从 Frank Meyer 到 J.D. Vance：右翼为何重新拥抱国家权力

这期节目在回答什么

Fusionism 把自由和德性放在一起

有限政府为什么需要自我约束

Frank Meyer：国家保护权利，社会追求完善

Hayek 与 Kirk：自由需要传统传递知识

Bozell 与后自由主义：德性是否需要强制力

特朗普之后，右翼为什么重新接受国家权力

出路：把注意力从政策转回机构

人物与术语

结语

完整双语转录

00:00

This is the Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie, and I'm delighted today to be talking to my Reason colleague, senior editor Stephanie Slade, who has just published her first book. I'm sure it's the first of many, Fusionism, Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right. Stephanie, thanks for talking to Reason. Thanks for having me on, Nick. So let's start with fusionism. This is a term I'm significantly older than you, and when I joined Reason in the 90s, people talked much more about fusionism, or it was less old then. But what is fusionism in the broadest terms possible?

这是与 Nick Gillespie 的 Reason 访谈，今天我很高兴与我的 Reason 同事、高级编辑 Stephanie Slade 交谈，她刚刚出版了她的第一本书。我相信这只是众多作品中的第一本，《融合主义、自由、美德与美国右翼的未来》。Stephanie，感谢你接受 Reason 的采访。Nick，谢谢你邀请我参加节目。那我们先从融合主义开始吧。这个词比你要老得多，当我在 90 年代加入 Reason 时，人们更多地谈论融合主义，或者说那时它还不算老。但是，用最宽泛的术语来说，融合主义是什么？

I define it in the simplest terms as just the idea that both liberty and virtue are necessary for human flourishing. We as libertarians are very comfortable talking about the liberty piece. I think we can tend to be less comfortable talking about the virtue piece understood as the sort of habits and life choices that conduce to human flourishing, that lead to human fulfillment. So to take one step back from that, I would say fusionism is the idea that The Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the classical liberal political tradition sort of need each other.

我用最简单的方式定义它，就是仅仅认为自由和美德对于人的繁荣都是必要的。作为自由主义者，我们对于谈论自由这一部分非常自如。我认为我们可能对谈论美德这一部分不那么自如，这里的美德是指有助于人类繁荣、带来个人成就的习惯和生活选择。退一步来说，我会说，融合主义的观点是，犹太-基督教的道德传统和古典自由主义的政治传统某种程度上是互相需要的。

You know, neither one is fully complete in terms of laying the groundwork for a good society on its own. So we need to have both those things. And also another claim embedded in all of this is that, you know, we're in this 250th anniversary year of the U.S. founding, that the founders were...

你知道，就单靠其中任何一个，都无法在建立良好社会的基础上完全完成。所以我们需要两者兼有。而且，所有这些中还包含了另一个观点，那就是，你知道，我们正处在美国建国 250 周年这一年，创始人们……

But we talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not life, liberty, and the pursuit of virtue, right? So if I may, you know, when you say it's classical liberalism and then a Judeo-Christian conception of virtue, Right. The classical liberalism, I think people understand, that's the idea of a limited government. And we'll talk a bit about Frank Meyer, who was one of the founders of National Review magazine in 1955 and was very influential in the way it conceived of what should be the extent and the role and functioning of government.

但是我们谈论的是生命、自由和对幸福的追求，而不是生命、自由和对美德的追求，对吧？所以如果我可以的话，你知道，当你说这是古典自由主义，然后是犹太-基督教的美德观念，对吧。古典自由主义，我想人们都明白，那就是有限政府的理念。我们还会稍微谈谈弗兰克·迈耶，他是 1955 年《国家评论》杂志的创始人之一，并且在该杂志对于政府应该的范围、角色和功能的构想上有很大影响力。

But so classical liberalism is essentially, you know, a liberal polity. As opposed to virtue or Christian virtue, because, you know, I, you, we're going to also talk a lot about the threat from the right of a kind of neo-reactionary, a post, you know, it's weird because so they're neo-reactionaries, but they're post-liberal. It gets confusing, but these are people who say, no, liberalism is, has been tried and it, it has just, you know, it's, it's given to us a hellscape, the very hellscape we need to escape from.

但是，所以古典自由主义本质上，你知道，是一个自由政治体制。与美德或基督教美德相对，因为，你知道，我，你，我们也将大量讨论来自右翼的一种新反动主义的威胁，一种后……你知道，这很奇怪，因为他们是新反动主义者，但他们是后自由主义的。这很令人困惑，但这些人说，不，自由主义已经被尝试过了，它只是，你知道，它给了我们一个地狱般的景象，正是我们需要逃离的那个地狱景象。

Thank you. So what is a Judeo-Christian virtue? What does that mean? We were made as human beings in a certain way, and therefore there are going to be some choices and habits that lead us to that happiness, and there are going to be some choices and habits that lead us away from it. And that we can sort of…

谢谢。那么，什么是犹太-基督教的美德？那意味着什么？我们作为人类是以某种方式被创造的，因此会有一些选择和习惯将我们引向幸福，也会有一些选择和习惯将我们引离幸福。而我们可以在某种程度上……

Yeah, I mean, I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but what does that mean?

是的，我的意思是，我不是想让你难堪，但那是什么意思？

You know, like, the sort of hard work and personal responsibility is definitely going to be part of it. That's not the extent of it. It's not all of it. But anything that goes into the idea that there is a sort of – there's an objective moral order outside of ourselves that isn't just whatever we want it to be, that – If I conform myself to that, I'm going to actually flourish more than if I try to work against it or fight against it. And so all the things that we think of when you think about Christian virtue is going to be a part of this.

你知道的，比如说，那种辛勤工作和个人责任感肯定会是其中的一部分。但这并不是全部。这不是全部的内容。但凡涉及到这样一个理念——我们之外存在某种客观的道德秩序，而不仅仅是我们想让它成为什么样子；如果我遵从它，我实际上会比试图违背它或与之抗争时更加繁荣。因此，当你想到基督教美德时，我们想到的所有那些东西都将成为其中的一部分。

And I think that it is important to say right up front, especially in a conversation with you, of all people, that I would argue that there are fusionist libertarians like me and there are non-fusionist libertarians. There are plenty of libertarians who say like, yeah, I just don't buy that. I just don't buy that the wisdom of the Judeo-Christian tradition is...

我认为一开始就说明这一点很重要，尤其是在与你的对话中，偏偏是和你谈，我要说的是，我认为有像我这样的融合型自由主义者，也有非融合型自由主义者。有很多自由主义者会说，嗯，我就是不认同。我就是不认同犹太-基督教传统的智慧是……

I'm happy to admit if I got it wrong, but fusionism was actually something that was called by one of its critics. Right. Or it was named by one of its critics. But what happens to when you say Christian virtue, where does that leave Hindus? Where does it leave atheists in contemporary America? Do they have the same concept of virtue? And when you talk about absolute moral orders –

我很乐意承认如果我搞错了，但融合主义实际上是由其中一位批评者称呼的。对。或者说是由其中一位批评者命名的。但是，当你说基督教美德时，那对于印度教徒来说意味着什么呢？在当代美国，那对于无神论者意味着什么？他们有相同的美德概念吗？而当你谈论绝对的道德秩序时——

Does, you know, where does pluralism kind of fit in that? Pluralism is going to be a huge part of what I'm defending with fusionism. And one of the things I've argued is, or I've come to believe, is that it's not important, it's not necessary, it's not a requirement to be a fusionist that you are a Jew or a Christian. When I talk about the Judeo-Christian moral order, there's a lot of the same wisdom and the same lessons are passed down through other traditions as well.

你知道，多元主义在其中大概处于什么位置呢？多元主义将会是我在捍卫融合主义时的重要部分。我曾经主张过，或者我已经开始相信的是，要成为融合主义者，并不需要你是犹太人或基督徒，也不重要。当我谈论犹太-基督教的道德秩序时，许多相同的智慧和教训也同样通过其他传统传承下来。

Hayek is a great example of this. Not personally religious, but thinks that there is an enormous value in the wisdom and the lessons that are handed down through that religious tradition. And many of the founders were the same way. They were sort of not orthodox Christian believers for their time, but they recognized and they believed and they said repeatedly that if we don't have this sort of moral virtue that's instilled in the culture at a cultural level, then the idea of having this limited government power

哈耶克就是一个很好的例子。他个人并不宗教，但认为通过宗教传统传承下来的智慧和教训有巨大的价值。许多开国元勋也是这样。他们在当时算不上正统的基督教信徒，但他们认识到、相信并反复说过，如果我们没有这种在文化层面上灌输的道德美德，那么有限政府权力的理念就无法实现。

Why is that? I mean, you know, and I know at various points you quote John Adams where he comes up a lot in these kinds of conversations that if, you know, a free people or whatever doesn't, you know, doesn't have a religious morality behind it, we're screwed.

这是为什么？我的意思是，你知道，我也知道，在不同的情况下你会引用约翰·亚当斯，他在这种类型的讨论中经常被提到，说如果，你知道，一个自由的人民或者其他什么，没有宗教道德作支撑，我们就完蛋了。

Why is that? Yeah, and it wasn't just John Adams. I found quotes from all kinds of founders who say the same thing. Basically, the idea is, if you think about the term self-government, self-government could mean democratic government. We rule ourselves democratically by electing representatives. But there's this other concept of self-government, which is, if I'm internally governed, I have my desire to do things that sometimes are bad things that I shouldn't do. Am I able to keep those desires in check and do the things that actually allow me to live peacefully in a society that's not?

这是为什么呢？是的，而且不仅仅是约翰·亚当斯。我找到了各种创始人的引用，他们都说了同样的话。基本上，这个观点是，如果你考虑“自治”这个词，自治可能意味着民主政府。我们通过选举代表来民主地管理自己。但还有另一种“自治”的概念，那就是，如果我能够自我管理，我有时会有一些不应该做的坏事的欲望。我能否控制这些欲望，去做那些实际上能让我在一个不（完全自律的）社会中和平生活的事情？

Like, they can't trust their neighbors to do right by them on the margins. And another piece of this that's related, I think, is if people don't feel like if I fall on hard times, my neighbors are going to generously choose to step up and help me. And there's going to be a sort of robust set of civil society institutions that will help the people who fall on hard times and who have genuine need. Then they're going to demand a more robust and more robust.

就像，他们不能信任他们的邻居在边缘时会为他们做好事。我认为与此相关的另一部分是，如果人们觉得当我遇到困难时，我的邻居不会慷慨地选择站出来帮助我，而且不会有一套健全的民间社会机构来帮助那些遇到困难和真正需要帮助的人，那么他们就会要求一个更强大、更强大的体系。

10:00

And I mean, that's a good segue into talking about Frank Meyer. But, you know, the idea that's, you know, that government or liberalism is a kind of governing philosophy or a structure that says, OK, government's going to do these specific things. And then we leave the rest, including the perfection of individuals or of the communities they form to civil society and things like that.

我的意思是，这正好是一个很好的切入点来谈论弗兰克·迈耶。不过，你知道，这种观念是，你知道，政府或自由主义是一种治理哲学或结构，它说，好吧，政府将会做这些具体的事情。然后我们将其他部分，包括个人或他们形成的社区的完善，留给民间社会之类的东西去处理。

And, you know, and that's where pluralism comes to be because people will disagree, you know, about, okay, no, this is a good society or this is a good society. And the main point, I think what you're talking about is that within the fusionist libertarian mentality, it's like we can allow for pretty broad differences of opinion or experiments of living as long as they're not really stepping on each other's toes.

你知道，这就是多元主义产生的原因，因为人们会就某个社会是否良好而产生分歧。我认为你所谈论的主要观点是，在融合主义的自由意志者心态中，只要彼此不真正干涉对方，我们可以允许相当广泛的意见分歧或生活实验。

Talk about Frank Meyer. Who was he? I mean, he's really, is it wrong to call him the hero of the book or the animating genius of the book? Yeah, he's probably the main character, although it's not a biography, and there was a biography of Frank Meyer that came out last year that was very interesting and I learned a lot from. But yeah, so Frank Meyer, he's a fascinating person.

谈谈弗兰克·迈耶。他是谁？我的意思是，他真的……叫他这本书的英雄或者这本书的核心灵魂有错吗？是的，他可能是主要人物，尽管这不是一本传记，而且去年出版了一本关于弗兰克·迈耶的传记，非常有趣，我从中学到了很多东西。但对，弗兰克·迈耶，他是一个令人着迷的人。

So he is one of the founding senior editors at National Review, and he also becomes the books and arts section editor and just is one of the sort of core people who's up there with Bill Buckley in the early years of shaping National Review. He's a columnist. He's a writer. He is a conservative who has defected. Reading Marx and then reading Hayek kind of made him realize this is something here that I've been arguing that is not right and is also not, importantly, not consistent with the American tradition, he came to believe.

所以他是《国家评论》的创始高级编辑之一，他还成为了图书和艺术版的编辑，并且只是早期与比尔·巴克利一起塑造《国家评论》的核心人物之一。他是专栏作家，是作家，是一位叛逃的保守派。阅读马克思，然后阅读哈耶克，让他意识到这是某种他一直在争论的不正确的东西，而且同样重要的是，这与美国传统不一致，他开始相信这一点。

And so he becomes a conservative, understood in the way that many mid-century American conservatives define themselves, which is not necessarily the same way that you would think of conservatism in like the French context, for example. Right.

因此他成为了一个保守主义者，这里的理解方式是许多二十世纪中期的美国保守主义者定义自己的方式，这不一定和你在法国等背景下理解的保守主义相同，对吧。

You know, for the first 50 years, The Nation was a liberal magazine in a classical liberal laissez-faire 19th century way. And they have like two articles from that and they have to explain away why, oh, that's the wrong form of liberalism, right? Right. But so Meyer, I mean, one of the things that's interesting is that you talk about how he needed or he wanted a comprehensive worldview.

你知道的，在最初的 50 年里，《国家》杂志是一本以 19 世纪古典自由放任主义方式的自由派杂志。他们有两篇这样的文章，而且他们必须解释为什么，哦，那是错误形式的自由主义，对吗？对的。但是梅耶，我的意思是，有趣的一点是，你谈到他如何需要或想要一个全面的世界观。

And he found, you know, communism is obviously comprehensive in the same way, you know, that Islamism is, you know, where it seeks to map out the good and the proper in every aspect of human living, including aesthetics, including, you know, what kind of food you eat and how you prepare it and all this kind of stuff.

他发现，你知道，共产主义显然是全面的，就像你知道的伊斯兰主义一样，它试图在人的生活的每一个方面规划出什么是好的和适当的，包括审美，包括你知道的，你吃什么样的食物以及如何准备它等等这些事情。

You know, and he was like, okay, communism doesn't work. And then he becomes a kind of a mid-century American conservative. Within the National Review world, he was the libertarian. And he even used that phrase to define himself at some times, right, or describe himself. Yeah, he was very libertarian. And the sort of way you know this is true is that he really believed that his argument for what fusionists should believe in is that government has only three legitimate functions, right?

你知道，他当时就像是说，好吧，共产主义行不通。然后他变成了一种中期美国保守主义者。在《国家评论》的圈子里，他是那个自由意志主义者。他甚至有时用那个词来定义自己，对吧，或者描述自己。是的，他非常自由意志。而你知道这是真的方式是，他真的相信他为融合主义者应该信仰的论点是，政府只有三个合法的功能，对吧？

To sort of protect our borders from a foreign invading army, to patrol the streets and keep people from violating each other's property rights or whatever, committing violent acts against each other, and to maintain a court system that allows us to peacefully resolve disputes when two different citizens have claims against each other. And that's it. And he said there was no role for government in deciding what virtuous living looked like or imposing that on people. And he also said this was a very important application for him of the idea of separation of powers.

为了在某种程度上保护我们的边界免受外国入侵军队的侵害，巡逻街道，防止人们侵犯彼此的财产权或其他权利，互相进行暴力行为，并维护一个法院系统，使我们在两个不同公民互相提出索赔时能够和平解决纠纷。仅此而已。他说政府在决定什么是有道德的生活方式或将其强加给人们方面没有作用。他还说，这对于他来说是分权理念的一个非常重要的应用。

He said, we do not want to entrust the same entity that we've given this sort of these police, these powers, these... is something that is very much a libertarian conservatism, but I think what he recognized and what I argue and what I believe is that liberalism or libertarianism by itself doesn't,

他说，我们不想把这种警察权力之类的东西交给同一个实体，这是非常自由意志保守主义的做法，但我认为他认识到的，以及我所争论和相信的是，仅凭自由主义或自由意志主义本身是不够的,

And for you, I mean, or this is what, and you quote him in the book, the former New York Times columnist who, Ross Douthat, who's now at CBS News, talks about as liberalism plus.

对你来说，我是说，或者这是怎么回事，你在书里引用了他，前《纽约时报》专栏作家罗斯·道塔特（Ross Douthat），现在在 CBS 新闻工作，他谈到的是所谓的自由主义加。

And Ross, like you, find that, you know, the comprehensive system of meaning or the larger kind of scaffolding intellectually, culturally, theologically is the Catholic Church. Yeah, for us and I, that would be true.

罗斯，像你一样，会发现，你知道，在智力上、文化上、神学上，那个全面的意义系统或更大的支架是天主教会。是的，对我们来说，我也会这么认为。

Yeah, yeah. And we're going to, I mean, it's fascinating. And I want to come back to, you know, as we have discussed in various things, I was raised Catholic. Yeah. But it's very strange that the modern conservative movement and the publication that created it was quite openly Catholic in many of its predilections. Frank Meyer, I guess, was he born Jewish, but he ended up possibly converting to Catholicism on his deathbed?

是的，是的。我们要去，我是说，这真是令人着迷。我想回到这个话题，你知道的，正如我们在各种讨论中提到的，我是天主教徒长大的。是的。但很奇怪的是，现代保守运动以及创造它的出版物在许多偏好上非常公开地表现出天主教倾向。弗兰克·迈耶，我想，他出生时是犹太人，但他最后可能在临终前改信了天主教？

Yeah, he did. So in between the…

是的，他做了。就在……之间

So there's this all of… Yeah, this is fascinating. Yeah.

所以这一直是……是的，这很吸引人。是的。

I mean, just to be clear, I mean, you're totally right. Obviously, Buckley, famous Catholic, prominent Catholic. And there's a lot of people who are associated with the National Review and the conservative movement are Catholic, especially Catholic converts.

我的意思是，为了明确起见，我的意思是，你完全正确。显然，巴克利，是著名的天主教徒，杰出的天主教徒。而且有很多与《国家评论》和保守派运动相关的人是天主教徒，特别是天主教皈依者。

Buckley wasn't, but many of them were. But it was also very ecumenical. And Frank Meyer joined the course of up until his deathbed conversion to Catholicism.

巴克利不是，但他们中的许多人是。不过，它也非常普世。弗兰克·迈耶加入了这个课程，直到他临终皈依天主教。

He is a sort of what his son described to me as an unaffiliated Christian. He's not going to a particular denomination or something, and he's not converted all the way to Catholicism, but he is Jewish by ethnic heritage, but becomes around believing that Christianity is right, and only at the very last moment becomes Catholic.

他有点像他的儿子向我描述的那种非隶属于任何教派的基督徒。他不会去特定的教派，也没有完全皈依天主教，但他是犹太血统的，在信仰上倾向于认为基督教是正确的，直到最后一刻才成为天主教徒。

And so I guess I just wanted to say that the magazine was not explicitly Catholic. There was space for other voices as well. Oh, and there were lots of Protestants, lots of Jews, even the occasional atheist on board. So, I mean, and it is, you know, and for me, because I feel like I'm closer to that period, you know, like all of the most of the National Review founders were still kicking around. You talk a lot about St. Evans. You know, I was on a panel at a Philadelphia society meeting that that.

所以我想我只是想说，这本杂志并不是明确的天主教。也为其他声音提供了空间。哦，还有很多新教徒，很多犹太人，甚至偶尔还有无神论者参与。所以，我的意思是，你知道的，对我而言，因为我觉得我离那个时期更近，你知道的，当时大多数《国家评论》的创始人还在活跃。你会经常谈到圣埃文斯。你知道，我曾在费城社会的一次会议上参加过一个小组讨论，就是那种情况。

The liberal, classical liberal tradition that informs fusionism, you also make a further distinction, which I think is helpful and worth working through, is there are pluralistic and rationalistic liberals.

指导融合主义的自由主义、古典自由主义传统，你还做了一个进一步的区分，我认为这是有帮助的，值得深入探讨，那就是有多元主义和理性主义自由主义者。

20:00

And can you explain what that is? And then we'll kind of move forward from there. Yes, I'm drawing from Jacob Levy's book on this, which I think was excellent and really helpful. He talks about how there are these two sort of understandings of liberalism, two strains within the liberal tradition. The rationalistic one would say any form of centralized power can infringe on individual freedom, and that includes private institutions. So organized religion, the traditional sort of Victorian family structure, norms and mores can influence.

你能解释一下那是什么吗？然后我们会从那里继续前进。是的，我参考了雅各布·列维的书，我认为这本书非常出色且非常有帮助。他谈到自由主义存在两种理解方式，自由主义传统中有两种流派。理性主义的观点认为，任何形式的集中权力都可能侵犯个人自由，这包括私人机构。因此，组织化的宗教、传统的维多利亚式家庭结构、规范和习俗都可能产生影响。

And this is John Stuart Mill is kind of the full or one of the fullest instantiations of this. The idea that it's actually, you know, government can be bad, but it's really the social forces of the family, of the society you grew up in, particularly the religion often or whatever.

这就是约翰·斯图尔特·密尔，他在这方面几乎是最完整的或其中最完整的例子之一。这个观点认为，实际上，你知道，政府可能是坏的，但真正的是家庭、你成长的社会力量，特别是宗教或者其他什么。

And so where this goes wrong, I think, from a libertarian perspective is they can get kind of comfortable with the idea of using government power to attack these other sources, these private sources of what they would call unfreedom. A pluralist liberal, on the other hand, would be somebody who says, look, as individuals, we have rights, and some of those rights include the right to join together and form associations with each other under our own terms. And those terms aren't always going to be perfectly liberal.

所以我认为，从自由意志主义者的角度来看，问题出在他们可能会对利用政府权力去打击这些其他来源、这些他们所谓的不自由的私人来源感到有点舒适。另一方面，多元主义自由主义者会说，看看，作为个人，我们拥有权利，其中一些权利包括按照我们自己的条件联合起来并与他人形成团体。而这些条件并不总是完全符合自由主义。

Sometimes you're going to form a religion that says you live this way, not that way. Or women can't be a member of the clergy in the Catholic Church. Or we're not going to, you know, not all lifestyles are created equal and we're not going to affirm them all and we're not going to necessarily let everybody join our organization. We're not going to run it in a way that places individual equality as the highest value within these communities.

有时候你会建立一种宗教，说你应该这样生活，而不是那样生活。或者女性不能成为天主教会的神职人员。或者我们不会，嗯，不是所有的生活方式都是平等的，我们不会认可所有生活方式，也不一定会让每个人加入我们的组织。我们不会以个人平等作为这些社区中最高价值来运作它。

When you're talking about fusionist liberals, it's pluralistic liberals, not the rationalistic ones. And then further, you know, then we get to the kind of differences between a Hayekian liberalism and a Russell Kirk liberalism or fusionism.

当你谈论融合主义自由主义者时，是指多元化自由主义者，而不是理性主义自由主义者。然后进一步，你知道，我们会谈到哈耶克自由主义与罗素·柯克自由主义或融合主义之间的那种差异。

Let's talk a little bit about that. Hayek gets talked a lot about in Reason. And what is a Hayekian conception of this? And how does that compare to Russell Kirk? And these are two other figures who are all kind of circulating around national review to some degree, but certainly right of center, non-leftist, I guess is probably the best way to put it, kind of definitions of the American project in the mid-century. Which Kirk responds to, but we don't, in the moment, but we don't have the full text, only accounts of it. Right, which is, it's a lot.

让我们稍微谈谈这个。哈耶克在《理性》杂志上经常被提到。那么，对此哈耶克的看法是什么？这与罗素·柯克相比又如何呢？这两个人物在某种程度上都围绕着《国家评论》流传，但肯定是偏右的，非左翼的，我想这可能是对中世纪美国项目定义的最佳描述。柯克对此有所回应，但我们此刻没有完整文本，只有相关的记述。对吧，这已经很多了。

So, I mean, there's, and, you know, one of the things, your book is very readable, and, you know, it does great jobs of kind of, like, these are kind of supervillain team-ups, right, or something like that. There's, like, good confrontations, including that one.

所以，我的意思是，这里有，而且，你知道，其中一件事是，你的书非常易读，而且，你知道，它非常好地处理了这些，就像，这些基本上是超级反派的团队合作，对吧，或者类似的东西。有一些很好的对抗场面，包括那一个。

But, okay, so explain the Hayekian, you know, conception of liberalism. Yeah, he, you know, Hayek believes that we don't have enough knowledge to be able to plan society from the top down. So he's this defender of this idea of spontaneous order, that if you let people be free and you sort of have a basic set of governmental structures that... He's very focused on rule of law. People need to know what's legal, what's not legal. How can they stay on the right side of the law? They need to be aware of when, under what circumstances, is the state going to use coercion against them.

但是，好吧，所以解释一下哈耶克式的自由主义概念。是的，他，你知道，哈耶克认为我们没有足够的知识来从上而下地规划社会。因此他是自发秩序这一理念的捍卫者，如果你让人们自由，并且拥有一套基本的政府结构……他非常关注法治。人们需要知道什么是合法的，什么是不合法的。他们如何才能遵守法律？他们需要了解在什么情况下、国家会对他们使用强制手段。

And that way they can plan their lives and they can operate a marketplace. They can trade. They can go about their business. And bubbling up from the ground up will be spontaneous order, will be peace and prosperity. So this is the Hayekian understanding of how a free society ought to function. It's not, he's not an anarchist. So he does think we need government. And in fact, he has actually more of a willingness to say more of a social safety net that even probably somebody like me would say these days.

这样他们就可以规划自己的生活，也可以运营市场。他们可以进行交易，可以处理自己的事务。而从下而上涌现的将是自发秩序，将是和平与繁荣。这就是哈耶克对自由社会应如何运作的理解。他并不是无政府主义者，所以他确实认为我们需要政府。事实上，他实际上对于提供更多社会保障网络的意愿甚至可能比像我这样的人在今天所能接受的还要大。

So he's not, he doesn't even like the word, the term laissez-faire. He thinks that it's going too far. But he wants there to be a competitive marketplace where, and he wants there to be rule of law where everybody knows, again, what's legal and what's not. It's rule of law as opposed to rule of man. You don't have a... A strongman dictator who can just decide today that something is retroactively illegal and throw you in jail for it because at his at his whims. So this is this is Hayek's understanding of of freedom. And this is his version of liberalism.

所以他不是，他甚至不喜欢这个词汇，自由放任这个术语。他认为这做得太过分了。但他希望存在一个竞争的市场，而且他希望有法治，每个人都知道什么是合法的，什么是不合法的。这是法治，而不是人治。你不会有一个……一个强人独裁者可以今天就决定某件事是追溯违法的，并且根据他的心血来潮把你关进监狱。这就是哈耶克对自由的理解。这也是他版本的自由主义。

And what you realize if you sort of follow this and if you read his stuff over over the course of his life is that he's very he's very keen on tradition. He says, through millennia, human beings have learned the sort of social structures and institutions that allow us to break out of this sort of hunter-gatherer.

如果你按照这个去理解，并且在他的一生中阅读他的作品，你会意识到，他非常，非常重视传统。他说，经过千百年的发展，人类已经学会了那种社会结构和制度，使我们能够摆脱这种狩猎采集的状态。

You know, it gets confusing, I think, because Hayek, how does he justify any given change in a moment? And at various points, he points to, well, you know, it's like common law where you don't have a supreme court or certainly nothing like in France or in certain European and continental.

你知道，我觉得这很让人困惑，因为哈耶克，他如何在某一刻为任何特定的变化辩护？而在不同的时刻，他指出，好吧，你知道，这就像普通法，你没有最高法院，当然也没有法国或某些欧洲大陆那样的东西。

But, you know, in the common law tradition, you would have judges in one jurisdiction allowing something radically different than somebody next door. And he's like, that works out over time. But at any specific moment, it kind of it gets hard to find out why Hayek would say, OK, this is good evolution versus bad evolution, I think.

但是，你知道，在普通法传统中，一个司法管辖区的法官可能允许一些与邻近地区完全不同的东西。而他认为，这随着时间的推移会得到解决。但在任何特定时刻，要找出哈耶克为什么会说‘这是好的演化而不是坏的演化’，我认为是有点困难的。

Right, and this is actually, I think, part of what Kirk criticizes or critiques him for. But basically, Hayek says people need to be free to break away from and violate the norms in order for society as a whole to see whether or not the thing that they're experimenting is going to be a good one or not. Host Nick Gillespie interview But so the thing that's relevant to the sort of the fusionist framing that I've offered is that he really thinks that these lessons that we learn through trial and error are passed down through the generations through tradition.

没错，我认为这实际上也是柯克批评他的一部分原因。但基本上，哈耶克认为，人们需要有自由去背离和违反规范，这样整个社会才能看到他们所尝试的事情是否会是好的。主持人尼克·吉莱斯皮采访 但是，与我提出的融合主义框架相关的事情是，他确实认为，我们通过反复试验学习到的这些经验会通过传统一代代传下去。

I mean, and that includes religious traditions, not limited to it. But so he has this incredible respect for the inherited wisdom of the people, the lessons learned by the people who came before.

我的意思是，这包括宗教传统，但不限于此。但他对人民继承下来的智慧有着难以置信的尊重，尊重那些前人所学到的教训。

And this is in opposition to what he again talks about as a kind of continental liberalism or, you know, the French Revolution tear it all down and start from scratch. Yeah. Like, do we create year zero or do we kind of, you know, I mean, this and you talk about this, too. This is the way that many people talk about the American Revolution versus the French Revolution. They're both liberal in a profound way, but one is very rationalist and the other is more kind of respectful of tradition.

这与他再次谈到的一种大陆自由主义相反，或者说，你知道，像法国大革命那样，把一切推倒重来。是的。我们是创建零年，还是某种程度上，你知道，我的意思是，这个，你也谈到过。很多人谈论美国革命与法国大革命的方式就是这样。他们在深层次上都是自由主义的，但一个非常理性主义，另一个则更多是尊重传统。

So then that brings us to Kirk, right? And Kirk and Hayek are kind of like, you know, they're not quite Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty, but they're, you know, they're kind of opponents or they're typically viewed as such. And you kind of deconstruct that difference. How does Kirk talk about the liberalism that is unique to America and we should be following more of?

那么这就把我们带到了柯克，对吧？柯克和哈耶克有点像，你知道，他们不完全是福尔摩斯和莫里亚蒂教授，但他们，你知道，他们有点像对手，或者通常被看作是这样。你有点解构了这种差异。柯克如何谈论美国独有的自由主义，而我们应该更多地效仿这种自由主义？

He doesn't write about liberalism using that word, though I argue in my chapter, in this chapter, that he really is defending a form of liberalism. But he's a traditionalist. I mean, he calls it conservative. Yes.

他没有用那个词来写自由主义，尽管我在我的章节里争辩，在这一章里，他实际上是在捍卫一种形式的自由主义。但他是一个传统主义者。我的意思是，他称之为保守主义。是的。

He's the, you know, definer of the conservative mind.

他是那个，你知道的，保守思想的定义者。

Right. He writes The Conservative Mind, this book that sort of lays out the sort of tenets of what it means to be a conservative. And he's drawing upon Edmund Burke. And he has this sort of dispositional, this idea of a dispositional conservatism that is to say, it's not opposed to change, but it thinks it should happen slowly and gradually and organically. And any sort of revolutionary act or attempt to impose...

对。他写了《保守主义心智》这本书，这本书大致阐述了成为保守主义者的核心信条。他借鉴了埃德蒙·伯克的思想，并提出了一种性格化保守主义的概念，也就是说，它并不反对变革，但认为变革应该缓慢、逐步和自然地发生。任何形式的革命行为或强制推行……

30:00

But what I found that I think a lot of people don't necessarily associate Kirk with libertarianism, but what I found when I started reading him was he could be quite libertarian in a variety of ways. So he, one of my favorite examples is that during World War II, he spoke out against the draft. He thought the draft was, you know, military conscription is a form of slavery, right? He is against this. That's a liberal position, a libertarian position he's taking. Yeah. He often said negative things about libertarians. He famously called us chirping sectaries.

但我发现的是，我认为很多人不一定会将柯克与自由意志主义联系起来，但当我开始阅读他的作品时，我发现他在很多方面其实可以相当自由意志主义。所以，他，我最喜欢的一个例子是，在二战期间，他公开反对征兵。他认为征兵，也就是军事征召，是一种奴役，对吗？他反对这一点。这是一个自由派的立场，也是他所持的自由意志主义立场。是的，他经常说自由意志主义者的坏话。他曾经著名地称我们为叽叽喳喳的小教派成员。

But I think that he had in his mind an idea of a very militant, rationalist libertarian or liberal when he was critiquing libertarians. I mean, he's thinking of people like Ayn Rand or maybe Murray Rothbard, like more very, and I don't even mean this in a pejorative way, but very dogmatic or doctrinaire, anarcho-liberalist. Capitalists or rationalists like Rand, who's not an anarchist.

但我认为，当他批评自由意志主义者时，他脑海中想到的是一种非常好战、理性主义的自由意志主义者或自由派。我是说，他想到的是像安·兰德或者可能是默里·罗斯巴德这样的人，更加非常，而且我并不是贬义地说，非常教条或者信条式的无政府自由主义者。像兰德这样的资本主义者或理性主义者，她不是无政府主义者。

And neither of them necessarily falls into this, but also the type of libertarian who kind of is willing to, is more on the moral relativist side. Like, you do you, whatever works for you. That's not Kirk. Kirk doesn't believe that. But he also, again, in addition to his stance on the draft and things like that, he's not a Cold War hawk in the way that a lot of these mid-century conservatives are. And

他们两者都不一定属于这种类型，但还有一种自由意志主义者，他有点愿意，更偏向道德相对主义的一面。就是说，你做你自己，随便什么对你有用。这不是柯克的风格。柯克不相信那样。但他也同样，除了他对征兵等问题的立场外，他并不像很多中世纪保守派那样是冷战鹰派。并且

Did he believe that economics is like a completely separate sphere of activity from kind of morality or something? Not that you would cheat people in economics, but be moral in your own life. But, you know, there is this sense, you know, that economics, you know, is one thing. And then how you live your life is, you know, these are quite different spheres.

他是否认为经济学就像是与道德之类的东西完全分开的一个领域？并不是说你在经济学中会欺骗人，但在你自己生活中要有道德。但是，你知道，有一种感觉，就是经济学是一回事，而你如何生活又是另一回事，这些是相当不同的领域。

Right.

对。

Order. But then we're going to disagree about that.

秩序。但随后我们会在这点上意见不合。

Yes, totally. And these guys are all big fans of Adam Smith. And so if you think about Smith, and he kind of is the key to the answer to this question of, is there a difference between economics and morality? Well, sort of. Like, we think that the butcher and the baker are going to provide for people's needs not out of altruism, but out of self-interest. But on the other hand, Adam Smith also understands the theory of moral sentiments. They sort of

是的，完全正确。这些人都是亚当·斯密的忠实粉丝。所以如果你思考斯密，他在这个问题的答案中起着关键作用：经济学和道德之间是否有区别？嗯，有一点。我们认为屠夫和面包师会满足人们的需求，并不是出于利他主义，而是出于自身利益。但另一方面，亚当·斯密也理解道德情感理论。他们有点…

But it is interesting, and like he, you know, shortly before he died, he was also against the first Gulf War. He had, and there's a strong old right tradition that kind of blends into some of the post-World War II right that was just very disturbed by the Cold War, you know, in the sense that it centralized a lot of power because, you know, in the, you know, and you can argue about this. But the idea was in order to defeat the Soviet Union, we needed to mobilize society en masse. And a lot of old rightists or conservatives were like, no, that's a mug's game.

但是这很有趣，就像他一样，你知道的，在他去世前不久，他也反对第一次海湾战争。他有一种强烈的老派右翼传统，这种传统与二战后的某些右翼思潮相融合，非常对冷战感到不安，你知道，这种不安在于冷战集中掌握了大量权力，因为，你知道的，你可以对此进行争论。但当时的观点是，为了击败苏联，我们需要动员整个社会。很多老派右翼或保守主义者就会觉得，不，这是一场傻瓜的游戏。

And by the way, Bill Buckley, who's, you know, the sort of leader of the hawkish Cold War hawk faction in many ways, he acknowledges this. He writes basically like, yeah, we're going to have to dispense with some personal liberties at home in order to defeat this threat to liberty abroad.

顺便说一下，比尔·巴克利，你知道的，在许多方面他是鹰派冷战鹰派阵营的领袖，他也承认这一点。他基本上写道，是的，为了击败海外对自由的威胁，我们将不得不在国内放弃一些个人自由。

And he's clear-eyed about the trade-off. Now, he comes down on the other side from somebody like Kirk or many libertarians, but he does recognize the trade-off. So you've got Kirk as a traditionalist, Hayek more as an evolutionist, but you're talking about them in terms of fusionist libertarianism. And Frank Meyer is kind of, he's the king of this realm. We have no kings, right?

而且他对权衡是清楚的。现在，他在立场上与柯克或许多自由意志主义者不同，但他确实意识到这种权衡。所以你有柯克作为传统主义者，哈耶克更多是进化主义者，但你是在以融合主义自由意志主义的角度谈论他们。而弗兰克·迈耶有点像，是这个领域的王者。我们没有国王，对吗？

But he's kind of the intellectual leader of that. But then within national reviews kind of orbit is Brent Boesel Jr., who is the brother-in-law of Bill Buckley and a big figure in early national review and post-war right thinking. He is probably most famous in libertarian circles for writing The Conscience of a Conservative.

但他算是那方面的智力领袖。不过在《国家评论》的影响圈子里，还有布伦特·博塞尔·小，他是比尔·巴克利的内兄，也是早期《国家评论》和战后右翼思潮中的重要人物。他在自由主义圈子里可能最出名的是写了《保守主义者的良心》一书。

That's right. That's right. So Meyer and Boesel are both senior editors at National Review in the early years. They're very close friends, actually, despite the fact that they end up ideologically worlds apart. Boesel is Bill Buckley's Yale professor. What was that book? Oh, it was McCarthy and his enemies, so they're defending Joe McCarthy, which, yeah. So, but that aside, he's quite, Boesel starts out quite libertarian, right, as a Goldwater speechwriter and whatnot. He starts out very much in the sort of Frank Meyer fusionist camp. But over time, he moves forward.

没错。没错。所以迈耶和博塞尔在《国家评论》的早期都是高级编辑。他们实际上是非常亲密的朋友，尽管最终在意识形态上有很大差异。博塞尔是比尔·巴克利在耶鲁的教授。那本书叫什么来着？哦，是《麦卡锡及其敌人》，所以他们是在为乔·麦卡锡辩护，对吧。不过撇开这个不谈，博塞尔一开始相当自由主义，对吧，曾是高华尔特的演讲稿撰写人等等。他一开始非常属于弗兰克·迈耶的融合主义阵营。但随着时间的推移，他逐渐前进。

Radically away from that position. He converts to Catholicism. He has a huge family. I think he ends up with 10 kids eventually. At one point, he moves his family to Spain during the Francisco Franco dictatorship because he's just, he's, his imagination is captured by the idea of a truly Catholic culture that's infused into every aspect of the society there, including at the government level. So he becomes convinced, whereas Frank Meyer would argue. And a fusionist would argue that liberty and virtue are mutually reinforcing, and we need both of them.

完全背离那个立场。他改信天主教。他有一个大家庭。我想他最终会有十个孩子。有一段时间，他把家人搬到西班牙，在弗朗西斯科·佛朗哥独裁统治期间，因为他只是，他的想象力被一个真正天主教文化贯穿社会各个方面的想法所吸引，包括政府层面。所以他变得坚信，而弗兰克·迈耶会争辩道。一位融合主义者也会争辩，自由和美德是互相强化的，我们需要两者。

He becomes convinced that too much liberty stands in the way of people being able to pursue virtue and live virtuous lives. So if we have laws that make it easy to get divorced, that make it legal to operate a business on Sunday, that make pornography not be banned, that people are going to make unvirtuous choices, and that people, in order to be virtuous, need help not just from civil society institutions like universities,

他开始相信，过多的自由会妨碍人们追求美德和过有德行的生活。因此，如果我们有法律使离婚变得容易，使在周日经营生意合法，使色情不被禁止，人们就会做出不道德的选择，而人们为了变得有德行，不仅需要来自像大学这样的民间社会机构的帮助，

But, you know, the Franco regime to a lot, to a certain type of conservative or rightist, you know, is like the ultimate thing because it was a, you know, it was a regime, you know, that would say it was in service of Catholic teaching. Right. And one of the great, and the last great Catholic empire, you know, because France got rid of Catholicism as, you know, as part of the state.

但是，你知道，对于很多人，对于某种类型的保守派或右翼人士来说，佛朗哥政权，你知道，是终极的存在，因为它是一个，会说它是在服务于天主教教义的政权。对吧。而且这是一个伟大的，也是最后一个伟大的天主教帝国，因为法国已经取消了天主教作为国家的一部分。

It's very strange. But Boesel, then, and it's also the book, among other things, is an interesting discussion of National Review's history. I mean, Boesel and Meyer duke it out in the pages of National Review, where they're like, no, you're nuts. And in successive articles, they would kind of complain about each other's viewpoints.

这很奇怪。不过博塞尔，那时，还有这本书，除其他外，都是对《国家评论》历史的有趣讨论。我的意思是，博塞尔和迈耶在《国家评论》的版面上针锋相对，他们会说，不，你疯了。在接连的文章中，他们会互相抱怨对方的观点。

40:00

Yes, they have these dueling essays in National Review. And again, because they were close friends, they were constantly arguing late into the night on the phone with each other about these things. So it was an ongoing debate that sort of happened partially behind closed doors and partially in public. Eventually, Boesel leaves National Review and founds his own rival magazine called Triumph Magazine, which is just a radical Catholic, essentially it's like a proto-Catholic integralist, theocratic perspective.

是的，他们在《国家评论》中有这些对决式的文章。而且，由于他们是亲密的朋友，他们经常在电话里争论到深夜。所以这是一场持续的辩论，部分在暗地里进行，部分在公开场合进行。最终，博塞尔离开了《国家评论》，创办了自己的竞争杂志《凯旋杂志》，这本杂志只是一本激进的天主教刊物，本质上就像是一个原始的天主教整体主义者的神权视角。

And that lasts for about 10 years. He's trying to advance these views. It ends up not having the sort of support...

这持续了大约 10 年。他正在尝试推进这些观点。但最终并没有得到那种支持……

That allows it to keep going in part because it just becomes ever more radical. It starts out as conservative Catholic and then becomes like radical Catholic and then becomes anti-American because the American founding is liberal. And so if you're if you're an anti-liberal, which is basically where he ends up, then the American founding was rotten from its core, you know. And so it gets to a place where there's not much of an audience for this and it ends up having to close the magazine down. But he definitely yeah, he definitely goes on an intellectual journey, we might say.

这使它能够继续运作，部分原因是它变得越来越激进。它一开始是保守的天主教，然后变得像激进天主教，最后变成反美，因为美国建国是自由主义的。所以如果你是一个反自由主义者，这基本上就是他最终的立场，那么美国的建国从根本上就是腐败的。所以发展到最后，这样的观点没有太多听众，最终不得不关闭杂志。但他确实，没错，他确实经历了一段智力上的旅程，我们可以这么说。

Hey Reason Interview listeners, you know that AI is coming for your job, but can you compete? Reliance College invites students and young professionals to AI-proof you, a program built to develop the skills no algorithm can automate. AI can generate answers and automate tasks, but it can't replace human judgment, responsibility, or leadership. AI Proof You trains exactly those capacities through deep, secretic analysis of great texts.

嘿，Reason Interview 的听众们，你们知道人工智能正在威胁你的工作，但你能竞争得过吗？Reliance College 邀请学生和年轻专业人士参加“AI 防护你”项目，这是一个旨在培养没有算法能自动化的技能的项目。人工智能可以生成答案和自动化任务，但它无法取代人的判断力、责任感或领导力。“AI 防护你”正是通过对伟大文本的深入、隐秘分析来训练这些能力的。

Over 10 weeks, you'll start with a three-day intensive session in Chicago, continue with six online seminars drawing on Aristotle, Adam Smith, and Ayn Rand, and finish with an in-person capstone presenting your own work. This isn't a coding boot camp. As one investment banker on the advisory panel put it, judgment is not going out of style. The next cohort begins October 2nd. Discover the education built for you in the age of AI. Visit reliancecollege.org slash AI. That's reliancecollege.org slash AI or check the show notes. And now back to the Reason Interview. Music

在十周的课程中，你将从在芝加哥进行为期三天的强化课程开始，接着参加六次在线研讨会，内容涉及亚里士多德、亚当·斯密和安·兰德的思想，并以一次现场的顶点课程结束，在课程中展示你自己的作品。这不是一个编程训练营。正如一位投资银行顾问小组成员所说，判断力不会过时。下一期课程将于 10 月 2 日开始。了解为你在人工智能时代量身打造的教育。访问 reliancecollege.org/AI。这是 reliancecollege.org/AI，或者查看节目说明。现在回到 Reason 访谈。音乐

Well, let's use Brent Boesel and his turn to a kind of integralist project, meaning the idea that the state should not only be an instrument of moral instruction and limiting people's choices in the name of And it's also Catholic. So can we talk a little bit about people like Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule, and J.D. Vance, who are all explicitly Catholic and kind of explicitly post-liberal? How does that, you know, what is the connection to and challenge to a fusionist libertarianism that you're writing about?

好，让我们以布伦特·博塞尔为例，谈谈他转向某种整体主义项目的想法，也就是国家不仅应作为道德教化的工具，还应以天主教的名义限制人们的选择。那么我们能不能谈谈像帕特里克·德宁、阿德里安·韦尔缪尔和 J.D.范斯这样的人，他们都是明确的天主教徒，而且有点明确的后自由主义？这与你正在写的融合主义自由意志主义之间有什么联系和挑战呢？

Yeah, this is just the same thing I said about Bozell, which is these are folks who believe that liberty is standing in the way of virtue. I mean, I think that's a way of capturing or summarizing their view that instead of being defenders of both liberty and virtue as almost all mid-century conservatives, I mean, Bozell was a dissenting voice and he wasn't the only dissenter. But generally speaking, the fusionist view became the consensus position within the conservative movement online.

是的，这和我对博泽尔所说的一样，这些人认为自由妨碍了美德。我的意思是，我认为这是一种概括或总结他们观点的方式，即他们不是像几乎所有中世纪中期的保守派那样同时捍卫自由和美德，博泽尔是一个持不同意见的声音，而且他不是唯一的异议者。但总体来说，融合主义的观点在保守运动中最终成为了共识立场。

A rising, well, it's multiple factions, actually. It's quite diverse. I sort of use the dissident right as the umbrella category in the book because they're all dissenting from that mid-century or that 20th century fusionist consensus. So there's two ways you can dissent. One is you can say liberty is standing in the way of virtue. And so we need to sacrifice. We need to say we're no longer going to...

一个上升的，好吧，实际上它是多个派别。它相当多样。我在书中算是把异议右翼作为一个总括类别，因为他们都在对抗中世纪或 20 世纪的融合主义共识。所以有两种方式可以表示异议。一种是你可以说自由阻碍了美德。因此我们需要牺牲。我们需要说我们不再会...

Prioritize or emphasize liberalism. Instead, we're going to be willing to use the muscular power of the state to orient, forcibly orient society to the common good as we understand it, to help people be virtuous. So Saurabh Amari is another person who articulated this in his famous 2019 essay against David Frenchism. We need to not be so squeamish about using state power, conservatives or Christians, about using state power.

优先或强调自由主义。相反，我们将愿意利用国家的强大力量来引导，强制引导社会走向我们理解的共同利益，帮助人们变得有德行。所以 Saurabh Amari 是另一位在他著名的 2019 年反对大卫·弗伦奇主义的文章中阐明这一点的人。我们不应对使用国家权力感到过于胆怯，无论是保守派还是基督徒，都不应对使用国家权力感到畏惧。

He seems to have kind of pulled back from that.

他似乎有点退缩了。

Yes, I think he has been on his own journey that's taken him to other places as well. But so that's one way to do it.

是的，我认为他一直在自己的旅程中，这个旅程也把他带到了其他地方。但这也是一种做法。

And J.D. Vance, I mean, there's lots of clips of him talking at national conservative conferences or elsewhere where he's like, you know, everybody's saying, oh, if we can elect, you know, conservatives or Republicans, we can finally pull the state back from, you know, stepping on our necks to say you can do this, but not this. And he's like, no, that's wrong.

还有 J.D. 万斯，我是说，有很多他在全国保守主义会议或其他地方发言的视频，他会说，你知道，每个人都在说，哦，如果我们能选举保守派或共和党人，我们终于可以让这个州从踩在我们脖子上说你能做这个，但不能做那个的状态中拉回来。而他则说，不，那是错的。

Which is essentially to say all this philosophizing about liberty and virtue and whether they're mutually reinforcing or not is beside the point. This is all irrelevant. What matters is politics is a war to determine who will wield power against their enemies. And we need to make sure that we are the ones wielding power against our enemies before the left does that to us. They're going to destroy us unless we destroy them first and that we need to be clear-eyed about what's going on here. This is not a high-minded philosophical exercise. This is politics as war and enmity.

本质上就是说，所有关于自由与美德以及它们是否相互促进的哲学思考都是无关紧要的。这一切都无关紧要。重要的是，政治是一场决定谁将对敌人行使权力的战争。我们需要确保在左派对我们这样做之前，我们自己先行行使权力对付我们的敌人。除非我们先摧毁他们，否则他们会摧毁我们，我们需要清醒地认识到这里发生的事情。这不是高尚的哲学练习。这是作为战争和敌对的政治。

And that is a thing that Vance has also articulated that perspective as well.

而且这是范斯也表达过的观点。

And it's interesting because he obviously is Trump's vice president. He, you know, as he came into public view originally, and certainly in Trump's, you know, first run for president in 2016, he was openly opposed to him. But now MAGA... Trumpism kind of is a standard, right? Nobody would pretend that it's even attempting to be philosophically consistent or systematic in its thinking, but it is very much a will to power or the sense of like, I am Donald Trump and whatever I believe is dogma. And you shouldn't question it because I'm going to be pushing that on people.

有趣的是，他显然是特朗普的副总统。你知道的，当他最初出现在公众视野中时，尤其是在特朗普 2016 年第一次竞选总统时，他是公开反对他的。但现在“MAGA”……特朗普主义某种程度上已经成为一种标准，对吧？没有人会假装它甚至试图在哲学上保持一致或系统，但它确实很大程度上是一种权力意志，或者是一种‘我是唐纳德·特朗普，我相信的就是教条，你不应该质疑它，因为我会将其强加给别人’的感觉。

Yeah, so both all the sort of anti-liberal, dissident right, post-liberal, however you want to, whatever terminology you like. One of the things that sort of unites them is that they just think that there should be a more unleashed government, you know, a central executive that can do his own will, isn't constrained by these niceties of institutional constraints, checks and balances, rule of law.

是的，所以所有反自由、持不同政见的右翼、后自由主义者，不管你怎么称呼，不管你喜欢什么术语，其中有一点把他们团结在一起，那就是他们认为应该有一个更为放任的政府，你知道，一个中央行政机构可以按照自己的意愿行事，不受制度上的约束、制衡以及法治的束缚。

You know, J.D. Vance famously, I think infamously at this point, gave a podcast interview a few years ago in which he said, if the Supreme Court tells Donald Trump he can't do something, I think Donald Trump should get up there and say, the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it. That's a way of saying we're just going to we're going to ignore the rulings of the courts. We're going to do what we want.

你知道，J.D. Vance 曾经，也许现在可以说是臭名昭著地，在几年前接受过一次播客采访，他在采访中说，如果最高法院告诉唐纳德·特朗普他不能做某件事，我认为唐纳德·特朗普应该站出来说，首席大法官已经做出了裁决。现在让他去执行吧。这是在说，我们将无视法院的裁决，我们要做我们想做的事。

You talk in the book about how, you know, in a profound way or in a serious way, particularly among kind of like disaffected young men, the appeal of this kind of post-liberal will to power kind of politics is, you know, coming out of a failure of fusionist libertarianism. Maybe that's the wrong phrase to use of kind of giving people a sense of meaning in life, though. So can you work through that a little bit for us?

你在书中谈到过，你知道的，以一种深刻的方式或严肃的方式，特别是在一些有些疏离的年轻男性中，这种后自由意志权力意志政治的吸引力，来自于融合主义自由意志主义的失败。也许用这个词不太准确，指的是给人一种生活意义的感觉。那么，你能为我们详细解释一下吗？

Yeah. I mean, I think we started out talking about how human beings are hungry. Many people are hungry for a sort of comprehensive philosophy that will tell them how to live a good life and what does that even mean. And I think that when I... Try to engage with and grapple with why are so many young people, especially young men, being seduced by these illiberal ideas? And in fact, young people on both the left and the right being seduced by these illiberal ideas, right? But why? Why? What's going on here?

是的。我的意思是，我想我们一开始是在谈论人类的饥渴。很多人渴望一种全面的哲学，能够告诉他们如何过上好生活，这到底意味着什么。我认为，当我……尝试去接触并弄清楚，为何这么多年轻人，尤其是年轻男性，被这些非自由主义的思想所吸引？事实上，左右两边的年轻人都被这些非自由主义的思想所吸引，对吗？但是为什么？为什么会这样？这里到底发生了什么？

Part of what I came to realize is that a lot of young people feel very much adrift in this society. They feel like, especially on the right, they feel like all of the institutions of the culture are hostile to people like me. And they're imposing a sort of very identity-focused worldview on me that I don't agree with and I don't think is reflective of reality.

我逐渐意识到的一部分是，很多年轻人在这个社会中感到非常迷茫。他们觉得，尤其是在右派，他们觉得文化中的所有机构都对像我这样的人抱有敌意。而且他们在向我强加一种非常以身份为中心的世界观，我不同意，也认为这并不反映现实。

And my identity doesn't count.

而我的身份不算数。

50:00

And in as many ways, it's unjust towards people like me. It's hostile to Christians. It's hostile to... If you're a straight white man, forget it. Your job is to sit down and shut up, right? And so they're angry and resentful at that. And they also are despairing at the possibility of finding... They don't even know where to begin to go to build a life of meaning, to find, you know... We're right about the policies, but they're like, forget all this technocratic economic policy stuff, trying to wring a few more percentage points of economic productivity out of the economy.

而且在很多方面，这对像我这样的人是不公正的。它对基督徒充满敌意。对......如果你是个直男白人男性，那就别想了。你的工作就是坐下来闭嘴，对吧？所以他们对此感到愤怒和怨恨。他们也对找到......的可能性感到绝望。他们甚至不知道该从哪里开始建立有意义的生活，去找到，你知道的......我们对政策的看法是对的，但他们就像，忘掉这些技术官僚式的经济政策，试图从经济中挤出更多几个百分点的经济生产力。

I am grappling with these basic existential questions about what is my life going to look like? And you're offering me nothing there. I need more than what you're giving me. And so they're going and looking for answers. And unfortunately, where they're finding answers is in the dark corners of the Internet, where people like Andrew Tate and Bronze Age pervert and Curtis Yarvin are saying. They're being given answers that are satisfying to their egos, but that are wrong and dangerous.

我正在努力应对这些关于我的生活将会是什么样子的基本生存问题。而你在这方面没有给我任何东西。我需要的比你给的更多。所以他们开始去寻找答案。不幸的是，他们找到答案的地方是在互联网的黑暗角落，那些像安德鲁·泰特、青铜时代的变态者和柯蒂斯·雅尔文这样的人正在发表言论。他们得到的答案满足了自我，但却是错误且危险的。

And so I think we need to do a better job of providing an alternative account of what's going on here and of what a good life actually looks like and how to pursue it. Can I, and again, I don't mean this to be...

所以我认为我们需要更好地提供一个关于这里发生了什么的替代解释，以及什么样的生活才是美好生活，以及如何追求它。我可以，而且我再次强调，我并不是想要...

You know, as kind of mean as it might sound. But why then, what is the connection to Catholicism? Because, you know, from Boesel through people like Deneen and Vermeule and J.D. Vance, because Catholicism and Frank Meyer, in a way, you know, it used to be a lot of conservatives would say, you know, conservatism is not a life philosophy. It's an attitude and it doesn't seek to be systematic or comprehensive. You know, the 2000 years old and it has a huge amount of history, good, bad and indifferent, but it's, you know, it's just redolent with intellectualism as well as cultural phenomenon.

你知道，这听起来可能有点刻薄。但那为什么呢，这和天主教有什么联系呢？因为，你知道，从博谢尔到像丹宁、弗美尔和 J.D. 万斯这样的人，因为天主教和弗兰克·迈耶，在某种程度上，你知道，以前很多保守派会说，你知道，保守主义不是一种生活哲学。它是一种态度，并不追求系统性或全面性。你知道，它有两千年的历史，经历了大量的好、坏和平淡，但你知道，它充满了智慧主义的气息，也是一种文化现象。

It's widely adaptive. It's, you know, all over the planet and everything. Why do you think so many people who embrace it then are like, oh, yeah, now we have to get rid of liberalism because that's getting in the way of, you know, making society better?

它适应性很强。你知道的，遍布整个地球和各个地方。你为什么认为那么多接受它的人会说，哦，是的，现在我们必须摆脱自由主义，因为那妨碍了，你知道，改善社会？

I think that although this is a phenomenon, there are a number of people who have converted to Catholicism and then gone off in this post-liberal direction. That the larger thing that's going on is bigger than this, that the broader dissident right involves a whole lot of people. First of all, there's a whole Protestant post-liberal thing going on as well. Mm-hmm. And there's all these figures that I was just naming like a Bronze Age pervert types or basically pagans, you know.

我认为虽然这是一种现象，但确实有一些人转向天主教然后又走上了这种后自由主义的道路。更大的事情正在发生，比这更广泛，整个异见的右翼涉及很多人。首先，也有一整套新教的后自由主义现象。嗯哼。还有我刚才提到的所有这些人物，比如所谓的青铜时代变态类型，或者基本上就是异教徒，你知道的。

And so I think that this is one way in which that resentment and that just desire to lash out and be given permission to use state power against your enemies or go after your enemies. This is one way that it can present is through the sort of Catholic, theocratic, Catholic integralist and especially a more hard-edged version of that. But it's not the only way. It's not the only way we're seeing right now. It's just one that sort of lends itself to it because the history of the church is one of more focus on authority and hierarchy. And so it's I think it's yeah, it lends itself to this.

所以我认为，这是怨恨和那种急于报复、希望获得使用国家权力对付你的敌人的许可的一种表现方式。这种方式可能通过天主教的神权政治、天主教整体主义，特别是其更强硬的版本表现出来。但这不是唯一的方式。我们现在看到的也不只是这一种。这只是其中一种比较适合这种表现的方式，因为教会的历史更多地关注权威和等级制度。所以我认为，是的，它确实适合这种表现。

But there are plenty of like classically liberal Catholics also. There's a whole tradition in this period of the sort of like Michael Novak and Richard Don Newhouse, like much more classically liberal. And Catholicism as well, which is also the one that I'm trying to carry forward. So I think that there's a lot of things going on at once and what you're describing and what you're picking up on isn't, you're not imagining it, but it's definitely, there's a lot more going on than just that.

但是也有很多像经典自由主义的天主教徒。在这个时期有一整套传统，比如迈克尔·诺瓦克和理查德·唐·纽豪斯之类的人，他们更加经典自由主义。而天主教也是如此，这也是我试图传承的。因此，我认为同时发生了很多事情，你所描述的和你所注意到的并不是你想象出来的，但实际上，发生的事情远不止这些。

What are the ways to, you know, one of the things, and it seems to me that you fundamentally agree with the critics of liberalism in the sense of saying, okay, well, yeah, there's a lot of people, you know, and it's not wrong as an observation. There's a lot of people who feel dispossessed or they have no place in society or that things are degenerating. Like there's a lot of talk about kind of devolution or degeneracy.

有什么方式可以，你懂的，一件事情，而且在我看来，你从根本上同意对自由主义的批评，意思是说，好吧，是的，有很多人，你知道，这种观察并不错误。有很多人感到被剥夺了权利或者在社会上没有立足之地，或者认为事情在堕落。像有很多关于某种衰退或堕落的讨论。

In our world today, and people will lump together all sorts of things, including something like, you know, you know, the ubiquitous pornography and declining fertility rates with, you know, people, you know, men in particular doing poorly in school. But do you believe that we're in a period of social decline or societal decline? And, you know, if so, like, how do you seek to address that?

在我们今天的世界里，人们会把各种事情混为一谈，包括像你知道的那种无处不在的色情内容和下降的生育率，还有，比如说，人们，特别是男性在学校表现不佳。但你相信我们正处于社会衰退或社会整体衰落的时期吗？如果是的话，你打算如何应对这种情况？

I struggle with this because I want to acknowledge that there are a bunch of things that are not going great. Statistically speaking, we see evidence of that all around us. But I think the people on both the far left and the far right tend to latch on to these true facts and then use them to justify. First of all, they blow them all out of proportion. They do. It is the end of everything. It is the equivalent of the plane going into the Pentagon or whatever. Yeah, right.

我对此感到挣扎，因为我想承认有很多事情并不顺利。从统计学上讲，我们周围到处都有这种证据。但我认为无论是极左还是极右的人，往往都会抓住这些真实的事实，然后用它们来辩解。首先，他们把这些事实全部夸大。他们确实这样做了。这就是一切的终结。这相当于飞机撞入五角大楼之类的事件。是啊，对的。

Of taking down our society. You're all going to die. And now there's a left-wing version of that too, where it's like if Donald Trump got reelected,

要摧毁我们的社会。你们都会死的。现在也有了左翼版本，就是如果唐纳德·特朗普再次当选时，

And yet we've seen the White House change hands again and again. Like we muddled through Obama. We muddled through Biden. We would have muddled through Hillary Clinton as well. I'm not saying I would have agreed. We would have spent a lot of time at Reason Magazine criticizing almost everything she would have done. But like we would have we would have survived. And we're surviving Trump, too, which is I mean, I think he's really stress testing a lot of our institutions.

然而，我们已经看到白宫一次又一次地易主。就像我们勉强度过了奥巴马时期。我们勉强度过了拜登时期。如果希拉里·克林顿当选，我们也会勉强度过。我不是说我会同意我们会花很多时间在《理性杂志》上批评她几乎做的所有事情。但就像我们会的，我们会生存下来。我们也正在生存于特朗普时期，我的意思是，我认为他确实在极大地考验我们的许多制度。

I'm not happy to be living through this. I agree, especially the second term. Yeah.

我并不高兴经历这一切。我同意，尤其是第二句。是的。

Yes, yes, but there's not gulags, okay? There's not, there's not, he's gotten closer with some of these immigration detentions and all and arrests of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants and whatnot. Again, not happy with what I'm seeing here. But like, I think our institutions are for the most part holding, and I think this idea that if we win, if we lose the next election, it's all over. I mean, it is literally life or death. As libertarians, we think of ourselves as kind of radicals, but I found myself increasingly as the defender of the institutions right now.

是的，是的，但没有古拉格，好吗？没有，没有，他越来越接近一些移民拘留，以及对美国公民和合法移民的逮捕等等。我对我看到的情况再次感到不满。但我认为我们的制度在大多数情况下还是在起作用的，而且我认为这种想法——如果我们赢了，如果我们输掉下一次选举，一切都结束了——我是说，这真的是生死攸关。作为自由意志主义者，我们认为自己有点激进，但我发现自己现在越来越像是制度的捍卫者。

Like, let's be clear-eyed. They're not perfect, but like, this is not a moment to tear it all down. This is actually a moment to be grateful for the things that our founders, again, in this 250th anniversary year, this experiment has done some amazing things for us. And I'm very grateful to live here and not somewhere else.

比如，让我们清醒一点。他们并不完美，但这不是一个彻底否定的时刻。实际上，这是一个应该感激我们创始人的时刻，再次强调，在这个 250 周年纪念年，这个实验为我们做了一些了不起的事情。我非常感激能生活在这里，而不是别的地方。

Do you think, I mean, you know, and again, there are various ways to parse this, and it goes back to this question that we're in a crisis that demands, you know, either if you're a democratic socialist, you know, a complete state takeover of virtually all private property and, you know, that type of thing.

你认为，我的意思是，你知道的，而且，嗯，这件事有各种解析方式，这又回到了这个问题，我们正处于一场危机中，这要求，如果你是民主社会主义者，你知道的，几乎所有私人财产都由国家完全接管，你知道的，类似那样的事情。

60:00

There can be. I mean, there can be. And there could be this idea that, like, as life gets materially better and we kind of get spoiled, we become soft and we become unable to, like, handle even the smallest tribulations in our lives that are nothing compared to what, you know, those who came before us would have endured with a smile on their face. There's probably something there. Host Nick Gillespie interview Frank Meyer, Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, post-liberalism, J.D. Vance, Patrick Deneen, authoritarian politics, and voluntary civil society.

可能会有。我是说，可能会有。而且可能会有这样一个想法：随着生活物质条件的改善，我们有点被宠坏，我们变得柔弱，甚至无法应对生活中最小的磨难，而这些磨难与之前的人们所经历的相比微不足道，那些人们还会带着笑容去承受。这里可能确实有一些道理。主持人尼克·吉莱斯皮采访了弗兰克·迈耶、拉塞尔·柯克、弗里德里希·哈耶克、后自由主义、J.D. 瓦恩斯、帕特里克·德宁、威权政治以及自愿的公民社会。

What are some of the ways in which you say fusionism can really revive the culture in a way that pulls us out of on the right, particularly this kind of neo-reactionary stuff?

你认为融合主义有哪些方式可以真正振兴文化，以一种将我们从右翼特别是这种新反动主义东西中拉出来的方式？

So my book, I should say up front, my book is just sort of opening this conversation and I don't claim to have all the answers and I hope many other people will sort of be part of the solution. Generally speaking, within the fusionist framework, fusionism says liberty and virtue both necessary for human flourishing. Within the governmental sphere, the proper role of the state is to protect our basic rights and liberties. So liberty is the highest value in the political governmental sphere.

所以我的书，我应该先声明一下，我的书只是开启这个对话，我并不声称自己有所有的答案，我希望许多其他人也能成为解决方案的一部分。一般来说，在融合主义框架内，融合主义认为自由和美德对于人类的繁荣都是必要的。在政府领域，国家的适当角色是保护我们的基本权利和自由。因此在政治和政府领域，自由是最高的价值。

But in the vast space outside of the governmental sphere, which should ideally in a healthy society be much larger and encompass almost everything we do day to day, in that non-governmental sphere, the highest value is the pursuit of virtue. And so there are sort of two ways forward if you're saying something has gone wrong in society, how do we solve these problems? One is to work on scaling back government in all the ways that it is getting in the way of doing its one thing, which is protect our basic rights and liberties.

但是在政府领域之外的广阔空间中，在一个健康的社会里，这个空间理想情况下应该更大，并涵盖我们几乎所有的日常活动，在那个非政府领域中，最高的价值是追求美德。因此，如果你说社会出了问题，我们有两种前进的方式来解决这些问题。一种是努力缩减政府在所有妨碍其唯一职责的方面的干预，那就是保护我们的基本权利和自由。

So that's the thing that libertarians spend most of our time talking about, right? And free market conservatives even spend most of their time talking about. We need to be rebuilding. This is a very Yuval Levin thing. We need to be rebuilding civil society institutions. We need to get back into the habit of thinking of ourselves as individuals and members of community as being on the front lines of solving problems instead of assuming there's a problem. Well, I pay my taxes. The government will deal with it. And so that means trying to reinvigorate all the institutions.

所以这就是自由意志主义者大部分时间讨论的事情，对吧？而自由市场保守派甚至也大部分时间在讨论这个。我们需要重建。这是非常尤瓦尔·莱文的观点。我们需要重建民间社会的机构。我们需要重新养成把自己看作个体和社区成员，在解决问题的最前线的人，而不是假设出了问题——我交我的税，政府会处理。所以这意味着要努力振兴所有的机构。

And that's religious institutions. It's charitable institutions. It's market institutions. All the institutions. Yeah, so this is one, here's one where I think you actually see some progress on both, a rare area where there's progress on both. We've seen in the governmental sphere the dramatic expansion of school choice policies across the 50 states, right? That's a way in which government is getting out of the way. Yeah, it's been captured by people with crazy views that I don't agree with, but what are you going to do about it? We're moving away from that.

那就是宗教机构。那就是慈善机构。那就是市场机构。所有的机构。是的，所以这是其中一个，我认为你实际上可以在两方面都看到一些进展，这是一个罕见的两方面都有进展的领域。我们已经在政府领域看到，在 50 个州范围内学区选择政策的显著扩展，对吧？这是政府在让路的一种方式。是的，这些政策已被持有我不同意的极端观点的人所掌控，但你能怎么办呢？我们正在远离那种情况。

Also in the media space is a great one where a lot of people on the right would say like, well, the mainstream media has been captured by the left. And you're not going to hear any argument from me on that. This is true in many ways. But also, because we have a free society with a First Amendment and we have all this amazing technological advancement, there is this robust media ecosystem with literally more... Ways to encounter new voices than we've ever had before as a species.

在媒体领域里，也有一个很棒的现象，很多右派人士会说，比如说，主流媒体已经被左派掌控了。对此你不会从我这里听到任何争论。在很多方面，这确实如此。但同时，因为我们生活在一个拥有言论自由的社会，并且有第一次修正案保护，加上我们拥有所有这些令人惊叹的技术进步，所以出现了一个非常强大的媒体生态系统，我们可以接触到新声音的方式比我们作为一个物种有史以来任何时候都要多。

And many of the most popular podcasters, blogs, the cable news channel with the most viewers are non-leftist sources of information. And so this just shows that markets can solve problems. We don't need to send Brandon Carr at the FCC after our enemies. We don't need to do that. And that is actually in many ways counterproductive. So I think there are examples. There are plenty of...

许多最受欢迎的播客、博客，以及拥有最多观众的有线新闻频道，都是非左翼的信息来源。这表明市场可以解决问题。我们不需要派布兰登·卡尔去联邦通信委员会追杀我们的敌人。我们不需要这样做。事实上，在许多方面，这实际上是适得其反的。所以我认为有一些例子，有很多……

I think that's a great note to add, to end on. I've been talking with Stephanie Slade, Reason senior editor and the author of Fusionism, Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right. Stephanie, thanks for talking to me.

我认为这是一个很好的补充备注，可以作为结束。我一直在和《Reason》的高级编辑、《融合主义、自由、美德以及美国右翼的未来》的作者 Stephanie Slade 交谈。Stephanie，感谢你接受我的采访。

Thank you, Nick. This was great.

谢谢你，尼克。这真是太棒了。