On the Continuing Relevance of Frank Meyer's Fusionism

Liberty and virtue are not merely compatible, but complementary, or so I would suggest.


This month, Liberty Fund's "Liberty Matters" focuses on Frank Meyer's "fusionism," and whether his attempt to reconcile individual liberty and moral virtue remains relevant in the 21st century.

Reason's Stephanie Slade has the lead essay, "Freedom and Virtue: Masters of Their Own Domains."  My own contribution, "Is Fusionism a Zombie Ideology?" was just posted. My essay begins:

In "Freedom and Virtue: Masters of Their Own Domains," Stephanie Slade adroitly summarizes the late Frank S. Meyer's "fusionist" political philosophy, highlighting Meyer's insight that liberty and virtue, properly understood, are not in conflict with each other. To the contrary, true virtue can only be achieved under individual liberty.  Accordingly, a proper concern for virtue is not merely compatible with an individualist political philosophy, it requires it.

The key question, and one to which Slade devotes inadequate attention, is whether Meyer's fusionism retains any contemporary relevance. Some of Meyer's specific policy views seem outdated and out-of-place in 21st century America, as Slade readily concedes. This is no surprise, as the issues of the day in the 1950s and 1960s, when Meyer did most of his writing, seem quite distant from the discrete policy fights of today. Accordingly, one may be tempted to discard Meyer's fusionism as something of a Cold War relic that provides little guidance for today's political questions, a zombie philosophy that survives in some corners but lacks any enduring insight. This view may be tempting, particularly for those who believe we have a new nationalist age, but it is mistaken.

In the days ahead, Liberty Matters will post additional contributions by Henry Olsen and William Dennis, followed by some rejoinders. While I largely agree with Stephanie's take, I am not sure that will be true of everyone in the exchange.

For more on Meyer and fusionism, here's a 2006 post from the VC archives and a paper I wrote for Publius on fusionism and federalism.


NEXT: Eighth Circuit Agrees to Rehear Arkansas Anti-BDS Statute Challenge

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “….insight that liberty and virtue, properly understood, are not in conflict with each other.”

    The words “properly understood” are doing a lot of work here when in actual experience, liberty and virtue are usually in conflict because people have different definitions of virtue and ideas of what their liberty should entitle them to do/say.

    Anyway, my normal insight to provide on these issues, is just a reminder to people that your rights (positive or negative) are obligations upon other people.

  2. Sadly, the Democrat party has adopted immorality as its ethos of choice. This would mean little if liberties were also allowed to coexist with the consequences of the choices made.

    The entire force of the American government is engaged in protecting people from their poor moral choices — from abortion to welfare to subsidized childcare, the natural law lessons that should teach people to make better choices are instead borne by a rabidly bankrupt government treasury.

    It was nice while it lasted, but de Tocqueville was right.

    1. “One must be responsible for one’s own errors.” (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)

  3. Kant said that we should will the good — the law gains its force from our love of freedom. So, you know, if you can legislate compulsory Kantianism, you’re set.

    Mr. D.

Please to post comments