Talk:Fusionism

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Contemporary philosophy Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Libertarianism Mid‑importance Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fusionism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fusionism at the Reference desk.

I think this timely, as I have been seeing a lot of discussion lately in the political press. Given that fusionism gets mentioned in many articles on American conservatism in Wikipedia, I figure a separate article is necessary. I will be including references and citations as I try to improve the article, and welcome any. --Amcalabrese 03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is a reverse fusionism going on between social conservatives and fiscal liberals? Such as the Sam's Club Republicans, crunchy conservatives, Huckabee populists, etc. - MonkStar (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the articles about libertarian conservatism and your fusionism, I have come to a conclusion: these are all different names for liberal conservatism. If there is no opposition, I would like to propose a merger with the aforementioned libertarian concepts as sections under liberal conservatism. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fusionism is generic enough a term as to be improper for use in this particular article. I think it should go to the ideology section of the article on the GOP/Republican Party.

A good article on this particular view of the GOP can be found on the Heritage Foundation site, here:

The Conservative Consensus: Frank Meyer, Barry Goldwater, and the Politics of Fusionism

This article is a problem of disambiguation to me. Fusion of political parties was a particularly fearful prospect for Republicans in the past, so applying the broad term to the party as a whole in the article title in Wikipedia is particularly ironic. Wjkahn (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was strictly in the religious right wing of the party. I would have thought he was hard-line on that J390 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reed was a fusionist. In 1995, he told incoming Republican members of Congress that "in an essentially conservative society, traditionalist ends can be advanced through libertarian means." --Amcalabrese (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, fusionism was a development within the conservative intellectual movement. Though many Republicans consider themselves conservative or fusionist, it is a category of thought outside partisan lines. The best source to study the conservative intellectual movement is The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 by George H. Nash.

Secondly, the error in the article is that there is a third element to the broader conservative intellectual movement, that of anti-Communism. While fusionism was indeed an effort to bridge traditionalist conservatives and libertarian conservatives those were not the only two categories within the movement.

Hvillenavy (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly it was a unification against a communist threat. If everyone just checked out the article I cited and posted below I think we can really shed lights on the roots and falling out of fusionism. PLASTIKGOD (talk)

Pajama's is kind of biased. This guy who wrote for real clear is not a tea party party proponent but a political observer of a libertarian nature. I wanted this cited because it is a major change in GOP philosophy the first of its kind since the 1950s maybe even the 1930s. Just read the article on real clear politics and I think anyone can agree this is happening to some extent. Said article can be found here: ^[1] . PLASTIKGOD (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fusionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120110134608/http://www.conservative.org/acuf/our-philosophy/ to http://www.conservative.org/acuf/our-philosophy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]