* Originally Published in revista 22 collection ' Fuzionismul: an experiment in doctrinaire of modern discourse '.
Successful merger of conservatism and libertarianism is one of the defining phenomena of righteous American of the last 60 years and one of the causes that explain the intellectual and political success. For domestic observers and political strategies in question naturally arises: can the East-European right, and, in particular, the Romanian, to adopt this recipe for success?
At first glance, the fusion of libertarianism (or what, in Europe, we continue to call "liberal") and conservatism is relatively easy to do at the intellectual level. Conservatives and Liberals have been claimed from a tradition and have found important common elements, they shared the common theme, at least in the last two centuries. You can even say that in the world of the East-European intellectual like fuzionismului already exists. Liberal/conservative distinction becomes insignificant with totalitarian opponent. Support has led to a certain ecumenism in the intellectual discourse of the righteous from the East.
Fuzionismul represents but more than a doctrinaire principle agreement. In 1950s America, fuzionismul was an attempt to redefine the political discourse by creating a platform.
The method of achieving this common platform was not a merging of various right-wing orientation-fuzionismul is not a "superdoctrina"; and not meant any subordination of various libertarian and conservative towards a personality or a system of unitary thinking. The procedure "merger" was that of coalizarii supporters doctrines sufficiently close together that could produce an agreement on the priorities of the society in which they live and, Furthermore, a vision of the future of that society. This platform of coalition formation then served between right-wing politicians and between various sections of the American public.
Many of the Conservatives and libertarienii from United States who couldn't recognize a set of shared views of American society: the first recognize the American tradition in which it celebrates a tradition of freedom and individualism, tolerance, entrepreneurship, to skepticism towards the expansion and intrusion in the private state of individuals; in turn, recognize the necessity of a substrate libertarienii practices, values and attitudes developed over time, as necessary for the perpetuation of freedom and institutions allowed the role of the State in removing the dangers which threaten these institutions.
It is platform can therefore articulate the basis of the respect for the Constitution and American political institutions to guarantee the citizens ' control over the power; from the protection of private property; from the case for reducing State control in economics and asistential against the State; the need to strengthen the capacity of the defense against external threats. At the same time, the specter of opponents of this platform is easily identifiable, from totalitarian revolutionary left, at the reading, democratic.
In Eastern Europe issues appeared from the right breast as the sole opponent disappeared. In place or face multiple forms of "stangism" and various horses, none perfect, administration of what communism has left behind. Anticommunist consensus doesn't seem to be a sufficient foundation for a sustainable policy, pass.
Of course, the importance of doctrine in post-communist politics, at least in the first years after 1990, incomplete knowledge and understanding of the arguments of these doctrines and principles explain much of this failure. These obstacles are perhaps about to disappear. We can hope-have gone though 20 years! So let's look towards the actors that could carry out such a "merger".
Libertarienii postcomunisti rapid social transformation are partisans, did you change the radical institutional, fundamental rupture with the past you. No wonder. The libertarian program, shifting from the absence of individual freedom, freedom from the controlled economy almost totally in movement, economy from State ownership to private ownership implies institutional changes and massive. Partisans of this changes concern when looking forward, with Mick Jagger at the indaratnica resistance to new ideas of the majority population, the sustainability practices gained under communism (and even older), the slowness with which the reforms are adopted and their implementation through the perversion. They tend to look with disdain at nationalism and national traditions of friendship remarked: the predominant concern with relaxing and cultural imports and "lifestyle", an expression of free trade.
How one could reconcile radical with a reformismul some form of conservatism? What the venerable Constitution to pecetluiasca this Alliance? Those who claim to be from Western conservatism are not in a comfortable position. They need to discern between the ruins of the totalitarian regime and the powerful traditions of the previous traditions of friendship remarked: the remains of a liberty. Great conservatives have always preferred practices "live" led p artificial traditions for the sake of any political doctrine; they celebrated the virtues of the existing social structures against vandals "social engineering"; major reforms have been opponents in favor of society dictates well-tempered incrementalismului, "from the bottom up". Conservatives here who would like a coalition of fuzionist type, besides the fact that you should give up in good measure to the precautia the face of the rapid changes, you have to separate the good from the bad tradition, good practices of bad ones, at the risk of getting with very little. (Think of those who say: "But I listen to music and Fiddlers! MUS-authentic, quality, not the one that sings at weddings on … ").
We see the importance of these issues in the past decade, with the advent of a line that some commentators and academics call "populista." Proper or not, this label has been embraced by critics and Liberals or libertarian who fear an emerging right-wing discourse anticapitalist, hostile constitutional institutions-authoritarian, paternalist and, in step with an appeal to "the people" and its traditional values.
Fuzionismul is not just for privacy as the tradition and history of u.s. policy are exceptional. Special circumstances have made the intellectual right alliances inlesneasca his lasting political alliances which survived the electoral cycles. The political success of the fed, in turn, the success of the fuzionismului, proving the effectiveness of them.
A fundamental factor for this success is the american federal political system. Intellectual fuzionista platform persuaded many politicians as their natural place is in the right-wing party (Republican) and many voters as their various preferences will be found in this family. There was no need, however, that voters or their representatives to be subject to a unitary political organizations. The source of the legitimacy and power of politicians residing at the State level rather than at the federal level. The Republican party is itself rather than a hierarchical one federativa rigorously.
Not only Romania and other Eastern European countries are unitary and federal States do not, and as a result, parties hierarchical structures represent well organized; These (as, otherwise, and other European countries) are less diverse than the United States. Difference of interests, traditions, ways of life between Texas and New York will always be higher than that of the Dambovita and Maramures. Independence from politicians, politically and financially, is incomparably higher in one case than in the other. As things stand in terms of their independence "ideological".
An example of a fuzionism à l'americaine will therefore be quite difficult to find in Europe, even in States as is Germany. The British Conservative Party, for example, to change opinionated altogether with the coming of Thatcher in his forehead. Instead, the success of Reagan's politics is based largely on the ability to bring to the Republican politicians and voters who belong to various currents around a common vision, reimagined and addressed together of intellectual who brokered a coalition to be formed by 30 years earlier. Filiatia of Reagan's political success and the intellectual William f. Buckley, founder of National Review, is already a poncif among political commentators.
Looks like an intellectual and political phenomenon of fuzionismului magnitude could occur in a European Union of "madisoniana". Nothing is predictable in connection with the EU. You can imagine that, in accordance with the consolidation of the role of Parliament and the european decision-making process becomes transparent, if the institutional architecture of the Union will do on RTD Europeans responsible in front of citizens, the right policy will have a genuine policy federativa structure. Missing but essential dimension is missing here: the intellectual right. Yet, in terms of European ideas, a nonexistent right does not have a project for Europe.
Maybe in the future we will witness the establishment of a pan-European fuzionist right-wing intellectual. In fact, whether we like it, be not, the European Union is already present with a weight for each Member State. This does not mean that possible intellectual-political coalition will be the 10th American copy. Maybe I should find a common ground, for example, between the welfare state more favorable right (dominant intellectual in France or Germany) and one that pleads in the minimal State, between a strong Union supporters and "suveranisti", etc.
Proponents of a project fuzionist native should give proof of imagination, patience and perseverance to devise an intellectual and political project adapted to our context. And there would still be needed for some of the academic market: an intellectual and functional.
Coalitiile, fuzionismului, valves should be formed on the basis of affinities, whatever-and sometimes in spite of-and antipatiilor personal sympathies. Should be various sources of support for institutional, public and private, to encourage the formation of such coalitions through research and debate, based on a widely accepted code of ethics. Only representatives of diverse points of view but can constitute powerful coalitions related, effective and coherent intellectual peer. In the absence of any discussion of ideas can fuzionismului as intellectually and politically significant alternative remains a simple exercise of (social) science fiction.
