Reconsidering the fusionist conservatives.

On the one hand, I’m inclined to cheer on the “Frenchian” fusionist conservatives who are defending core classical-liberal principles against full-blown unapologetic theocrats on their right flank. In much the same sense I’d rather be governed by Rush Limbaugh than by the Saudi royal family.

But... consider how almost purely theoretical this dispute is, when viewed from the perspective of somebody outside the right. To somebody judging just based on their recent history of issue stances. On what major flash-points of the past few decades has this schism on the right actually produced any daylight between the two camps? At the same time Buckley was pioneering fusionist conservativism as a coherent political movement, he was also cheering on segregationists in the South. Mainstream establishment conservatives fought gay rights every step of the way from decriminalisation to marriage equality. They pushed for tough-on-crime drug-warrior tactics and mass incarceration. They’ve mostly (with some notable exceptions) opposed efforts to abolish the death penalty. They’ve happily resorted to denouncing atheists and non-Christians whenever they made a convenient, politically expedient punching bag. National Review et al were beating the radical anti-immigration drum since long before Trump became a politician.

Where was their supposed opposition to demagoguery and incivility before Trump? How many times have they actually gone to bat to defend the classically liberal ideal of freedom from any of its enemies on the right? Where is the practical, real-world policy issue that distinguishes the illiberal theocrats from these good, “liberal” conservatives?

Is it that they don’t want to actually establish a state church? That they’re not on board with siccing SWAT teams on drag queen story time at the library? They don’t want to bring back public stoning and burning heretics at the stake? I guess that’s worth something. But it’s hardly a set of pressing issues for the average person who’s a casual observer of American politics. These are not the debates happening at the actual margins of policy implementation.

Establishmentarian conservatives don’t have a reputation as illiberal solely because of unfair association with the extremists farther to their right. They have that well-earned reputation because they have, time and time again, sided with the illiberal position on major public policy debates. For most, their professed devotion to a secular, civic ideal of liberty extends no further than selectively invoking it for themselves when they’re in retreat from yet another culture-war defeat.

Shedding that reputation is going to take some more serious transformation than just drawing a line between themselves and fringe whackos over in the American Taliban. Until then, the allegation from the latter that this distinction is more about stylistic preferences than policy substance has more than a grain of truth to it.