弗兰克·迈耶（Frank S. Meyer, 1909-1972）是美国著名的保守主义思想家、政治活动家、“融合主义”（Fusionism）思想的创始人。他早年曾参加美国共产党，后又转投民主党，最终成为一名保守派，并在1950年代初兴的保守主义运动的思想构建上出力甚多，特别是他第一个主张自由意志派与传统派存在根本上的共识，可以融合为一种思想派别。

迈耶的融合论思想旨在调和保守主义中自由意志主义与传统主义两大思想传统之间的分歧。他认为两派分歧从根本上说是自由与美德之间关系的问题。这二者彼此间虽有一定分歧与张力但实则处于不同的层面，可以和谐共处。在政治和经济层面自由享有优先地位，在道德和哲学层面美德则是最终目的。在哲学与伦理层面上，他认为自由选择是道德行为的必要条件，因而将对美德的追求限制在个人自由的话语中。在政治理论上，他认为传统派对美德和秩序的追求应当采用自由意志主义捍卫个人权利的理论框架。在目标上，迈耶运用反共主义修辞，呼吁保守派认清共同的敌人——以民主党当局与苏联为代表的国内、国外的集体主义者。在历史源流上，迈耶认为两派看似不可调和的原则性矛盾其实是双方在借鉴十九世纪欧洲保守主义与自由主义思想资源时引入的，而就美国本土思想传统而言，自由与美德先天就是融合于一体的。

作为思想流派，融合论并非简单的折中主义，而有其深厚的美国传统与历史根源，实则是对古典自由主义原则的重申。作为行动策略，它也并非出于现实考虑而做出的“权宜之计”，而有效地回应了两派中寻求妥协的声音，吸引了更多的持温和立场的美国民众。这最终帮助里根胜选。但迈耶的成功也是有限度的。他只能调和，而无法消除双方思想不断极致化所形成的张力。当保守派取得阶段性胜利后，两派联合的需要又一次消失，分裂冲动重现。因此，两派在思想上的融合是有限的，在实践中的联合是暂时的。

总之，对迈耶融合派思想的考察揭示了美国保守主义思想内部的复杂纠葛、历史渊源与共同底线，也体现了一种隐蔽的聚合动力，与保守主义内部差异化、极致化的分裂张力相伴共生，反映了保守主义同源性与多元性、分裂性和聚合性并存的特性。

Frank S. Meyer (1909-1972) is a famous American conservative thinker and political activist and the founder of the fusionist conservativism. He joined the Communist Party of America in his early years, then joined to the Democratic Party, and finally became a conservative. He contributed a lot to the ideological theory of the conservative movement in the early 1950s. In particular, he was the first to argue that there is a fundamental commonality between libertarians and traditionalists, which can be merged into a same kind of thought and political faction.

Meyer's fusionism theory aims to reconcile the differences between libertarian and traditionalist intellectual traditions. On the relationship between freedom and virtue, he thinks that although there were some differences and tensions between them, they are actually at different levels and can coexist. Freedom enjoys priority in politics and economy, and virtue is the ultimate goal in morality and philosophy. On the philosophical and ethical level, he thinks that free choice is a necessary condition for moral behavior, so he limits the desire of pursuit virtue to the discourse of individual freedom. In political theory, he thinks that traditionalists should adopt the political theoretical framework of libertarian about defending individual rights in their desire of pursuing virtue and order. On the goal, Meyer used the anti-communist rhetoric and try to persuade conservatives to recognize their real enemies--domestic and foreign collectivists represented by the Democratic authorities and the Soviet Union respectively. In the historiography of conservatism, Meyer thinks that the seemingly irreconcilable principled contradiction between libertarians and traditionalists was actually a misunderstand when European tradition of conservatism and liberalism in the 19th century were introduced by them. As far as the native American intellectual traditions are concerned, freedom and virtue are inherently integrated.

As a school of thought, fusionism is not a simple eclecticism, but an heir of profound American tradition and historical roots. In fact, it is a reaffirmation of the principle of classical liberalism. As an action strategy, it is not an "expedient measure" made out of real political considerations, but effectively responds to the voices from the two factions seeking compromise and attracting American people with moderate positions. All of these eventually helped Ronald Reagan win the president election. But Meyer's success is limited. He could only reconcile, but cannot eliminate the tension caused by the continuous development and polarization of both sides' thoughts. When the conservatives won the temporal political victory, the need for the two factions to unite disappeared again, and the split impulse reappeared. Therefore, the ideological integration of the two schools is limited, and the union in practice is temporary.

In a word, the study of Meyer's fusionism reveals the complex entanglements, historical origins and the bottom line of consensus of American conservatism, and it also reflects a hidden polymerized dynamic, which coexists with the tension of internal differentiation and the polarization of conservatism, reflecting its coexistent characteristic of homology, pluralism, divisiveness and polymerization.