On the Death of Conservative-Libertarian Fusionism
Classical liberals and libertarians need to seek new allies
There’s a song that comes to mind while writing this post. Recorded by the Southern California post-hardcore band Stavesacre for their 1999 album, Speakeasy, “This Love” has a particular lyric that sticks out: “Seduction of a generation / No common threat to overcome / No one's asking for my blood / Can someone say something, please?” Although I’ve never really looked into what Mark Salomon meant by these words,1 Speakeasy was released eight years after the fall of the Soviet Union. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1993, American foreign policy had been defined, since roughly the end of World War II, by the bitter—and, at times, intense—rivalry between the two most powerful nations on the planet. After years of ramping up defense spending, the phrase “peace dividend” was tossed around in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s as the need to deter the Soviets had withered away.
The fight against communism defined the 20th century, and it was one of the factors that brought conservatives and libertarians together. It also helped that a former actor-turned-governor by the name of Ronald Reagan described his political beliefs as libertarian.2 In a 1975 interview with Reason, Reagan said, “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals—if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
Reagan understood, perhaps better than any president in American history, the free market. He was at least informally advised by Milton Friedman, and he cited the works of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Still, Reagan has been romanticized. The rhetorical Reagan—the “Great Communicator”—was far superior to Reagan in practice. Still, he brought libertarians, by and large, into the Republican tent. Because a key litmus test for being a Republican is fealty to Donald Trump, that tent has gotten smaller in recent years.
Needless to say, the Republican Party is no longer defined by Reagan. That’s not to say it should or shouldn’t be. Still, the evolution of the Republican Party, particularly since the birth of the Tea Party movement, has turned it into something unrecognizable. The GOP has gone from being the “Party of Reagan” to generally abandoning his limited government, free market views. Instead, economic populism, nationalism, nativism, identity, grievance, and retribution are the characteristics that more aptly describe today’s Republican Party.
How did we get here? With the threat of communism greatly diminished by the collapse of the Soviet Union, attention slowly began to turn to terrorism in the ‘90s, particularly the activities of Islamic radicals on United States’ soil, beginning with the World Trade Center bombing in February 1993. Additional attacks—including the embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and the attack on the USS Cole—further emphasized the threat. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in which nearly 3,000 people were killed, changed the landscape of American foreign policy and civil liberties.
A military response to September 11 was inevitable as much as it was unavoidable. It was so inevitable that only one member in the entirety of Congress—Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)—voted against it.3 Famously antiwar members like Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) voted in favor of it.4 The critical tests for libertarians came by way of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the 2003 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. The USA PATRIOT Act was a broadside against Americans’ constitutionally-protected civil liberties while the war against Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, in which more than 4,500 American soldiers died and more than 32,000 were wounded. That doesn’t include deaths and casualties from countries that participated in the war or the deaths of Iraqi civilians.
Needless to say, President George W. Bush was a breaking point for libertarians, and it wasn’t limited to his actions after September 11 and the expansion of executive power under his administration. Some may remember the postmortem of his record on spending. The Cato Institute published a piece in 2009 with the headline, “George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ.” The increases in spending under Bush weren’t limited to defense outlays or the simultaneous wars his administration waged. Nondefense discretionary spending increased from 3.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in FY 1999, under the Clinton administration, to 3.7 percent in FY 2003.5 Overall, discretionary spending rose from 6.0 percent of GDP in FY 1999 to 7.3 percent in FY 2003.
Bush also signed an expansion of Medicare into law. Republican leadership in Congress pushed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in November 2003. In the House, Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) kept the vote open for an unusually long time while he and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and others pressured Republicans to vote for the bill. Eventually, it passed. Despite an initial price tag of $394.2 billion from FY 2004 through FY 2013, the estimate quickly soared, exceeding $500 billion. According to the recent Medicare trustees’ report, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit has an unfunded obligation of $7.8 trillion.6
After the bailouts that Bush signed into law in October 2008 and President Barack Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009, there was renewed hope for libertarians when the Tea Party movement came to prominence. I attended the Tea Party rally on February 27, 2009, at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta and appeared on Fox News later that day to discuss why so many people across the country had heeded Rick Santelli’s call on CNBC for a new tea party.
Although I defended the Tea Party movement early on, I saw that it was quickly co-opted by Republican politicians, former Republican politicians, and conservative talking heads either seeking to remain relevant or searching for relevance. By the time of the “Tax Day” Tea Party rallies, I was done.7 The Tea Party movement largely became a vehicle for grifters to latch onto to push their issue and promote the “red team.” It shifted from being primarily about reducing government spending to focusing more on immigration restrictionism, gun rights, and social issues.
In 2012 or 2013, I interviewed David Boaz of the Cato Institute for a podcast. I don’t remember how it came up, but we got on the topic of fusionism. David questioned the decades-old notion of fusionism because conservatives’ stances on issues like same-sex marriage and immigration presented a real problem for libertarians. That’s not to say that he thought that partnerships with conservatives didn’t make sense. He was simply pointing out that progressives and libertarians have common ground on many issues, including the opposition to the drug war and privacy.
What I do for a living has often put me in the position of working in bipartisan coalitions on different issues. I’ve considered myself politically homeless for nearly ten years. I’m an independent voter. Working with both sides—conservatives and progressives or Republicans and Democrats—on issues where there’s agreement hasn’t really bothered me. The word “bipartisan” doesn’t reflexively scare me.8 I also don’t inherently dislike or distrust people who have different views from mine. Even when I may passionately or strongly disagree with someone, I try to see the issue from their perspective. Of course, there are people whom you encounter who will be honest brokers, but you’ll always find others who are purely interested in politics and how something benefits their team.
In 2020, I was tasked with writing something promoting fusionism. I don’t know that I’ve ever had such a challenging task because I was penning something that I wasn’t sure I believed any longer. Still, I wrote what I had to write, albeit half-heartedly. If memory serves, I wrote this either right before or right after the 2020 presidential election, so all of that was weighing heavily on me at the time. It wasn’t until the aftermath of January 6, 2021, that I paused to reflect and figure out what I wanted to do with my career. During that reflection period, I realized that David was right. I don’t think I had the chance to tell him that before he passed away last year.
During the early- to mid-2010s, the rising stars of the conservative movement in Congress spoke about restoring the Legislative Branch’s functions under the Constitution. The phrase “constitutional conservative” and variations of it were popularized. This coincided with the peak of the Tea Party movement. The constitutional conservative motif became a platform for several conservatives in Congress, who introduced legislation designed to wrestle power back from the Executive Branch, control of which just happened to be in Democratic hands. I agreed (and still agree!) with the core premise that Congress has given too much power to the Executive Branch. I agree that Congress has a constitutional obligation to serve as a check on executive power.
It’s easy to be in the minority in Congress. It’s easier to be part of a conservative minority within a Republican minority. The true measure of any politician, regardless of their political ideology, is what they do when their party controls the reins of government. If you aren’t willing to fight for the same values that you fought for when you were in the minority, then what good are you? If you put your re-election in the next two or six years at a higher value than your principles, then I’m not so sure you should be re-elected. Of course, this creates quite a dilemma. After all, the top priority of virtually every member of Congress is to get re-elected.
Since retaking office in January, Donald Trump has smashed democratic norms that we have taken for granted. He has undermined institutional independence and ignored the rule of law, expanded executive power, targeted critics of him and his administration, intimidated political opposition, and suppressed dissent. Currently, federal law enforcement officials and the National Guard are occupying the District of Columbia. Chicago appears to be next on the list. New York and San Francisco may not be far behind. The Constitution is being treated as a quaint list of suggestions that can be easily disregarded at the whim of a single person.
What are those same so-called “constitutional conservatives” saying today? The cacophony of chirping crickets outside your window is louder because there has been nary a peep from most of those who seemingly convinced themselves that they were the reincarnation of the Founding Fathers. They want to keep Trump’s favor, raise money, keep their name in the media, continue to get engagements on social media, or make sure they can easily land a gig on Newsmax or One America when they decide that the $174,000 annual salary of a rank-and-file member isn’t enough for them. Building and maintaining a brand is more important, after all.
Drunk with power, conservatives appear not to realize that Trump is setting a new precedent on an almost daily basis. That by itself is alarming. The nature of executive power is for it to grow. Every president sees the power of their predecessor as a floor, not a ceiling. Hey, but it owns the libs, right? That’s the measure of policy these days. Well, “owning the libs” and the notion that “if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth.”
Conservatism used to have an intellectual underpinning. Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr., and George Will, among others, laid a foundation for conservatism in the latter half of the 20th century that was rooted in the founding spirit of America, not unlike libertarianism. Today’s version of conservatism has more in common with populism. It’s also often devoid of reason. The propagators of this new brand of conservatism want you to ignore data and truths over the party line. In their eyes, they have to destroy the Constitution and limited government to save it. The ends, presumably, justify the means if the people with a “D” next to their name are angry.
The fusionist experiment is dead. Today’s breed of conservative welcomes that. Those of us who are classical liberals or libertarians—anyone who puts the Constitution and the rule of law ahead of what’s good for a party or an authoritarian who sits behind the Resolute Desk—should find allies, whoever they may be, who will work with us to restore checks and balances and the separation of powers provided the guardrails that made the United States a powerful nation. I’m not encouraging anyone to join any political party. I remain politically homeless. I enjoy the independence that comes with it. I’m also not saying there aren’t good conservatives concerned about what’s happening. There absolutely are, and you should seek them out. I’m also not saying you should work with every progressive you encounter. Find good people, regardless of their views, and work together. If we don’t, I fear that fusionsim won’t be the only thing to wither away.
I’ve reached out to him to see if I can get an answer, because now I’m curious.
Although I have a lot of respect for Reagan, I can’t say that his record, particularly as president, was libertarian. Although the so-called “War on Drugs” began under Nixon in the 1970s, Reagan ramped it up, signing three major crime bills into law. His administration also oversaw concerningly high deficits as he traded increases in defense spending for increases in nondefense spending.
Lee has said that she opposed the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) because it could “spiral out of control.” She did speak on the floor ahead of the vote on September 14, 2001, but she didn’t specifically talk about how the 2001 AUMF could be a tool for open-ended military action. (See p. 24-25 of the PDF.) However, Lee did say, “However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint.” I don’t intend to impugn Lee by noting this. She may very well have stated her concerns about the AUMF around the time of the vote or immediately after. She also became the leading proponent of repealing the 2001 AUMF, which, unfortunately, remains in place to this day.
As a point of clarification, the AUMF that passed the House was H.J.Res. 64. This is the AUMF that received a roll call vote in the House. S.J.Res. 23 is the AUMF that became law. There was a recorded vote in the Senate, but the House passed it by unanimous consent.
Nondefense discretionary spending did decline as a percentage of GDP beginning in FY 2006, eventually falling to 3.5 percent of GDP before rising to 4.0 percent under President Barack Obama. Bush did sign a full-year continuing resolution (CR) for defense into law for FY 2009 in October 2008. Nondefense spending was CR’d until March 2009.
Some quick notes on this. When we talk about unfunded obligations, we’re usually talking about one of two things, either a 75-year window or the infinite horizon. In this case, I’m using the unfunded obligation over 75 years. You can see the relevant table on p. 222 of the report/p. 228 of the PDF. A couple of years ago, I went to a dinner in DC. I don’t remember who invited me or what the dinner was about, but one of the Republican members who attended and I had an exchange. I said something about Republicans and spending, mentioning the Medicare Modernization Act as an example of Republicans’ profligacy. He defended the program and suggested that it didn’t have an unfunded obligation. I was floored by the blatant disregard of the data that this member showed.
Some of you who know me may be surprised to hear this because I went to work for FreedomWorks in September 2014. Although FreedomWorks was closely aligned with the Tea Party movement from its inception in 2009, by the time I started working there, the organization had moved away from it. That’s not to say there weren’t activists in the network who were associated with local Tea Party groups. FreedomWorks also had a primary focus on fiscal issues, although we did work on other things, including criminal justice reform and civil liberties issues.
With the caveat that bipartisanship can be both good and bad. (At this point, I’m deeply skeptical of legislation that isn’t bipartisan.) There has to be bipartisan agreement to fix the many problems in the United States. It’s just a fact. Bipartisanship also has the added benefit of generally earning public support.