In recent years it has been fashionable to think that fusionism, once the Republicans dominant ideological framework, is dead. (The key to that framework, forged by Frank S. Meyer and William F. Buckley at National Review, was that mainstream libertarianism and mainstream conservatism work hand in hand, animating a coherent political program.)

In fact, until very recently, it has also been reasonable to hail the death of fusionism. Although both libertarians and conservatives think of themselves as constitutionalists, on key issues, they differ sometimes profoundly.

And throughout Barack Obamas presidency, the differences have often attracted more attention than the similarities. Despite Tea Party solidarity among grassroots activists, libertarians have been seen to pull the GOP to the left on security and social issues. In the run-up to a presidential election year, thats seen by most mainstream conservatives as a big problem. Its an article of faith among the party faithful that when Republicans become more like Democrats, they lose elections. The desire to stay fused with libertarians has been greatly weakened by the perceived leftward lurch of the libertarian base.

But today, despite all odds, fusionism is back. And its probably here to stay. Surprisingly enough, the reason for that is simple: foreign policy. Even more surprising, theres one presidential candidate in the whole Republican field whose quiet advantages sum up why. Its not Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, or even former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Its Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

What does Marco Rubio have to do with the power of foreign policy to resurrect a political coalition? To be sure, Rubio falls squarely in line with a long tradition of Republicans who whatever their domestic agendas voice a robust and assertive view of Americas role in the world. In that sense, he would seem, at first glance, to drive libertarians even further away from the fusionism of the past.

Today, however, Republican and American anxieties over foreign policy are reaching a critical point. Midway through the Obama presidency, the global outlook was murkier than it is now. Mitt Romney couldnt effectively use foreign policy as a cudgel against the president, try as he might. What a difference a few years make. Rubio has a unique opportunity to steer the GOP back toward old-style fusionism. Some disagree, of course. From the standpoint of a candidate like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Rubios domestic agenda is far too establishmentarian to satisfy the constitutionalist yearnings of libertarians or conservatives.

But Cruz himself is proof that you can establish a reputation for being tough on security without sounding, to put it crudely, like an old-style neoconservative. Like voters more broadly, Republicans are increasingly nervous about the libertarian approach to foreign policy.

Theyre torn between the versions of Reaganism offered by Cruz on the one hand and, say, Mitt Romney on the other. The grassroots idea of Reagans legacy differs from the establishments so sharply that its easy to see how each is a bit too out of step with the times. On domestic issues, the sort of viewpoint offered by Sen. Paul has a broader appeal than Cruzs, yet deeper appeal than Romneys. In sum, they want a more libertarian domestic policy than Reaganauts offer but a more Reaganesque foreign policy than the libertarians offer.

At this moment, its easiest to see how Rubio could position himself in that way. Hed simply have to move to the alleged left on domestic issues libertarians tend to care about.

Rubio doesnt need to shift on foreign policy in order to do this. Its still unclear exactly where to find Rubios center of gravity on domestic policy. He rode into power as a Tea Party favorite. Now, hes much cozier with the establishment.

Excerpt from:

JAMES POULOS: For the GOP, fusionism is back