I meant to blog about this fabulous article by Don Arthur earlier (viewable here: http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/Summer08-09/arthur_summer08.html). It appeared in the Summer edition 2009 of Policy Magazine.
The article is primarily about the growing rift between conservatives and “libertarians” within the GOP. He discusses the view proposed by various libertarian thinkers and activists to realign themselves with the political left and the Democratic Party. The article mostly concerns the rift between social conservatives and libertarians – though he does later refer to “neo-conservatives” who are not necessarily social conservative. I was particularly captured by his depiction of the “conservative mind.” He refers to Haidt’s theory that people’s moral intuitions may be characterised as fitting into two groups: (i) J.S. Mill social contract theory; and (ii) Durkheimian theory of society. Conservatives adhere to the Durkheimian vision which he summarises as:
(i) Harm/ Care principle;
(ii) Fairness/ reciprocity;
(iii) Ingroup Loyalty;
(iv) Authority/respect; and
(v) Purity/sanctity.
Libertarians adhere to the Millian world view which consists of (i) & (ii) to the exclusion of (iii), (iv) & (v).
The article is thought provoking and well written. However, I think “Fusionism” is not given a fair hearing. In doing so he makes selective use of Hayek, and overlooks the considerable Burkean influences on Hayek’s political philosophy. Without a lengthy excursion through either Hayek or Burke a few points could be made:
(i) both reject rational design and share a similar “organic” view of society (Hayek termed this view “spontaneous order.”)
(ii) Hayekian liberalism does not deny the importance of Burkean traditional institutions.
(iii) both reject “natural rights” in place of “prescriptive rights” or time-honoured expectations that derive from custom. (Both no doubt would reject current proposals to implement a legislative Bill of Rights, and Hayek’s criticism of the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights can be found in Law, Legislation and Liberty.)
All of which Arthur has overlooked or cast aside in providing us with this skewed narrative – that libertarians and conservatives face an ideological impasse.
I must confess a bias in all of this – I am a ‘fusionist” of sorts.
Wchurch's Weblog 
TerjeP (say tay-a) said
I tend to view this more from a pragmatic political position rather than from a philosophical position. I would think libertarians should get into bed with communists if the net effect was a world that was more libertarian (on a few social issues this might even be a realistic scenerio up to a point). In political terms and the democratic context libertarians should obviously work with conservatives so long as conservatives prove useful. I think that this was once the case but I think the political trend in both social and economic policy and the current centrist concensus make conservatives far less useful than they once were. Of course it depends on the issue and also on the particular conservatives in question.
Libertarians want small limited government. The constitutionalist strain within some conservative ranks is somewhat in alignment with this ideal. After all limits on the power of government need to be codified somewhere and constitutions are a key institution in such matters.
Mike said
Just passing by.Btw, you website have great content!
_________________________________
Making Money $150 An Hour
John Humphreys said
Burke has nearly nothing to do with “conservatives” in this country. Nearly everything he has said was either whiggish or irrelevant.
There is no intelligent conservative body of thought or political philosophy. People who try to define conservative end up talking themselves in circles. You could say it means whatever the self-described conservative party does (in which case, it basically means populist, centrist or nationalist) or you could say it means the natural trait of most humans to prefer no or little change. But you can’t tie the word to any rational or consistent set of political ideas.
Perhaps the term “free-market conservative” has more philosophical substance… but that is purely because of the descriptive “free-market” part. And such people make up a small minority of the broader “conservative” group.
undodamp said
well.. it’s like I knew!