What is this ideological fusion?
Libertarian? Classical Liberal? Conservative? Constitutionalist? Huh?
Ronald Reagan once said, “I think that the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism”. That may strike libertarians as too obvious to warrant mention, but it may leave some right-wingers confused.
The basic tenet of libertarianism is that all people are born with the natural, intrinsic right to behave as they choose until they breach their agreements or encroach on the rights of another. Only in those instances then, should they be prohibited from certain actions. Recognizing the necessity of governing structure to achieve these freedoms and maintain these prohibitions, the individual contracts some of his rights away to create a legal entity with enough coercive power to provide a common defense, protect individual liberties, and do violence in the name of justice.
Of course, it is impossible to achieve this through consensus. The larger the society, the less likely that every individual will agree on the basic terms of the Constitution, let alone the nuances. For this reason, the individual indulges one of the grossest of utilitarian abominations: The Majority Rule. A libertarian finds this abhorrent. He recognizes that any majority vote necessarily creates an oppressed minority. Motivated by a concern for the rights of that minority, he insists that only supermajorities can ratify and amend governing constitutions. This not only reduces the number of the oppressed, but approximates something closer to a consensus in any given governmental action. Thus, the conservative is born. He demands the highest degree of fidelity to the Constitution and sets the bar high for broad sweeping changes.
Conservatism is more of a method to achieve libertarian goals and concerns than an ideology in itself. So why do we conflate it with the right-wing agenda? Throughout the majority of the 20th century, the right-wing of the political spectrum found itself in a minority position and consequently found a political ally in the conservative. Without any comprehensive theory of governance to legitimize its own goals, it co-opted the term ‘conservative’ along with some of the limited-government jargon. Yet, it abandons the limited government position whenever it conflicts with the right-wing agenda. Over time, we simply forgot the difference between the right and the conservative.
But the times have changed. The left can only sit in horror as the right uses the left’s own authoritarian-style of governance against it. The right says it was good for the goose, so it’s good for the gander. And who can blame them? If government can abrogate the powers of the individual and run roughshod over the Constitution to achieve what it believes are common goods, who is to define those goods? The left can still win marginal victories, but the tacking back-and-forth will eventually ratchet spending up to an unsustainable level and reduce individual freedoms from being inherent, to being governmentally-granted. The left needs conservatives as much as anyone, now.
Call it ’Goldwater conservatism’, ’libertarianism’, ’constitutionalsim’ or anything else you like. Adherents to
these theories of governance must bind together to reclaim the power of the individual, the right to self-governance, and a healthy repugnance for big government.
Greg 
