In Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right, Stephanie Slade makes the case that the political philosophy Frank Meyer articulated at National Review in the postwar era remains the best guide for the conservative movement today. That philosophy holds that freedom is the essential condition for pursuing virtue, but that virtue itself is not a political problem or a concern of the state. As Slade's argument gains attention, a recent Reason essay by a Volokh Conspiracy writer largely endorses her view, stating plainly that fusionism is a better path than postliberalism or populist nationalism.
Civitas Outlook recently hosted a symposium on Slade's book, featuring five contributors: Elizabeth Corey, Richard Morrison, Paul Mueller, Veronique de Rugy, and Paul Seaton. Their essays—with titles like "Fusion: Power Is Not the Last Word" and "Fusionism and the Moral Prerequisites of Citizenship"—engage with the book's central claim that fusionism is far more than an old political coalition. The symposium frames Meyer's 1960s call to restore an understanding of the true and the good not through federal power, but through conditions of freedom that allow individuals to choose virtue.
The renewed attention to fusionism comes as the American right debates its future between postliberal and nationalist tendencies. Slade's book and the surrounding commentary offer a counterweight, insisting that the older synthesis of liberty and virtue still speaks to the present. The Reason piece agrees, positioning Slade's fusionism as the more coherent and principled option for conservatives in the twenty-first century.