One of the greatest challenges in leadership is realizing that progress cannot be achieved alone. Throughout American political history, some of our most significant coalitions have brought together individuals from different backgrounds, with varying ideologies and policy priorities, united behind a broad common goal or principle. Sure, these coalitions had their fair share of identity crises and internal quarrels, but their members remained united by the core principles of their movements. These coalitions were able to overcome divisions, consider different perspectives, and accomplish things that no single faction could’ve achieved on its own, ushering in eras of prosperity and success for America. So, if coalescing has been so beneficial in American politics, then why has it seemed to have fallen by the wayside?
Recently, at the McConnell Center, we held a seminar on the concept of Fusionism. While a new term to me, the concept is one with which I had always interacted, sometimes without even knowing. Fusionism helped shape one of the broadest and most successful political coalitions in American history, a movement that encompassed everyone from Ronald Reagan to
Milton Friedman to Russell Kirk. Of course, I’m talking about the conservative movement, and
Fusionism sought to blend libertarian notions of individual freedom and limited government with
the conservative Judeo-Christian moral tradition. Reagan represented free-market conservatism,
Friedman represented the libertarian economic tradition, and Kirk represented traditionalist
conservatism; three distinct people and movements that came together in opposition to
progressivism, communism, and big government. To me, this is the apex of “big tent” politics:
bringing together different political ideologies in pursuit of goals that transcend any one faction.
Like all good things, however, fusionism did not last forever.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, fusionists lost a key enemy to fight against, and the
coalition began to lose its purpose. As the movement lost its way, the factions stopped debating
the future of the coalition, and the art of coalition building was lost with the ages. Today, a once
great movement has devolved into a mockery of everything it was supposed to stand against. Big
government is bigger than ever; the freedom of the average American seems to be on the decline,
and tradition is constantly pushed aside in the name of subjectivity and defiance toward those
who have come before us. The answer, however, is not to abandon coalition building, but to
rediscover it.
Although the notion of the “big tent” party seems to currently be dead on both sides of
the political spectrum, it is not beyond revival. Building relationships with those who disagree
with us is a fundamental pillar of the human experience, as no two people share the same precise
beliefs, experiences, or priorities, and our psyche compels us to form associations with one
another. Building coalitions simply requires folks to take a stand, reject the status quo, and
identify broad principles that they can agree on. We cannot expect total agreement on every
issue; what we can expect, however, is a willingness to work together when our principles align.
If a small group of people is willing to take this stand, it can create a foundation for a broader
movement that values cooperation so that every faction may advance its priorities while working
to attain a common goal. After all, that's how coalitions are built: one person or group at a time.
Christian is a McConnell Scholar in the class of 2029. He is studying Political Science and Philosophy with a minor in Political Marketing
.png){kind=avatar}