No worries on the over-generalizing … not all conservatives hang out at the NRO and not all libertarians hang out at reason.com.

Besides, as a fellow ex pat of the Land of Entrapment, you’ll always get a pass from me (I’m sure that you’re breathing easier).

I get the concerns about self-restraint … I’m not sure that I get the connection to “paving the way” for “creeping statism/socialism/authoritarianism”. Without restraints, some who are prone to excess will lose their liberty. No argument there. I suppose that the punch line is that these lost souls will create the impetus for government expansion, but does that argument scale down from the anarchy-leaning libertarian to the more moderate small government types? Aren’t the real policy questions “when” and “how” to apply restraints instead of simply “whether” we should?

The basic idea I am getting at is that if people do not exercise self-restraint, restraints will be imposed from outside, so that liberty–political, economic, and so on–depends on personal restraint and discipline, without which people easily slide into dependence and servility to one set of masters or another. The idea derives from one of Burke’s more frequently-quoted statements. The main point is that if one does not govern himself, he will not long be able to practice or enjoy self-government politically.

I think you and the others are correct in this that it is now, and always has been, libertarians who benefit from “fusionism.” That’s why a libertarian came up with it.

Admittedly, libertarians of the Rothbard stripe can maintain their goodwill toward traditionalists, but the unfortunate reality of libertarianism is it now dominated by the “pot and hookers” camp of Reason magazine, rather than the rugged individualist/Old Republic camp of Rothbard, et al. The Reason folks exalt their appetites above all else and will side with the central state against localities as they see localities as the most present threat to their self-indulgence.

You can’t ultimately fuse together a philosophy based on the recognition of man’s limitations and weakness with one ultimately premised on man’s limitless capability. Sure, you can do it on discrete policy issues. (“End the Fed!”) But the two sides will return to what truly animates them, and those things are irreconcilable.

It would be quicker to pick the words I spelled correctly and sentences I used proper grammer than to correct all the mistakes. Long couple of weeks here. I did mean communism.

I think Clinton’s election was the first one not influenced by the fears of communism. I think Bush and Reagan were elected to spread the evanagelical message of anti-communism.

On a practical level, a united front of conservatives and libertarians cannot overcome the progressives on economic matters (for the time being). In that light, might as well be true to our roots.

Having said that, I don’t get a couple of points raised above.

How are the rights crowd “paving the way” for “creeping statism/socialism/authoritarianism”?

“[A]nti-patriotic, anti-religious and globalist types” … what libertarians have you been hanging around with? Granted, beyond first principles, getting libertarians to agree is like herding cats, but that list shows a bit of cherry picking. I seem to be as patriotic as you are, i.e., I can be critical of the excesses of my government while still loving my country. While I don’t place Christianity at the root of the American experience, I’m certainly not anti-religious. As for globalism, other than free trade (and I could be convinced to support “fair trade”) I’m as non-interventionist as any of you AmCom guys.

I thought JFK’s presidency more or less put to rest fears of communionism among the mainstream American right.

You did mean “communism”, did you not?

Agreed!