Dear NH GOP Primary Electorate: I understand that Donald Trump has a certain appeal. He tweaks the right people. He drives the left crazy. He says what he wants, even if he's not PC, and he seems to be having fun while doing it. But there are two good reasons NH Republicans should not support him: 1) He's not conservative and 2) he can't win the general election. Trump's conservative credentials are non-existent. Were one to rely on the Donald's own words, actions, and political donations prior to this spring when he announced his candidacy, it would be hard to conclude that he was a Republican at all, and not a Democrat. His own previous flirtation with the Presidency was not as a Republican but via the Reform Party. Yes, lately, his one-dimensional candidacy has staked out a nominally "conservative" position on immigration and he talks like a tough (albeit ill-informed) guy on national security issues. But, other than that and a few standard GOP issues that he has adopted--contra his long-held positions--there is nothing to suggest that he is politically conservative, or indeed any less a fan of big government than President Obama, Secretary Clinton, or even Senator Sanders. Indeed, on what might be his most high profile (pre-presidential run) issue--eminent domain--Trump reveals himself to have disdain for property rights and for the libertarian values most often associated with the Granite State GOP. Trump fairs no better as a potential GOP standard-bearer when we consider electability. Among all candidates of both parties and among a wide swath of various polling firms, Trump has the highest net unfavorability ratings in the field. Indeed, one of the greatest advantages the Republicans have in 2016 is the high net unfavorable ratings of the Democrat's presumptive nominee. Trump not only negates that advantage, but makes it an advantage for the Democrats. William F. Buckley famously posited that movement conservatives should always seek to elect the most conservative, electable candidate. This is easier said than done, as it always involves judgment calls. However, Donald Trump is, by almost any objective measure, both the least conservative and the least electable candidate in the GOP field. Despite its long-held and well-deserved reputation for pragmatism, the NH GOP primary voters look poised to violate the Buckley rule in spectacular fashion, by nominating the most liberal GOP nominee in decades--a nominee who stands almost no chance to win in November. Please reconsider. A vote for Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Bush, or Kasich--any of them--will give us a much better chance to win the White House in November--and to advance Republican values in doing so.

Donald Trump, Man of the Right?

Nothing makes us more pessimistic about the state of the Fusionism project than the current success of Donald Trump. As a non-conservative, non-libertarian candidate, his current lead in polls for the GOP nomination is equal parts head-scratching and infuriating. But more concerning by far is that a plurality of self-described "libertarians" in the GOP are currently supporting Trump and self-described "conservatives" also make up a healthy share of his GOP support. We can only hope that this is because the media--even the "conservative media" (if anyone ever thought Sean Hannity and/or Ann Coulter were serious conservatives or serious intellectuals, their embarrassing sycophancy of this "Democrat in Democrat's clothing" should permanently disabuse one of that notion)--have given him a free pass on his support for Hillary in '08 and his long-time support for single payer to name but a few of his standard liberal positions. Perhaps, as the CW has it, The Donald is merely a protest candidate, a lightening rod for a movement fed up with it's party leaders and lusting for a brash, tell-it-like-it-is type. But even so, we fail to understand how Donald Trump, with his liberal, statist baggage, could be that man. We are unfortunately left with the conclusion that our base is not really paying attention. We sincerely hope that this is only because it's early, and that as the calendar moves on to 2016, the sleeping Fusionist majority in the GOP wakes up.

Hobby Lobby

We don't have much to add to the hyperbolic cacophony of punditry that was released by the SCOTUS's Holly Lobby decision yesterday, but simply want to point out the following to keep our left-wing friends grounded to reality: 1) This decision leaves completely untouched the long-settled rule, first set forth in Griswold v. Connecticut, that the state cannot interfere with an adult's right to use birth control. Whatever the Chicken Littles at Mother Jones, the Nation, or the NYT try to say, nobody took away anyone's access to birth control. Rather, this decision deals with the very narrow issue of the State not being able to force a third party to pay for birth control against that party's sincerely held religious beliefs. (And although the grounds for the holding were statutory, we thought we heard something somewhere about religious liberty having some sort of constitutional protection in our jurisprudence? Oh yeah, it was here.); 2) This decision returns us not the Dark Ages or even to the 1960s, but the the status quo of 2012; 3) The average cost of most forms of birth control is between $15 and $50 per month, meaning that the issue here really is religious conviction, not cost or even access. Moreover, most employers will continue to cover this anyway, because a) most employees want it and b) it is far cheaper than pregnancy. This mandate was only ever really about forcing conformity, not about a legitimate public health need (and if there is a legitimate public health need, there are other ways for government to meet that need); and 4) This should be the ultimate fusionist issue, uniting libertairans and conservatives in common cause, unlike Griswold from a generation ago, which put libertarians in the liberal's camp.

Jeanne Shaheen, Shameless Rent Seeker?

We're not yet sure just what to make of the kerfuffle re a client of Senior New Hampshire US Senator Jeanne Shaheen's husband receiving $78,000 in federal stimulus money in 2009. As these things go, the sum involved seems trivial and it appears that no formal Senate rules were violated (although this sounds rather ominous for Shaheen: "The Shaheens declined multiple requests for interviews and would not answer most detailed questions about their investments and connection to the firm.") Either way, this story bears watching. However, whether Shaheen violated any particular Senate Ethics Rule, we think this much is clear: The appropriations process--particularly with the Stimulus Bill, but really, the whole federal appropriations process--sucks. The fact that these stimulus dollars, or some of them anyway, might have ended up in the pockets what the Boston Globe calls "a partner in one of the most politically connected law firms in New Hampshire" (see article, above) should make anyone serious about good governance sick. But in the end, whether Bill Shaheen specifically profited from this or not is beside the point, because people like him--lawyers, lobbyists, and the politicall well-connected--undoubtedly did and that is the real scandal here. We oppose Sen. Shaheen's reelection not because of her alleged shirking of Senate ethical norms (although, if proven, that should be the end of her candidacy) but because she voted for the Stimulus Bill in the first place and a million other federal boondoggles like it. Whether she herself (or her husband) participated in the rent seeking extravaganza is secondary to the main point: NH fusionists (conservatives and libertarians) have had enough of lawmakers trying to "fix" the economy by handing out taxpayer dollars to their friends. So please, let's send Sen. Shaheen to an early retirement. Not because she allegedly steered money to her husband's firm, but because she is a supporter of a system whereby steering federal monies to your friends is simply business as usual.

Marilinda Garcia for Congress

Fusionism is making it's first official endorsement of 2014: Marilinda Garcia for Congress in NH's Second Congressional District. Marilinda is bright, personable, well-spoken and committed to smaller, responsible government, a realistic and less interventionist foreign policy based on clear US interests, and a responsible, measured backing away from some of the more insidious aspects of the ACA. Her votes against the proposed casinos in NH seem to have less to do with Nanny-State regulatory instincts than with thwarting Concord Democrats' search for an all purpose ATM to grow government in the libertarian-minded Granite State. Although our impression is that she considers herself more of a conservative than a libertarian, it is also our judgment that she is the type of conservative that can and would do a lot to strengthen the conservative-libertarian alliance. An advocate of school choice (she was herself home-schooled), she seems like the type of politician that wants to see more hot-button cultural questions returned to the civil society where they belong, rather than having government "lead" the way on them, which is the basis of the fusionism conservative-libertarian detante (see here: And while Fusionism does not endorse identity politics of any kind, it cannot be denied that as a young, pro-life, Hispanic woman, Garcia's presence in Congress would go a long way to shatter many stereotypes about those on the right. Good luck Marilinda. We can't get Ann Kuster--the self-dubbed biggest Obama supporter in Congress--out of Washington fast enough.

IRS Email Scandal - Where's the Outrage?

Generally, I think conservatives are a little thin-skinned when it comes to media-bias. Yes, most of the major media outlets are all in the tank for the lefties, but the game of saying "imagine if our guy did that?" is a little tired, and often overblown. BUT, with that disclaimer out of the way: Imagine if our guys had done this! Imagine if in 2005-06 it came to light that the IRS had been targeting liberal groups in the '04 election for "heightened" scrutiny. Then imagine that a political appointee of Bush's at the IRS had "accidentally" "lost" all these emails. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe it's my right-wing bias shining through, but I have a very hard time believing that we'd be talking about anything else. Which would be appropriate, after all. This is a horrible scandal, whoever is behind it. It's actually one of those things that is terrible on it's own, even if there was no mal-intent by elected officials because it shakes the very foundation of our First Amendment Freedoms. Do I feel like I am free to espouse my beliefs without fear of governemnt reprisal? Not really. I do this blogging on a semi-anonymous basis for a reason, you know (I can't even MAKE it fully anonymous, thanks NSA!). I run a business, and I don't think it's fair to my partners if our business is punished by elected officials because I publicly espouse "wrong" views. I'd like to run for office someday, but I've resolved not to do it until I either retire or sell my business. You might say I'm being paranoid, and maybe I am. But then a scandal like this comes along and seems to validate my fears. Big Brother really is watching and dolling out punishments for non-conforming views. But what REALLY makes it scary is not that it happened--I expect that, humans being fallible and all, this type of abuse is power is inevitable--but that all the Democrats simply yawn and say "so what"!! The chilling effect that this sort of abuse of power and the fourth estate's acceptance of it has on the polity is a story that has received almost no attention, even on the right. Make no mistake, the Bush Administration had it's fair share of power abuses too--I'm no great Bush apologist as you may have guessed--but at least when he overstepped his bounds there were howls about it from the major media outlets. It's the silence from the media about the IRS scandal that's the most upsetting. Even the coverage it DOES get--from the right-wing echo chambers--seems focused on political point scoring. I have not seen one story that focuses on the fallout that this sort of thing (along with the NSA spying scandal) has on people like me: civic-minded Americans who would like to serve their community in some capacity, but fear that by harboring political views out of step with theose currently in charge they will be singled out for harassment by government agencies. Even those who DO care about the scandal don't seem much to care about that.

Fusionism

Interesting piece at Reason.com today by A. Barton Hinkle. The article is about how the Catholic Church, while it infuriates the Right and Left at different turns, marches to the beat of its own first principles and is not particularly motivated by partisan concerns. But what jumped out at me was this one specific passage, which I think gets to the heart of why the conservative--libertarian alliance stubbornly persists, much to the chagrin of lefties who can't fathom what freak-flag-flying libertarians are doing still hanging around with fundamentalist bible thumpers. After comparing the Left and Right's political reactions to 1) the Church's frustration with the HHS contraceptive mandate (delighted Right, horrified Left); and 2) the "Nuns on the bus" shaming of Romney for his alleged lack of empathy for poor people (delighted Left, horrified Right), Hinkle makes the following observation:

This is all the more odd when you look at what each group of Catholics was trying to achieve. Catholic institutions that did not want to underwrite contraception for their employees were not forbidding those employees to use birth control. They clearly were not constricting the activity of non-employees. They were not trying to overturn the mandate for anyone else—and they certainly were not trying to outlaw the sale of contraception at the corner pharmacy. By contrast, the Nuns on the Bus and the bishops who objected to Ryan's budget proposals want the federal government's coercive taxing power to achieve their social-justice ends. They want the government to make other people underwrite programs that reflect their particular interpretation of the Gospel. That seems a far greater imposition of religious values on non-believers than a request simply to be left alone.

This, to me, gets to the heart of why liberals continue to miss the reason for the vibrancy of the de facto libertarian-conservative coalition. It's easy for libertarians to make common cause with--and empathize with--conservatives who want government to leave them alone. It's not so easy for them to to empathize with liberals who want to use the power of the state to coerce behavior. I'll admit that social conservatives often (wrongly in my view) try to use the power of the state to achieve ends that would be better pursued by civil society. However, when you go issue by issue, it's almost always the liberals that want leviathan to take up more and more of the oxygen that used to sustain our free society.