point I made last time was that conservatism isn't opposed to all change. It is only opposed to change that is rooted in abstract ideas that are removed from practical reality, and philosophical theory that is alien to a nation's traditions. For example, when cultural systemists demand that our long-standing respect for free speech give way to a worldview where speech is seen as a tool of the privileged to maintain an oppressive status quo, rooted in postmodern critical theory, we must firmly resist. However, when change is rooted in practical need, and the solution is consistent with the spirit of long-standing traditions, then the change should be accepted.
This principle is actually very useful in informing our practice of classical liberalism. Under the classical liberal umbrella, there are libertarian immediatists who wish to immediately transform our societies into libertarian utopias, where driver's licenses are abolished, police and fire departments are privatized, and the economic safety net is entirely withdrawn, all in the name of achieving the smallest government possible, and/or getting as close to the non-aggression principle (NAP) as possible. The conservative, though a classical liberal, would necessarily have to oppose this kind of change, not only because it is radical, but also because it is rooted in abstract philosophy rather than practical need. Such proposals for change thus ignore the complexity of both individuals and society, and puts philosophy ahead of reality. On these points, the immediatist libertarian is in fact just as guilty as the cultural systemist. History has taught us that this kind of change rarely ends well, which is why we should reject it. This is why the conservative, while being a classical liberal, cannot be a libertarian immediatist.
On the other hand, during the gay marriage debate, I often argued on the side of what is now commonly known as the 'conservative case' for gay marriage, although I wasn't as aware of the conservative philosophical tradition back then. The demand by gay couples to access the institution of marriage was a new social development, which naturally arose from the freedom granted by a society steeped in classical liberal traditions. This development forced us to consider adjustments to social and legal norms, with people responding in a variety of ways. Some reactionary 'conservatives' would force these gay couples to go back into the closet, but I argued this would violate our long-standing norms of individual liberty and fairness, and hence gravely harm our traditional values. Others argued that we should tolerate gay couples, but not extend the institution of marriage to them. I argued that this would make marriage a discriminatory institution in the eyes of many people, especially among the younger generations, which would injure the commonly held value of marriage as a fundamental building block of society. The fact that marriage boycott movements were propping up in many places demonstrated this harm. Having looked at the issue from every angle, there really was not a truly 'no change' solution to the demand of gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage would in fact be the path most consistent with upholding our traditions, including individual liberty, compassion, equality under the law, respect for marriage as an important institution, and so on. In other words, accepting the demand for change would be the only way to truly uphold and strengthen our long-standing traditions, while all other paths would actually lead to the injury of such traditions.
Let's compare abolishing driver's licenses and legalizing gay marriage. The case for gay marriage was rooted in practical demands, from gay couples who realized they were missing out on important rights as couples. Nobody is demanding the abolishment of driver's licenses from a practical point of view, as far as I'm aware of. Nobody needs driver's licenses to be abolished so they could live their lives in a better way. Therefore, the demand for gay marriage was rooted in practical reality, while the case for abolishing driver's licenses is purely based on philosophy. Moreover, as I demonstrated, refusing to legalize gay marriage would actually injure some of our traditions, which made the legalization of gay marriage necessary from the point of view of the preservation of these traditions. I can't see how refusing to abolish driver's licenses would injure our traditions in any way.
In summary, I think that conservative liberals should only accept change when it is clearly rooted in practical need, and not when it is primarily rooted in abstract philosophical justifications. This means that, as conservative liberals, we shouldn't be randomly going around society looking for things we can make more 'libertarian' in theory, when there is no practical need for change in reality. On the other hand, when there is a demand for change rooted in practical need, that is when we should use our classical liberal principles to determine if the case for change is sound. As conservative liberals, we should insist that any social change needs to be in accordance with our long-standing classical liberal values. This is why we still need to be committed to classical liberal values, and we should also be used to thinking about social issues from the classical liberal perspective. (This, in turn, is what the future development of classical liberal philosophy should be aiming at.)
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).