Post-Fusionism: Where do we go from here?

The LPMC, left-libertarian responses, and a proposal

Libertarians – or, more precisely, the awkward coalition of Libertarian Party members, DC libertarians, classical liberals, and individualists – have been embroiled in an internal dispute over libertarian’s right-wing associations. The Libertarian Party’s recent takeover by the Mises Caucus (LPMC), a paleolibertarian wing of the LP, has prompted much of this recent debate. Their removal of the LP’s platform against bigotry, rethinking of the LP’s affirmative position on open borders, and interest in expanding outreach to young males who like edgy podcasts is concerning to many left-libertarians. The LPMC’s rise has caused many in the Libertarian world to completely reconsider the history of fusionism and where libertarians fit into the modern political spectrum. 

Fusionism was originally defined and solidified by Frank Meyer, a 20th century political philosopher, who attempted to synthesize his libertarian and traditionalist sentiments. Fusionism argued that societies depended upon individual virtues, but that these virtues could not be forced upon people by the state. The inculcation of these virtues would create a virtuous cycle of sorts, by which individuals' freedoms would continue to be protected as individuals continued to be “virtuous” and prove their capacity to wield freedom well. It’s a distinctly American conservatism rooted in admiration for the US Constitution and Founding Fathers, support for free markets, and a Tocquevillian view of civil society. 

The LPMC is attempting to recreate this fusionist project, but it misunderstands the differences between today’s right-wing and the conservative movements of before. At the heart of libertarianism (or classical liberalism, individualism, etc.) is its liberalism. The belief that the individual is the fundamental moral agent in society. The commitment to free enterprise, free exchange, and free movement as human rights that improve the world we live in. The modern right, while diverse in scope, has meaningfully shifted in an illiberal direction. Illiberal forces have always existed in American conservatism, but the post-liberals are pushing the conservative movement further towards ideas that are anathema to the libertarian agenda.

Even during the heyday of fusionism, the coalition was always uneasy. Libertarians and conservatives have criticized it, F.A. Hayek published a resounding refute of attempts to associate him with conservatism, and libertarians were always an odd fit for the traditionalist conservative movement. The goals of the conservatives and libertarians were always different, even if the coalition was strategically useful. This uneasiness has completely collapsed into begrudging associations or outright rejections and hostility. The Paleolibertarians of the 1990s attempted to revive different coalitions with paleoconservatives, but those, too, did ultimately fail. I expect the same will happen with the LPMC’s attempts to bring in edgy right-wingers who like weed and hate “wokeism”. 

Libertarians have responded in a variety of ways to this reality. Aaron Ross Powell has forcefully argued against the entire fusionist project, while others (such as Stephanie Slade at Reason Magazine) have attempted to defend fusionism while rejecting the illiberalism of the modern right. I make a slightly divergent argument: the libertarian/classical liberal movement should be (as Powell argues) primarily focused on issue advocacy, but should simultaneously take a more active role in creating more liberal left and right movements. Simply put, we can and should walk and chew gum at the same time. It is not enough to accept the increasing illiberalism on both sides of the political system while being narrowly focused on our pet issues, and in many ways, working to create more liberal right and left wing movements will make it easier to advance our issue campaigns. 

I lay out a few ideas on what this practically looks like, including identifying coalition partners, reshifting policy priorities, and creating new institutions. 

I. Reshifting policy priorities

Libertarians do not have to sacrifice their principles to think outside-the-box on policy priorities and issues. As it stands, for both historical and philosophical reasons, libertarian policy and political thinking has focused on a narrow range of issues: property rights, civil liberties (free speech, War on Drugs, gun rights, etc.), foreign interventions, monetary policy, and taxation. All of these are worthwhile issues that, in many ways, libertarians have paved paths towards more humane and intelligent policymaking. The reality is, however, that the daily encroachment on freedom and the issues that motivate regular Americans and activists are not always in alignment with libertarians’ pet issues. 

There are a range of issues I could write about for this, but I focus on two: climate change and housing/land-use. These are issues with rising prominence in the political discourse that negatively impact (and politically motivate) younger people. As such, I consider them particularly useful for creating a sustainable and popular pro-liberty movement. 

Climate change

The most immediate one that comes to mind is environmental issues. The leading libertarian think tank in the US, the Cato Institute, does not have a team dedicated to environmental and climate change policy. The Center for American Progress, Brookings, and RAND Corporation all have teams dedicated to climate-related issues.  Even the conservative Heritage Foundation has a team working on environment and energy issues explicitly. The rhetoric from the LP is largely silent on climate-related issues, other than a short paragraph in the LP’s platform. 

Clearly climate issues are not a motivating issue for many libertarians, but that puts libertarians at a strategic disadvantage. Polling indicates that young people think the Republican party cares “too little” about climate change, and even 28% of those polled believe Democrats also care about it too little. Young people in general are more concerned than older Americans about climate change as we will bear most of the burdens and challenges of global climate change. This is an important issue that liberty-minded people should be leading the discussion on, and to relegate it to a footnote does us no favors. 

Some libertarians may hand wave the issue as either not a big deal or adequately handled by policies like a carbon tax. As someone who is supportive of the carbon tax, I find these arguments unconvincing. Carbon taxes are unlikely to be politically feasible in the US if the recent anger over gas prices is any indication. As such, we need new and innovative solutions on the table that can both protect the environment and promote individual liberty and economic growth. 

The social chasm between environmentalists and libertarians may feel impossible to manage, but it is not. Americans do care about climate change, and they are looking for solutions that address the issue while supporting the economic growth and prosperity that continues to increase our living standards. This is a vacuum in the environmental debate begging to be filled, and libertarians have valuable insights to provide here on the virtues of capitalist innovation, individual and local action, and polycentric natural resource governance. 

Housing & Land-Use

Libertarian positions on housing issues have largely been in the legal realm. Organizations like the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) have done laudable work to combat unconstitutional takings of private properties, especially private homes. This is a winning issue for libertarians, and the work activists and lawyers have done to increase property rights cannot be overstated. That said, the libertarian movement has not been leading the current Yes-In-My-Backyard (YIMBY) movement. This is despite the fact that it is a clear case of the state using coercive power to prevent the full use of one’s property rights that also increases prices that harm consumers. 

The ambivalence and sloth-like pace of the liberty movement to fully take on this issue is multi-faceted. Libertarian’s fusionist past is certainly one of those reasons. Libertarians at all levels (professional and grassroots), however, should be taking the lead on this issue and demonstrating how government plans so often fail and hurt the most vulnerable along the way. The YIMBY movement is gaining steam and already having an impact on policy. If libertarians do not build alliances with YIMBYs and fight for similar ends, they will once again miss an important opportunity to build ideologically diverse alliances. 

II. Identifying coalition partners

It is unhelpful for libertarians to treat left and right as masses that are defined by their national leadership or official party affiliations. Internal disputes on both sides abound, and for us, this is an excellent opportunity to find our friends. It’s often easy for those outside of a political group to only see a mass of people walking in lockstep with one another, but the internal disputes and divisions are always underneath the surface. The current Justice Democrats movement on the left was born of years of infighting, both among the broader Democratic coalition and amongst themselves. The conservative movement is not confined to the Trump presidency and is already thinking amongst themselves about what post-Trump conservatism means. 

Within all of these political battles are potential allies. Some of whom will be explicit in their calls for liberal values – certain Never Trump Republicans, for example. Others will be groups we strategically align with for policy ends – criminal justice reformers on the left and gun rights advocates on the right. From my own perusal, organizations like the American Conservation Coalition (ACC) on the right stand out as right-wingers we should be working with to promote free market environmental views. The Neoliberal and YIMBY movements in the US are largely left-of-center, but they are amenable to our views on this issue, and Neoliberals have a fair amount of overlap (with notable exceptions). Individual politicians like Jared Polis also make great friends and opportunities to work with legislators on important issues. 

III. Creating new institutions

Too many libertarian institutions have historically been housed with conservative ones, and this fundamentally limits our ability to act towards libertarian ends. Developing separate institutions that don’t kowtow to one end of the political spectrum is necessary for any mature political organization. We need the freedom and flexibility to focus on the issues we care about, build relationships with like-minded people, and create a culture of libertarianism – especially one that can welcome people put off by right-wing associations. A range of libertarian institutions already exist and are doing great work, but one, in particular, stands out in need of reform: the Federalist Society.

The Federalist Society was born out of the shift toward economically-informed legal decision-making. Libertarians, as such, have been pretty involved with the Federalist Society and have benefited from its Originalist approach to the constitution. I’d be remiss to not recognize the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, as well as the multiple SCOTUS cases in the past week that have weakened civil liberties that received support from self-described originalists. This background, regardless of your individual feelings about abortion, is an automatic indicator that we need to be thinking separately from the conservative movement. Fundamentally, our view of the law will be different than those of conservatives, and our continued attachment to organizations like the FedSoc may inhibit our ability to think creatively and freely on these issues. 

Final Note

This is a sprawling blog post born out of mostly lurking Twitter debates about the LPMC takeover and the fights between “right” and “left” libertarians. I wanted to leave on one note though, which is that libertarians often act and speak as if they are a fringe political movement with minimal political power. To a degree this is true – the LP remains a marginal party, the number of Americans who self-describe as libertarians is low, and (frankly) people in politics always feel like they’re on the losing side.

 I want to counteract that claim though and suggest we are more impactful than we often imagine. We should not confine ourselves to small political victories in narrow issue advocacy, nor should we tie ourselves to one side of the political spectrum for legitimacy. Instead, we should assert ourselves as a smart, legitimate, compassionate, and attractive alternative to current politics. Most libertarians imagine that a Libertarian Party president is likely never to happen – and they are probably correct – but we can still have ambitious political goals at all levels of government. In fact, if we truly believe in the individual freedoms we defend, we have no choice but to be ambitious. These freedoms are far too precious to put into the hands of either warring political faction.