Fusionism Only One Way
by Roman Joch

Thank you for your thoughtful "Reagan's Fusionism Failing?" in the last issue.

I must laugh when anybody on the right proposes either a paternalist "traditionalist-socialist" (socialist means - traditionalist ends) alliance or a libertin "libertarian-liberal" (libertarian means - liberal ends) alliance. Both of them are non-starters, or still better, "dead-enders".

There are only two theoretically coherent positions, of which only one is viable long term. Those two theoretically coherent positions are the fusionist (libertarian means - traditionalist ends) alliance or the libertine (socialist means - liberal ends) alliance. Of the two, only the former is viable in the long term because the latter will eventually lead to corruption, bankruptcy and disintegration of society.

Why is the fusionist (libertarian means - traditionalist ends) alliance the only one both theoretically coherent and practically viable?

First, on the theoretical level: (A) Virtue cannot be coerced; it must be freely chosen, in order to be an authentic virtue and not a simulacrum of virtue. (B) Only virtuous people are really free: they are free not only from oppression and tyrannical government, but from passions and sin. People, who are slaves of sins and passions, are not really free.

Second, on the practical level: (A) Freedom can be achieved, maintained and sustained by virtuous persons only: they must be virtuous enough not to become predators against rights and liberties of others, and must be virtuous enough to defend their own freedom against its enemies, domestic and foreign; must be virtuous enough to "pledge Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor" in defense of Freedom. Otherwise, being not virtuous enough, they would eventually lose their freedom.

(B) A virtuous society cannot coexist with a big, socialist, or tyrannical government. Tyranny is incompatible with virtue directly--tyrants and their servants are never virtuous, but always slaves of their passions. Socialism and big-government are incompatible with virtue indirectly: they progressively corrupt virtue on the part of the citizens. Yes, a few virtuous people can live in a Tyranny, but they are virtuous in despite of the Tyranny, not because of it--like early Christians in Roman Empire, or the "Righteous among the Nations" who protected Jews in the Nazi Empire, or anti-communist dissidents and freedom-fighters in Communist Empire.

You can have few virtuous individuals without political freedom, but you cannot have an authentically virtuous society without that society simultaneously being a free society. An authoritarian society intending to coerce virtue will not produce virtuous citizens, but conformist ones. And, as we have already mentioned, in the long term perspective, we cannot have a politically and economically free society without that society simultaneously being a society of virtuous persons.

Therefore, Frank Meyer, Ronald Reagan and you have it right. “Statist means to traditionalist ends" or "libertarian means to liberal ends" positions are simply laughable.

Roman Joch, Prague, Czech Republic