An Uneasy New Fusionism
Libertarian Populism could become a bulwark against rising authoritarianism on the left and right, but it's not yet clear how durable such a synthesis can be.
The Chessmaster surveys the board, looking for his next move. Where most of us think in three moves, he thinks in seven. Grey Hat principles may still animate the Chessmaster, but he is under no illusions. The world operates according to power and counterpower. Therefore, so does he. Instead of wishes, hopes, or febrile ideology, the Chessmaster plays based on what’s given. In this way, he cannot be a man of the people, a man of the powerful, or a man of ideals. But perhaps he can play the game with directionality. Let’s hope that, at the end of the day, that direction is peace, freedom, and flourishing.
British rightwing intellectual Carl Benjamin and anti-woke crusader James Lindsay should be allies in the trenches. But they are not. Instead, they have entered a Cold War. The dispute between Benjamin and Lindsay reflects diverging views about what ought to replace social justice fundamentalism and elitist technocracy.
Alliances have become increasingly uneasy as the fitness landscape has changed. Each side doubles down on its first principles or intuitive priors. Benjamin plays the part of an Old Tory. Lindsay plays an Old Whig.
Lindsay, a prominent critic of woke ideology, has been a darling of conservatives. But recently, he’s taken a stronger stance against Christian nationalism, arguing that theocracy is neither a viable nor desirable means of countering social justice or technocratic excesses, much less effectively governing 350 million diverse people. Lindsay thinks political secularism and classical liberalism must lead the way without theocracy or jingoism.
Lindsay’s position has put him at odds with many on the right who see Christian nationalism not only as a necessary counter to progressive ideology—but as the central counter—especially as they can view political warfare in spiritual and communitarian terms. But Lindsay worries, as I do, that we should pay more attention to the freedom-versus-authoritarianism axis instead of the left-versus-right axis, with its attendant spectacles.
Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon of Akkad) is more open to the idea that religious values—especially Christian ones—should play a significant role in responding politically to the challenges of the authoritarian left. Benjamin is also more sympathetic to populist nationalism, which caught fire in 2016 (with Trump and Brexit) and has taken hold in Europe despite Brussels. In Europe, this is due primarily to the superstate’s failure to assimilate millions of refugees from the Muslim world. In America, it was due to working-class voters’ sense that both parties had abandoned them. And, well, they had.
The Benjamin/Lindsay skirmish reflects a rift in American politics, too, which could widen after the election if populists suddenly imagine they no longer need classical liberals.
Here’s work on the old fusionism if you’re unfamiliar.
Populist Nationalism vs Classical Liberalism
Populist nationalism is surging. The movement emphasizes national identity, skepticism of globalization, and a policy focus on the interests of common people over those of elites or foreigners. Key indicators include advocacy of tighter immigration controls, economic protectionism, and the wholesale rejection of multilateral institutions. Many populist nationalists conflate globalization with globalism, though most want neither.
While classical liberals reject governments or corporations becoming entangled with multilateral institutions—globalism—most view populist nationalism with suspicion. Classical liberalism, rooted in individual liberty, free markets, and limited government, is at odds with populism’s more collectivist and interventionist features. Classical liberals resist industrial policy and dirigisme, while populist nationalists embrace these.
Classical liberals (CLs) also know that trade between nations helps prevent wars between nations, not to mention yield gains from trade. So CLs often promote unrestricted international trade. As advocates for civil liberties, property rights, and voluntary association, classical liberal ideas most resemble those of the American founders—though mercantilists (economic nationalists) were among them even then. To the extent that it is useful, classical liberals think the concept of national identity should revolve around coherent principles and a unifying culture—not race, jingoism, or national religion.
Classical liberals also tend to reject Hegelian philosophy to the extent that it emphasizes historical development through dialectical conflict or the primacy of the State as the apotheosis of the “Absolute.” Such resistance means classical liberals risk distancing themselves too much from populist nationalists who are not only ascendant but have pragmatic perspectives classical liberals can no longer afford to discount summarily—especially in the current political climate. Still, because populist nationalists draw heavily on ideas of national destiny and strong action by state authorities, classical liberals are understandably reticent. And given the illiberal measures taken by the American left over the last decade, it can be too easy to look the other way if the other major team is illiberally vengeful.
Yet, this era might require dialectical pragmatism.
Libertarian Populism
If classical liberalism is to remain relevant in the current political climate, classical liberals may need to find some common ground with populist nationalists. Both camps take up a common cause against power institutional elites. That means any fundamental conflict between principles will have to be resolved through some process of Hegelian sublation—not because it's pure or principled but because, right now, it’s potentially pragmatic and potent.
Such a synthesis could take the form of libertarian populism, a seemingly paradoxical blend of two apparently distinct ideologies.
A methodological Hegelian might conjure libertarian populism by combining classical liberal principles with primary populist concerns. The synthesis would have to champion individual rights, limited government, and debt control. But it would also have to address economic anxieties, irresponsible immigration, and myriad cultural concerns fueling populist movements. The ideological fusion would have to imagine what a bizarre Hayek-Schmitt implementation would look like without opening the door to any forms of fascism.
Classical liberals and populist nationalists have compelling reasons to consider this uneasy alliance.
For classical liberals, it offers a path to broader popular support for individual and communitarian freedom and a chance to temper populism's baser authoritarian tendencies.
For populist nationalists, it provides a framework for addressing working-class grievances and setting cultural boundaries without sacrificing the core freedoms the American Founders sought to preserve.
As an idealist from the classical liberal tradition, writing this makes me nervous. But even a temporary fusion could be necessary in the face of growing authoritarianism from the left and right. And though classical liberals are not well organized or formally recognized, many Independents have a libertarian streak that gives them some political power in this godawful system.
Here is a sketch of what could be libertarian populism’s main principles:
Liberty but Localism. Uphold basic liberal rights and freedoms as paramount, but recognize the importance of community values locally expressed.
Devolved Government. Advocate for a smaller, more efficient federal government focusing on essential functions while ensuring greater local autonomy and empowerment. Big Local is better than Big Federal.
Economic Nationalism Lite. Promote policies that benefit domestic workers and businesses, stymy certain adversaries, but maintain free-trade ties with allies and non-hostile developing economies. Resume trading after thaws.
Decentralization. Devolve power from federal to state and local levels, emphasizing community-based decision-making and revenue generation. The more destructive features of “economic nationalism” would be limited to economic regionalism for a more antifragile approach to industrial policy.
Anti-Elitism. Challenge the influence of political, corporate, and cultural elites, advocating for the interests of ordinary citizens in robust indie media networks. Keep those full-throated networks as checks against authoritarians working within or outside of the libertarian-populist alliance.
Constitutional Originalism. Interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning, emphasizing the Founders' intent to limit federal power; rediscover fundamental American ideals such that the Declaration of Independence is considered a charter document with legal weight.
Free Speech, Civic Education. Defend free expression vigorously, oppose censorship, and promote open discourse in open networks. Require an open civics education curriculum and the Founding Ideals in public schools; Demand proof of citizenship and civic education to vote or become a citizen.
Property Rights. Protect private property rights as fundamental to individual freedom and economic prosperity. However, make these rights contingent on citizenship, with more limited protections for non-citizens, particularly those with ties to adversarial nations.
Non-Interventionism. Pursue a foreign policy of restraint, avoiding unnecessary military engagements or entangling alliances while focusing on a more polycentric national defense. Rewire the incentives of the military-industrial complex in service of peace through strength, and retaliation instead of preemption.
Cultural Traditionalism. Respect and preserve traditional cultural values while maintaining individual freedom of choice in personal matters, preserving church/state and public/private separations. In other words, the Ten Commandments do not belong in public schools, and certain behaviors belong in one’s bedroom but not on Main St. Parents are the primary trustees of children, and houses of worship can thrive in a free, private market.
Border Control. Allow foreign workers to come with specialized visas and streamline legal paths to responsible immigration, but control the border and clearly distinguish between citizenship and guest worker status. Emphasize assimilation over balkanization.
You might not like compromise. I sure don’t. But we have to talk about what works. Populists must understand that principles are also pragmatic. But orthodox libertarians must understand that 1000 Liechtensteins would indeed be preferable to 1000 burning Leeds or Lutons, whatever one thinks about Hans Hermann-Hoppe.
Classical liberalism can check populist excesses like tariffs ueber alles, and CLs can keep fighting for free trade agreements with non-adversarial nations. This will be especially important now that the petrodollar is dead and the Bretton Woods dollar is dying. Classical liberals can also push back against simply redirecting welfare from urban to rural and rustbelt areas, Hillbilly Elegy notwithstanding. Buying votes with welfare keeps people dependent and poor, no matter their demographic, and it is better to ensure regions foundering economically can enjoy comparatively more favorable business climates rather than corporate subsidies.
Meanwhile, populist nationalism can ground more wooly-headed cosmopolitan libertarians by demonstrating the power of cultural differences and community bonds, prompting CLs to stake out more pragmatic positions on issues like immigration and trade—especially concerning China.
Of course, this alliance would have to forge an American identity rooted in the Founders’ principles, not some connection to a church or motherland. (Sorry, Mr. Benjamin.) Populism must be subordinated to true liberalism, just as any ideology must be so subordinated. Why? Because there is a fundamental asymmetry between liberalism and all other doctrines.
Such a fusion would emphasize greater checks on power and, crucially, reinforce the "consent of the governed” as a legal foundation, not just a nostalgic phrase uttered on July 4th. By combining the best elements of both—but jettisoning each’s unworkable extremes—libertarian populism could offer a realistic center once occupied by neoliberals and neoconservatives who have kicked the can, launched the drones, and pulled the strings for far too long.
The Chessmaster
The rise of J.D. Vance would not likely have been possible without Peter Thiel's largesse and wizardry. The Chessmaster has been playing multiple concurrent 4-D games in the political realm for a while, so VP Vance is an eventuality set in motion twelve moves back.
In many respects, Thiel is probably a decent exemplar of the libertarian populism I’ve set out here despite being a wealthy elite. His involvement in projects like Palantir—with its deep-state stink—should make anyone who cherishes freedom suspicious. Yet Thiel takes inspiration from both Ludwig Von Mises and Carl Schmitt, two thinkers whose work is difficult to reconcile, much less synthesize. Still, there is power, and there is counterpower. The technocratic left has been playing Schmittian hardball for a decade or more, and fully decentralized counterpower is still in its nascency.
New Fusionism
The fusion of classical liberalism and populist nationalism may seem unlikely to discerning philosophers, but it already reveals its contours among the laity. Fully articulated, libertarian populism could provide a vital bulwark against tyranny—sidelining intellectual vermin like Oren Cass or keeping Boy Pharaohs like Christopher Rufo on a short leash. A new political vanguard with names like Massie and Ramaswamy is emerging.
By finding common ground and tempering each other's excesses, these two movements could fuse and chart a course toward a more responsive, less imperial government—one that prioritizes popular concerns without sacrificing individual or economic liberties. The Schmittian angle would include attending to the friend-enemy distinction but through the lens of the liberal-illiberal distinction. Strong, decisive state and local leaders would protect American unity and national identity as a Constitutional Republic in which freedom is fundamental.
This approach could serve as a stepping stone towards more ambitious visions, such as Paul Émile de Puydt's "panarchy," Robert Nozick's "framework for utopia," or Balaji Srinivasan’s “network state,” where diverse communities can coexist within a unified legal framework.
All such visions recognize the need for powerful, local niches to be expressed and recognized, as well as for a framework of peace, freedom, and pluralism in which such niches can peacefully coexist and unite within a common framework.
But first things first.
We might have to balance principle with pragmatism until decentralism can help us underthrow the powerful and leap to the next paradigm of complex social organization. The irony here is that such a fusionism might be as close to a philosophy of the American Founding as any competing doctrine.
Yet, we must never take our eyes off the horizon, harnessing our collective intelligence to rise into the next paradigm.
Don't trust, verify.
We must build new systems to hold our representatives accountable. They are out of control. We need parallel, decentralized, 100% transparent systems that we the people have 100% control over. Basically we need to handcuff our representatives. Good representatives won't care. And corrupt ones will be scared away from politics.
I agree with the principles outlined here. My only quibble is under “non-interventionism”. This should include recognition of the need for NATO and other alliances between democracies. But it should also recognise that those alliances must be defensive and definitely not serving expansionist or interventionist goals