Talk:Right-wing politics

Did the Republican party ever support the upper class?

The Right in America was not ashamed of its support for the upper-class, until relatively recent times.

For example, Clinton Rossiter, in his American Heritage article, "The Giants Of American Conservatism", wrote: "The Right of these freewheeling decades was a genuine Right: it was led by the rich and well-placed; it was skeptical of popular government; it was opposed to all parties, unions, leagues, or other movements that sought to invade its positions of power and profit; it was politically, socially, and culturally anti-radical."

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And? I would note the propensity of agricultuaral areas to support the Republicans to quite effectively refute any such nice oversimplifications. And the Republicans in opposing slavery were decidedly "radical". Collect (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect: You said "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country." They did, as this example shows. You reply with an example to show that Republicans did not always back the elete, and seem to think that supports your earlier view. It doesn't. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Your quote does not say "Republican Party" as far as I can tell. Nor does it say the entire Republican Party was a monolith with regard to how it regarded "elites." Can you provide a cite which backs your claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Federalist/Whig/Republican Party was never monolithic and always contained anti-elitist elements. Nonetheless they have always been supported by and controlled by the elites. Even Lincoln drew support from the elites and failed to obtain the support of disadvantaged voters. TFD (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird catenation not supported by any reliable source = of little value here. Are you saying, moreover, that if any member of a party is "elite" that therefore you can assert that the party favoured "elites"? I suggest that is an absurd position, and one which I can find no source backing. Even unreliable ones. Collect (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You may read Seymour Martin Lipset's "Elections: The Expression of the Democratic Class Struggle".[1] Previously you have provided Lipset's essay "Fascism - Left, Right and Centre" as rs. Both articles are taken from the same book, Political Man. TFD (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

IIRC you argued against Lipset on that article being used. You appear here, however, not to refer to Lipset's words but to Robert MacIver's opinions. Cite Lipset's words from page 414 - that is "Such terms ... have been defined on the basis of many different issues -- political democracy versus monarchy, the free market system versus traditional economic restrictions, secularism versus clericalism, agrarian reform versus landlordism and urban exploitation of the countryside, social reform versus laissez faire, socialism versus capitalism." Far different from the simplistic view you appear to favour. By the way, I suspect the winning parties in the recent Egyptian elections are "right wing" and specifically draw most of their support from "poorer classes". Care to explain this phenomenon using your claimed position? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The coalition that was elected is composed of religious, socialist and social liberal parties. As Lipset explained, religious and regional cleavages may provide dimensions to party politics beyond the traditional class-based left-right divide. And as he also pointed out, right-wing parties have been able to attract some lower class support. In fact where they have been unable to do so, they have disppeared when suffrage has been extended. TFD (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In short - you misstated Lipset's position. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you have misunderstood what Lipset wrote. You asked me to present a source. I did. TFD (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect: This is an article about right-wing politics. The topic under discussion is whether the adjective Right-wing is used to describe those who support the upper class elite. In arguing against the idea that "right-wing" is still used to describe those who support the upper class elite, you say "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country." I offer a counterexample, and your response is that the quote only uses the words "the Right" and that the title of the article only uses the word "Conservative", and so the quote does not show anything about the Republican party. If the Republican party is not conservative, and not right-wing, why did you bring it up in this discussion in this article? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In each case I have responded to the fairly erroneous claims made. Your assertion that "Republican" is identical to "Conservative" is identical to "right wing" is sufficiently absurd as to warrant no added comment. The title of this section was, in fact, selected by you. Collect (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, he did not say that. Incidentally Collect, you need to distinguish between sources presented by editors and what their personal views are. TFD (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Essentially he did. And he was the one who named this section. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Collect, the Republican party has been liberal in some eras and conservative in others. Right-wing views are similar to conservative views -- the words are often used interchangably -- but if they were identical, we wouldn't need two articles. My comment about titles refers, clearly, to the title of the article, not to the title of this thread on the talk page. And, yes, it may be time to declare a victory and bring the troops home. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well - you just accused me of inserting "Republican" into this discussion when it is clear precisely who did so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1) I did not "accuse" Collect of anything. 2) I did not say Collect "inserted" Republican into this discussion. 3) I said that Collect wrote "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country." He did. It's so much easier to argue when you make up things and pretend other people said them. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Read

you say "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country." I offer a counterexample, and your response is that the quote only uses the words "the Right" and that the title of the article only uses the word "Conservative", and so the quote does not show anything about the Republican party. If the Republican party is not conservative, and not right-wing, why did you bring it up in this discussion in this article?

Rather seems to imply that you asked why I brought up the topic. In fact, that is exactly what you asserted in clear English. At least I did not pretend that you wrote what you wrote in clear English! LOL! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you would be a more respected editor if you did not split hairs in attempts to show that you are right, in cases where you are clearly wrong. To say that you didn't "bring it up" you just said it is splitting hairs. You still said it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh? I would suggest the person who brought up the word "Republican" was, in fact, the person who set up the title for this section. I daresay no one could call that "splitting hairs" in any good faith. [2] Guess who set up the section title, Rich? Collect (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The topic of this section, which has gone on much too long, is whether your statement, "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country," is or is not correct. So, yes, you are still splitting hairs. Please address the question of whether your statement is or is not correct, or retract it, or keep silent. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My point, which was clear and in response to claims made, stands. Your claim that I in some way introduced "Republican" into this section is shown to be errant. I decline to go around Robin Hood's Barn with you further. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, just accept you were mistaken and move on. TFD (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously suggesting here that upper class, elite and the rich are all the same thing? - BorisG (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The word "elite" is defeined as "a superior group" (Merriam-Webster). Clearly, the upper class are superior in class and the rich are superior in wealth. The Tea Party uses the word "elite" in a rather different way. When they say "the elite" they seem to mean "people who think they're better than me". Sometimes this means "college educated", sometimes it means "Washington politicians". When the Tea Party uses the word, it is always used in a negative sense, while the more common usage is frequently positive -- an elite university, an elite country club. Even in the Tea Party usage, most people who are considered elite are also rich and upper-class, but in the Tea Party usage the elite are limited to rich, upper-class people who are not members of the Tea Party. Or so it seems to me. What is your understanding of the term? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK (and many other places), "upper class" refers to traditional aristocracy, while people whose wealth derives from trade are referred to as "upper middle class". Hence, the US, Canada and Australia would not have an upper class, although Americans call the upper middle class upper class, particularly when they are part of the elite. Some rich people, particularly nouveau riches, especially when they live outside major centers of the elite, such as London and New York, may not be part of the elite. Hence eccentric billionaires bankroll the Tea Party, the John Birch Society and UKIP. In any case, it is not what we are suggesting, but what sources, such as books written by Rossiter and Lipset, say. TFD (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Largely agree with TFD. These terms have (somewhat) different meanings. You are correct also about the use of sources. My suggesting refer to situations where quotes about upper class are used to back up edits about elite. We need to be careful about terminology. As for the tea party, I think we all understand what the elite means. Yes, it is Washington elite, people educated in elite universities and their academics, and elite media (NYT, WP, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS); also civil service. All these 'old boys' networks. Tea party's understanding of it is similar to everyone else's. It is negative simply because the Tea party are anti-elite. - BorisG (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the Tea Party Right-Wing?

Because it is obviously populist and anti-elitist.

But I thought right wing meant pro-elitist!

Even though Goldman Sachs gave much more money to Obama than to John McCain in 2008. Is Obama really right wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Party describe themselves as right wing and so does everybody else I am aware of. They come from the right and they continue its traditions, albeit with some odd twists. I don't see anybody arguing that they are not right-wing. We could hardly state otherwise without sources. I fear you are dangling a red herring in front of our noses.

They undoubtedly use anti-elitist rhetoric however that does not make them objectively anti-elitist. It is not for Wikipedia to judge their sincerity however there are enough precedents for movements that use anti-elitist rhetoric turning out to be deeply elitist once they gain power, either replacing one elite with another more to their liking, or simply continuing the status-quo once it is no longer politically advantageous to attack it, that we can't describe parties solely in their chosen terminology. For somebody who is cynical of the Tea Party they could be perceived as the very model of an elitist organisation. For others, presumably such as yourself, they will seem to be the exact opposite. Either way, that doesn't help us.

I am certainly not suggesting that we should treat the Tea Party with more cynicism than other political movements. All I am is pointing out is that political history is full of organisations that turned not to be what they said they were and that we should not be taking any political organisation's self-descriptions at face value if they are widely contested. Let us not forget that North Korea effectively has a hereditary monarchy that still calls itself Communist. (Now there is a real dilemma for those having trouble describing things as left or right wing ;-) ) We should report how organisation's describe themselves and also report how they are perceived externally, particularly by those doing their best to be rigorous and impartial, i.e. academics. That is how we get the whole picture. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what changes you wish to make to the article and provide sources. This is not a discussion forum for the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here (and in many other articles in Wikipedia) is an attempt to change the meaning of words. The elite historically are the upper class. And the main thrust of the tea-party is tax cuts for the upper class. Tea-party memebers are, overwhelmingly, older, financially well-off, white people, in short members of the privileged class. (Please note, and this is a mistake several people have made on this Talk page, this is not the same as saying most old, financially well-off white people are tea-party members.) The Tea Party describe themselves as a "grass roots" movement. Others describe them as "astorturf". When the Tea Party uses the word "elite" the meaning is hard to determine, but it seems to mean "rich people who are not members of the Tea Party". By their definition, I doubt very much that they would consider Rupurt Murdoch part of "the elite", though he certainly is elite in the standard meaning of the word. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Party is against the Washington elite; not only against the left and the Democrats, but also against the Republican establishment. Indeed, in the last mid-term election in a number of states, Tea Party candidates stood against established GOP candidates, and in some cases unseated them. The word 'elite' has many meanings and I won't attempt to define it here. They are not of course against every member of the elite, just like Bolshviks were not against every single member of the upper class. They are not against the rich, they are against the Washington establishment and big government. I am sorry I don't currently have time to provide sources, but hopefully will find the time later. Overall, this is a complex and controversial subject, and, as with any controversial subject, we should refrain from stating opinions as facts and presenting them in Wikipedia's voice, unless there is a demonstrable and overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. It is much better to attribute every such statement to specific sources. - BorisG (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree about the need for sources. The trouble with that is that, according to the Tea Party, any source that does not agree with them is tainted by left-wing bias. To say that the Tea Party opposes "the elite" and to define "the elite" as the Washington power structure, only says that people who are out of power oppose those who are in power. That doesn't distinguish the Tea Party from any other movement. The question is what the Tea Party would do if they became the power structure. Experience suggests they would then hold onto power by the same means that other movements have held onto power.

What do the media mean when they call the Tea Party right-wing? It may be just a knee-jerk label for anyone who runs on the Republican ticket. But I do note that most Tea Party members are old, white, and well-off. They say they are for "small government" but many oppose cuts to defense and favor "big government" laws to protect them against "foreigners", in which they often include Black Americans, Moslem Americans, and Hispanic Americans. They say the are for "tax cuts", but many opposed Obama's extension of the working class tax cuts. In short, as TFD points out, there is a large disconnect between their rhetoric and the programs they vote for and against. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No. It is common for an 'opposition party' to condemn the rival (governing) party, but not the entire establishment, including their own party. Mitt Romney is not in power either but he does not play the anti-elitist card. There is an obvious discontent in middle America about cosy Beltway politics of both parties, and this discontent is manifested in, and/or exploited by, protest movements like The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Both are anti-establishment movements. - BorisG (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not read any articles explaining why the Tea Party is considered right-wing, although sources place them in the tradition of right-wing populism or the American radical right. See for example The radical right or The politics of unreason: right wing extremism in America, 1790-1970 for an explanaqtion of the placement on the left-right spectrum for the radical right. These groups are considered right-wing because they support existing power structures and oppose socialists, etc., who would overthrow them. Ultimately they usually support the traditional Right (e.g., the Republican Party), and marxist and progressive historiography saw them as merely fronts for the traditional Right. Lipset, in his article "Fascism - Left, Right and Center", once claimed that they were part of the political center, because they were essentially middle class and described them as "liberalism gone sour". Nonetheless, as explained the only definition of the Right is opposition to the Left, so finding examples of where the Right acts atypically does not challenge that. TFD (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing.

People are acting like saying right-wing politics involves support for heirarchy, is pejorative. That fact is support for heirarchy is still essential to many right-wing movements involving American libertarians and conservatives. You really think that the Republican party and the Tea party are anti-hierarchy? Of course not. They all believe that social classes are nessecary and that people must work their way up them if they want to be successful and rail against attempts to redistribution wealth and such. Gary Hull of the Ayn Rand Institute even states; "Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything." LittleJerry (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of the above is unreadable. And the quote from Gary Hall does not express support for a hierarchy or social clases. They believe in inequality based on talent and hard work, not hereditary classes, Ivy Leage fratenrnities or old boys netowrks. At least in theory. - BorisG (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And since when does supporting hierarchy mean only supporting these things? LittleJerry (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting inequality and hierarchy are the same thing? I am not sure there is any political movement that is against inqequality based on talent and hard work. Not even socialists. Maybe Khmer Rouge. And please revise your first sentence, it is very confusing. Maybe also your section heading. - BorisG (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberalism is generally considered to be the Center. (See for example Lipset's essay on Fascism mentioned above.) Their position on hierarchy may not be belief in fraternities but then they are not as hostile as Communists would be. Notice that Rand and is listed as one of the liberal thinkers on the International's website.[3] So is Sowell btw. I suppose the problem is how much of the Center one decides to include in the Right. TFD (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD, this is a good comment. However for reasons that are hard to determine, in politics economic liberals often blend with social conservatives, putting them squarely on the right (e.g., The Tea Party). I say 'in politics' because among thinkers, people who are both economic and social liberals are not uncommon, although one or the other may still dominate. - BorisG (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

he reason is that they united in opposition to the Left. (Incidentally, at my first university, if students joined fraternities, they would be expelled.) TFD (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is, conservatives in America believe that most people at the top of the social ladder deserve their position while leftists believe that any difference in talents should not translate into heirarchal power. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either of these two assertions is accurate. - BorisG (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Them you don't know much about American conservatism. LittleJerry (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm removing the part about social conservatism and a hawkish foreign policy because it seems they were added without regard to whether the sources (1-6) support them. LittleJerry (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The political term "Right-Wing" originated in France during the French Revolution (the terms "Right" and "Left" have a deeper metaphysical meaning [if you trace the etymology] but it is best to keep things simple for the hard of understanding]) and it meant those who sought to preserve the institutions of the Ancien Regime i.e. the [hierachical] feudal system. Right-Wing has now migrated to mean what conservative means in the Anglosphere (i.e. a conservative form of pro-modernity i.e. post 1688 reformism which is pro-capitalist, pro-pluralist, and pro-nationalist but anti-socialist, anti-Statist, and anti-internationalist e.g. EU and UN). It was objected that this latter meaning is much more widespread (particularly in English speaking countries) than the earlier "throne and altar" [hierachical] meaning of Right-Wing, and that this should be reflected in the entry. This was the reason for the change.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)).

Actually the term right-wing as a reference to political ideology originated in the early 20th century. (See Michel Gauchet, "Left and Right".) They entered the English language in 1906, when the "left-wing" Labour Party became a major force. But the widespread use of the term right-wing in the U.K. probably only goes back to the Thatcher era, and certainly was never used in 1688. TFD (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The political term "Right-Wing" originated in France during the French Revolution. It was not used much in the Anglosphere until the C20th. France is a country in Europe. They speak French. The French term (which was translated into English as "Right Wing") was not much used in England until the C20th. When it began to be used in England, it was not only used in the sense of those who wished to return us to the [hierarchical] values and institutions of the Middle Ages (the earlier French meaning) it also was also applied to those who supported the values of the British Conservative Party. British "Conservatism" (since Burke) sought to preserve (to conserve) the political changes that had taken place in the 1688 revolution. These changes included limiting the power of the monarch, and upholding various liberties such as religious toleration, property rights, and freedom of speech. This conservative tradition was a different political tradition from the French conservative political tradition. The political epithet "Right-Wing" therefore took on an additional meaning in the United Kingdom. It meant the sort of views you expect to find advocated by supporters of the Conservative Party. Margaret Thatcher was a Conservative Party Prime Minister.

As for the USA. I saw a video (on You Tube) the other day where a Republican supporter espousing very similar values (indeed I seem to recall in another videos he explicitly mentions his agreement with the values of Margaret Thatcher) to the British Conservative Party describes himself as "Right-Wing". It therefore seems that "Right-Wing" has much the same meaning in the USA as it has in the UK - namely free market, small State, social conservative.

Here is the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x-oS4WLui3Q

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the point? The first sentence does not say "right-wing" means anti-free speech, anti-religious liberties, ect. Just that it supports or accepts a hierarchical social order. It can be aristocracy or capitalism. LittleJerry (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You got your history mixed up. In the Estates General, the supporters of the King sat on the right, but the idea that the term right-wing referred to a specific ideology or group of ideologies originated in the 20th century. I provided a source for that. And no English people rarely used the term right-wing to describe themselves, only to describe foreigners. What are your sources for the use of the term right-wing? TFD (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Source [1] states this. LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I supplied the original definition of "Right Wing" on Wikipedia, so of course ("Little Jerry") I understand your point that a hierarchical social order justified by an appeal to natural law DOES NOT in itself imply support for the hierarchical feudal order of the "Ancien Regime". As an American a [hierarchical] feudal conception of "natural law" is so alien to you, that you automatically supply a meritocratic interpretation of "hierarchical order". Indeed a meritocratic vision of society, which seeks to promote freedom (from the State) is what people generally mean these days when they use the phrase "Right-Wing".

It was pointed out to me however that this current meaning (which is not its original meaning) should be brought out much more clearly i.e. that when a Republican President in the USA (for example) is described as Right-Wing it means the PRECISE OPPOSITE of somebody who is a monarchist who believes (via an appeal to natural law) that ideally there should be a hierarchical feudal social order sustained by an appeal to inherited social privileges. To spell it out. When that epithet is used it means somebody who is seeking to decrease the power of the State, and INCREASE the freedom of individuals (whatever their birth) to make their own choices. It means ENDORSING free markets not opposing them.

Of course (as you point out) it is possible to interpret "social order justified by an appeal to natural law" in this way, but given that this sentence has these precisely opposite meanings, it was suggested that this divergence in interpretation should be spelt out much more clearly, at the very beginning of the article. By returning it to its original wording (my original wording I should say - although I did not supply the crappy Lefty references [if it is a crappy Leftist secondary source these are generally supplied by The Four Deuces -]) you are not (as you seem to think) improving the article, you are simply returning it back to the ambiguity which led to the article being modified (not by me) in order that it may articulate (much more clearly) the contrasting contemporary meanings of the phrase "Right-Wing".

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, I only supply sources that are published by neutral academic publishers. I pay no attention to whether writers are left or right, but whether the publishers are reliable. Facts are neither left nor right, only opinions are. TFD (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit War

LittleGerry and ERIDU-DREAMING, you are involved in an edit war. Please stop now. If you don't, both will be reported and sanctioned. - BorisG (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to discuss this here. I got it. Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, User Danger High Voltage has already told me off.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Theory of Two Truths

In the Reanissance, science and the Roman Catholic Church came into conflict, and so philosophers, to save themselves from being burned at the stake, developed the theory of two truths. There was one lesser scientific truth (the earth went around the sun) and there was a higher religious truth (the sun went around the earth).

In this article, we seem to have a modern theory of two truths. There is one scientific truth (right-wing politics favors the upper class) and a higher conservative truth (right-wing politics favors freedom). Since the conservative truth is the higher truth, and nobody could possibly honestly believe that the Right favors the upper class, any book that says the Right favors the upper class is guilty of left-wing bias and should be disallowed.

In short, to argue the point with people who believe in the conservative gospel is as futile as trying to argue with a devout Catholic in 1543 about whether the earth goes around the sun.

However, Wikipedia favors academic authors (the lame-stream elite who actually know something about their subject matter, which automatically disqualifies them from having a non-biased opinion). I suggest people who reject acadmic authors who disagree with them might be happier editing Conservapedia.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

An essay for userspace - but of no value on this talk page other than to assert that you know the truth. Cheers - but I find it non-utile here other than as an essay. Collect (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of my "essay" to the editing of this article is that the article needs to state accurately what right-wing means. According to many standard reference works, and virtually all academic writing, right-wing means support for an authoritarian ruler, an established church, and a rigid class structure. I am trying to understand why we have editors who claim it means the exact opposite. Maybe you can clear things up for me, Collect, if you would explain who decided to adopt a phrase with one meaning and give it the opposite meaning, and when they did this, and why. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And other good sources do not so state, and, in fact, many state that the use of a linear political spectrum has major problems intrinsically, including the fact that it is not the same for all countries and all eras at all. The strawman argument accusing me of assigning any term an "opposite meaning" is of zero value, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

1) Everyone I know agrees that a linear political spectrum has major problems. What has that to do with the subject of this discussion? 2) I didn't accuse you of anything. It was ERIDU-DREAMING who claimed that right-wing means favoring freedom. 3) You didn't answer my question? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you accept the problems with the linear spectrum, you must clearly understand that any simple definition of a group is also problematic, and asserting further that the group "favours the upper class" is not going to fly as any sort of absolute claim at all. Even when claimed to be "scientific truth." Nor that a group always "favours freedom." Collect (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A classic example of why you should not contribute to any political article on Wikipedia Rick Norwood. Ignorance and bigotry from start to finish!

First off "Scholars have yet to discover anyone in the Middle Ages who subscribed to the 'doctrine of the double truth' (Grant 1996 pp.76-78), even though Bishop Tempier makes that claim. It seems that "The bishop and his theological advisors were upset by the boldness with which the natural philosophers were using reason to analyse all sorts of questions. The natural philosophers seem to have set no limits to their spirit of inquiry." (Grant 2004 pp.183-4)

Secondly, it was a couple of hundred later before Copernicus was even born, never mind the heliocentric account was being attacked by the Catholic Church. What was at issue in 1277 was whether or not Aristotle should be used as an authority, given that some of his claims (such as the eternity of the universe) conflicted with the Bible.

Thirdly, it is not a "scientific fact" that the "Right" are opposed to freedom, are opposed to free markets, are opposed to reducing the size of government. It is no more a "scientific fact" than the claim that they are opposed to property rights, low taxation, and freedom of speech.

If you pick the most Right-Wing Republican Presidental candidate in the USA (the only country you seem to know anything about) in recent times, Barry Goldwater, tell me the place where he opposes social mobility, tell me the place where he attacks the free market, tell me the place where he rejects freedom of religion.

Fourthly, I do not know what university you teach at, but if you seriously believe that everything that is written by an academic, and published by an academic press, is ipso facto true, you ought to be stripped of your tenure.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)).

Collect: Words have meaning. Meaning is defined by dictionaries and other reference books. Like left and right, tall and short are not absolutes, but if a tall people's club announces that from now on, short means tall, there is a problem. If it is impossible to assign any meaning to "right-wing", the article should say so. If it is possible, the article should say what that meaning is. If the meaning has changed, the article should say when and why.

ERIDU-DREAMING: 1) Insults do not advance arguments, 2) I could cite references for the Theory of Two Truths, but it would take us far afield. The point is that conservatives seem to hold a Theory of Two Truths and reject standard sources. They often indulge in circular reasoning, which takes the form: this book supports my cause, therefore my cause is right, and the book is correct because it supports my cause. That book opposes my cause, therefore it is wrong, because everybody who disagrees with me is wrong. Such arguments do not advance the discussion. 3) The question at hand is not one of "scientific fact" but of the meaning of words. From the time of the French revolution, right-wing was used to describe people who supported authoritarian rule. Why now choose it as a way to describe anti-authoritarian rule? Who made that choice, when, and why? 4) The conservatism of Barry Goldwater, a man I respected even when I disagreed with him, is a far cry from modern Conservatism. Goldwater was called "right-wing" primarily for his anti-communism, not for his religious or social views. Come to think of it, this may be at least the beginning of the answer to my question. Hitler was called "right-wing" because of his authoritarian views. Hitler was strongly anti-communist. The phrase may have been transferred to all anti-communists in an effort to tar them with the Hitler brush. Then, to attack social conservatives, they were called right-wing, and they embraced the term, just as the Know-Nothing Party embraced their name, which began as an insult. 4) Once again, insults do not advance arguments. Neither does black-and-white thinking. Your comment suggests that if academics are not always right, they have no value at all. Wikipedia policy says otherwise. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The term never had a single unambiguous meaning after it was first applied to French seating arrangements. It is nonsensical to equate the problems of the "linear political spectrum" with the simplistic "short" and "tall." And is not just a "change" in meaning - the term means vastly different things in different countries and at different times. And, yes, in many cases the various meanings are antithetical to each other. Cheers - but please calm down before making really strange equivalences in arguemnts! Collect (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Klaus von Beyme observed that most political parties could be arranged along a left-right spectrum: communist, socialist, ecological, liberal, christian democrat, conservative and "extreme right" (i.e., neofascist, rw nationalist and rw populist). This was based on how both the individual groups and the public saw the relative positions. I am well aware that linear regression analysis of the policies of these groups would not provide a straight line, because there are qualitative differences between each group and a range of attitudes within each one, which changes over time. If, Collect, you have evidence that Von Beyme's postiioning has been debunked, then please provide it. TFD (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And the multitiude who find the "linear spectrum" too simplistic, inapplicable, and not easily used in different countries and different eras? Thay are chopped liver because you know that the term has precisely one eternal and exact meaning that you know to be the WP:TRUTH? Hubris, anyone? BTW, I do not recall that von Jeyme is a political science example of omniscience and infallibility -- and all the rest who see the issue as complex (including Rich Norwood above) are examples of absolute errancy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Even writers who add a second or even nth dimensions to the spectrum do so in addition to the left-right axis. In any case, you should write to the European Parliament and its member parties and tell them they got their seating all wrong and straighten 'em out. TFD (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Seems to me that the Nolan system (one of many proposed) specifically decries "left" and "right" in favor of orthogonal principles. As for seating arrangements - for a long time the Democrats in Congress were on the right sometimes, and on the left other times. Labour in the UK has been on the right, andon the left. And you think the European seating arrangements are how to categorize partis? Odd. Collect (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In case you were unaware, the origin of the terms "left" and "right" derive from the French assembly of 1789, when supporters of the king sat on the right and his opponents on the left. The British Parliament and American Congress pre-date 1789 and never adopted their seating arrangement. The Nolan Chart also has a left-right axis.[4] TFD (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- are you seriously trying to pretend I do not know the origin? Sorry - talking down to editors is quite inane. And the "seating chart" is not a valid system for categorizing modern parties. Even for the EU. Really. Collect (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Members of the European Parliament sit in political groups – they are not organised by nationality, but by political affiliation. There are currently 7 political groups in the European Parliament.... The places assigned to Members in the Chamber are decided by political affiliation, from left to right, by agreement with the group chairmen." (European Parliament website)[5] TFD (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the Actual Thing

Left wing movements, such as communism, can be said to the most pro-elitist and hierarchical. The Soviet Union had much more hierarchy than the United States. The members of the political class had all the power and wealth, and had full say over who joined their ranks. The rich in America do not have such an advantage.

The definition of the word right wing has changed. It used to mean in favor of hierarchy. Today, in the strictest sense, it refers to positions supporting less government involvement in the economy, which often leads to more social mobility and more equality. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions but please stop inserting unreferenced material into the article. This risks becoming disruptive.

Also, please take care not to double the size of the article when editing. I am sure that wasn't intentional but it makes it very hard keep track of what is going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed your completely POV edits. Contrasting the USSR and rich people in the US is about as fair as contasting right-wing dictators and American civil rights activists. The ultimate goal of the USSR was to create an egalitarian society. Also hardcore leftists do not believe in social mobility because they don't believe that there should even be a social ladder in the first place. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was contrasting the government of the USSR with the government of the United States. Why was the bias tag removed in the first place? It is abundantly clear that the article, as originally written, is leftist and anti-right wing. My remarks just leveled the playing field. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia, Falconclaw5000, you need sources, not opinions. Also, you will probably be more successful with small edits than with large edits. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And why should the Manifesto be used as a source? It is reliable for the views of that particular conservative group but not as a general defintion for right-wing. LittleJerry (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

New Edits

The edits made by me are supported by the second source, which discussed the Conservative Manifesto. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are placing too much emphasis on Sowell's work, which is not part of his academic writing. Also, the "Conservative Manifesto" was not called that. The name was chosen retrospectively by a "left-wing" writer in 1965. TFD (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Who cares that the Conservative Manifesto wasn't called that at the time? It was still a right-wing manifesto. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

After giving up on his claim that to be on the Right is to be a Fascist (and in good Stalinist fashion attempting to silence any opposing view by making false accusations, deleting my contributions, and then trying to get me banned) THE FOUR DEUCES is now refusing to accept that Right-Wing has the contemporary meaning [in addition to its earlier meaning] of somebody who is a free market/small State conservative.

Since this usage is obvious to anybody who knows anything about contemporary politics (as has been pointed out to him several times) THE FOUR DEUCES either has little knowledge of the topic of Right-Wing politics [which is a possibility given some of his absurd and inaccurate assertions about the topic] or he is determined to subvert the article for his own political ends. In either case his contributions to this particular article decrease rather increase its quality.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, the epithet "Right-Wing" is still sometimes used in its earlier meaning i.e. the later meaning has not replaced but supplemented the earlier meaning. This is why your changes are not quite correct. The Thomas Sowell reference is very relevant. It brings out the fact that there is more than one meaning. I liked your William F. Buckley Jr quotation, but as you can see it is best not to put anything too positive about the Right in this article otherwise the Left will not like it. You just have to settle for deleting "The Right eat babies for breakfast" by trying to make the article as politically neutral as possible i.e. "The Right [it is claimed] eat babies for breakfast, but this is disputed".

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a good edit to this article could be made on the subject of when, and why, and how the meaning of right-wing has changed, at various times and in various countries. Such an edit would, of course, have to be sourced, not original research, but there must be sources out there. It is true that some Libertarians (right-Libertarians?) now use right-wing in the sense that ERIDU_DREAMING uses it, and the article should say that, and does. I think most "right-Libertarians" are in the US, so it should not be asserted that this is an international usage. But a much more common usage of "right-wing" is to mean "anti-communist", and anti-communist movements have often been as authoritarian as their communist counterparts. The second most common usage of right-wing, at least in the US, is Fundamentalist Christian, and Christian fundamentalism is often highly authoritarian. In the European press I hear right-wing most often used to mean anti-immigrant, and most politicians who run on an anti-immigrant ticket are highly authoritarian. Right-wing is also used to mean anti-union. That's more of a mixed bag, as both unions and union-busters have used thugs to get their way. The use of right-wing to describe right-Libertarians is a minor use. Ron Paul, the most visible Libertarian, has only minority support from the Republican Party, and is often attacked by the American Right. Google "Ron Paul right wing" and you will find more articles about the Right attacking Ron Paul than you will articles describing Ron Paul as right-wing. In fact, given that right-wing is almost always used in a derogitory sense, I do not understand your eagerness, ERIDU-DREAMING, to have it apply to Libertarianism. It is tempting, and I think justified, to revert edits that are strongly POV, but I will at least try to move forward instead of back. Whether or not this is possible will depend on how strongly editors push minority viewpoints, but reverting to the last stable version is always an option if the unsourced opinions continue. A note on the use of sources: "right-wing" and "conservative" are similar but not identical. One difference is that people favoring small government are called "conservative" much more often than they are called "right-wing". The use of "right-wing" to mean "Republican" is only used to describe the United States Republican Party, not Republicanism generally. In any case, it is a neologism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"I think a good edit to this article could be made on the subject of when, and why, and how the meaning of right-wing has changed"

I agree. The trouble is that every time somebody makes this attempt you, and my old friend THE FOUR DEUCES, reverse it, claiming that it was not been "properly" discussed on the talk pages or "Right-Wing" has nothing to do with any defence of freedom! Your changes to the article however (such as your latest) usually go unchallenged by the Leftist THE FOUR DEUCES. Funny that.

"Such an edit would, of course, have to be sourced, not original research" Fair enough. But I notice that when people use sources you do not like (such as Buckley) you delete them pretty quickly! If on the other hand THE FOUR DEUCES uses some Marxist or ex-Marxist source who says that people on the Right like to dismember children and feed them to their dogs......

"It is true that some Libertarians (right-Libertarians?) now use right-wing in the sense that ERIDU-DREAMING uses it, and the article should say that" Progress of sorts, but you have a very American perspective on politics. The "Liberty" argument is central to the dominant stand of (for example) British conservatism, and I could give (and have given) lots of other examples from around the world (you know that bit which is not the USA).

"I think most "right-Libertarians" are in the US" You rather prove my point about being very USA-centric.

"A much more common usage of "right-wing" is to mean "anti-communist", and anti-communist movements have often been as authoritarian as their communist counterparts." To be anti-Communist does not automatically imply that you are an authoritarian.

"The second most common usage of right-wing, at least in the US, is fundamentalist Christian, and Christian fundamentalism is often highly authoritarian." In Europe there are only a minority of Right-Wing politicians who are Christian fundamentalists in your sense. It all depends if you see being a Christian (or a Catholic) as ipso facto being a fundamentalist.

"In the European press I hear right-wing most often used to mean anti-immigrant" It is not "most often" used to mean anti-immigrant, but placing restrictions on uncontrolled immigration is not an uncommon position amongst politicians on the "Right" although such positions can also be found on the Left.

"Right-wing is also used to mean anti-union." In its pro-free market sense this is true. But as usual your talk of "union-busting thugs" just reveals you prejudices.

"The use of right-wing to describe right-Libertarians is a minor use." Defence of freedom is a central thread of the argument of many "Right-Wing" politicians.

"You will find more articles about the Right attacking Ron Paul than you will articles describing Ron Paul as right-wing." It could be because they think that Ron Paul is anti-Semitic. It could be any number of reasons. People have all sorts of reasons for supporting or not supporting a politician.

"In fact, given that right-wing is almost always used in a derogitory sense" This is not true. Of course the LEFT uses it as an insult, but all the time I hear people describing themselves as "on the Right" in a positive sense. I have given examples.

"I do not understand your eagerness, ERIDU-DREAMING, to have it apply to Libertarianism." To pick an example at random see "The Dictionary of Conservative & Libertarian Thought" Edited by Nigel Ashford & Stephen Davies (Routledge 1991).

"It is tempting, and I think justified, to revert edits that are strongly POV, but I will at least try to move forward instead of back."

Your latest edit is clearly a move BACKWARDS. Telling us what you mean by Right-Wing (anti-communist union busting Christian fundamentalist who opposes immigration) is hardly an improvement.

"A note on the use of sources: "right-wing" and "conservative" are similar but not identical" Correct!

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of right-wing has not changed. What changes is the boundary of the right and policies they adopt. The same is true of all poltical groups, left, right and center. Incidentally, calling other editors "leftist" is a personal attack, and I pay no attention to the poltical background of sources I use, but rather look at the publishers. I even mentioned Thomas Sowell. True, he is an ex-Marxist, as are most "conservative" intellectuals, but that does not make them leftist. TFD (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

THE FOUR DEUCES, you can take being called a "Leftist" an insult if that is your choice. I do not know how I got the impression that you are on the Left from your posts, it is a puzzle. Let me just say that you would be better suited to contributing to the "Left-Wing" article on Wikipedia, since, as your claim that "the meaning of Right-Wing has not changed" demonstrates, you obviously know very little about the Right. I detect a glimmer of wit about ex-Marxists. Yes indeed, some people change their political beliefs as they grow up. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

When people grow up, their opinions moderate. They do not normally move from being Trotstkyists or Stalinists to being pro-Franco. You categorize people who do not agree with you as left-wing, that means that 99.99% of thinking people are left-wing, according to your ideosyncratic typology. TFD (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove the bias tag

"Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2012)"

The dispute is clearly nowhere near resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that the Right is called that because of the (neoclassical) liberal policies they promote or that liberal policies are called right-wing because they are promoted primarily by the Right? TFD (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The free market and libertarian right is mentioned plenty of times in the article. Apparently, any mention of the traditional or reactionary right is offensive and slander. 161.133.8.248 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Support for hierarchical society can come in different forms. Be it supporting aristocracy, capitalism, etc. The current definition given for right-wing is meant to be a broad term. Yet, Falconclaw5000 wants to impose his narrower definition (the line about a hawkish foreign policy in particular). The lede already states that "right" has historically referred to reactionaries and traditionalist conservatives but has come to include classical liberals and their ilk. Why isn't that enough? How is defining "right-wing" as support for hierarchy (a mainstream idea) the equivalent of saying that they murder babies? LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the version provided by "Little Jerry" is accurate and fair (I especially welcome the fact that in defining what it is to be on the political Right no mention is made of dismembering babies) and so may I suggest Falconclaw5000 that you focus your attention on inaccuracies in other parts of the article (some of which is very poor).

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about right-wing politics not left-wing politics. As you said, "some people are better than others". All any reasonable editor wants is to include that opinion as part of how the Right sees the world. (Incidentally, you may find that the Right may have a different opinion of who is "better" than you do. TFD (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Some are better than other people". I think you will find that is what being anti-egalitarian means! Better in what way, and rejecting egalitarianism to what extent, that is the political debate. It is all clearly explained in the "Lede". The USA is more egalitarian than C18th France but not as egalitarian as C21st Sweden. Most on the Right in the USA for example believe in equality under the law, but are opposed to equality of income, on the grounds that jobs are not equally valued by the market, and some people are better at them than others. But that does not mean that they are always opposed to politicians taking money away from rich people and giving it to poor people, the details of which are called politics.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

None of this has to do with the bias tag. Yes, there are different ways to support hierarchy. You can support hierarchy by supporting communism, or by supporting social democrats, or by supporting the Democratic Party. Should we add that the Left Wing supports hierarchy? Falconclaw5000 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, stop with this nonsense. ERIDU-DREAMING and I have come to an agreement. You're doing a disservice by edit warring and disrupting articles. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not nonsense. Modern right (such as e.g. social conservatives, such as US heartland, or right-libertarians) do not support hierarchy. Traditional right did. - BorisG (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the article should be as uncontroversial possible. It should explain what Right-Wing (and Left-Wing) means to anybody mad enough to look them up on Wikipedia. It should try to avoid political polemic and be as bland (and fair and factually accurate) as we can make it.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You said, "Some are better than other people". I believe that that represents a right-wing viewpoint, although the mainstream Right would not consider you to be better than anyone else. But why do you object to the description? TFD (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

'You said, "Some are better than other people"'. Yes.

'I believe that that represents a Right-Wing viewpoint.' True.

'The mainstream Right would not consider you to be better than anyone else.' Untrue

'Why do you object to the description?' I don't.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, gentlebeings, focus on making this a better article, not on personalities. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

BorisG: many, but not all, on the modern right strongly support hierarchy. "America is a Christian nation," suggests a hierarchy in which Christians are favored over all other religions. The religious right sometimes cites St. Paul, "Wives obey your husbands," to claim a hierarchy in which men are superior to women. More importantly, while the modern Right do not usually openly say they support Whites over Blacks and Hispanics, their policies (picture IDs, low funding for non-white schools, harsher sentencing for non-whites) have that effect. And while the modern Right does not say they support the upper class, the effect of conservative tax law has been to greatly benefit the upper class, at the expense of the working class. As a recent example of the Right taking hierarchy as a given, witness Mitt Romney's recent thoughtless statement, which I'm sure he regrets, which separates Americans into a hierarchy of poor, middle-class, and rich.

The real point, I think, is this. If we confuse the meaning of "right-wing", we confuse ideas. To the extent that words lose their meaning, intelligent conversation becomes more difficult. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The words don't lose meaning, but the meaning evolves over time. I never heard Americans claiming superiority of men over women, not those who supported, say, Sarah Palin, arguably a right-wing politician. If that happens, it is confined to a fringe which is not at all representative of the right. Second guessing policy is not something we should do on Wikipedia, since each policy may be interpreted in a variety of ways. Can you point where they call for low funding for non-white schools, harsher sentencing for non-whites as their policies? Anyway, we have digressed. The meaning has evolved, and we need to prominently show this. For why it evolved, TFD has given a good explanation some time ago. - BorisG (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest Mr Norwood! Everybody knows that it is the Democrats who are, and always have been, the racist Party in the USA. Go up a mountain in the Tyrol and ask a passing goatherder and he will tell you that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-Slavery Republicans who opposed the pro-Slavery Democrats. That the first Republican President was John C. Freemont and the Democrats campaigned against him on the platform that – if you vote for him he will abolish slavery! He will tell you that EVERYBODY knows that the next candidate from the Republican Party won the election (a bloke called Abraham Lincoln) and seven Southern States immediately left the Union before he was even sworn in (of course he was eventually assassinated by a Democrat activist called John Wilkes Booth but not before Amendment 13 and 14 and 15 abolished slavery – ALL of which were opposed by the Democrats) and of course when black politicians got elected to Congress the Democrats founded the Klu Klux Klan (that well known anti-racist organisation). At this point the Austrian goatherder would no doubt turn to Mr Norwood in exasperation and say “You do not even know your own history!” because even the dumbest of dumb Americans know that is was the Democrats who formulated the Jim Crow Laws, it was Democrat politicians (such as Lester Maddox, Bill Conners, and George Wallace) who ordered the police to turn firehoses on blacks marching for equal rights in the Sixties. Of course, before he goes back to his goats, the goatherder will no doubt explain, that in more recent years the racism of the Democrat Party has taken the form of positive discrimination and affirmative action programs [not pograms] in which all that matters is the colour of your skin, and it defends policies which keep black people on urban plantations of welfare dependency (securing a harvest of votes rather than cotton) but hey, that is enough about American politics.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, you should know that "Democrat" was not automatically synonymous with "left" historically. The Klu Klux Klan was a far-right movement. George Wallace considered himself a conservative when he was in his "segregation now, segregation forever" phase. The civil rights movement was a center-left movement and MLK was further to the left than Obama. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This has all been explained to ERIDU-DREAMING many times, and he continues to confuse or pretend to confuse "Republican", "conservative", and "right-wing" on the one hand, and "Democrat", "liberal", and "left-wing" on the other. I have been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I think it best, now, to just insist that he provide evidence for his edits, and ignore his insults. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know "Little Jerry" where you got the idea that being on the political "Left" is synonymous with anti-racism. Marx (I presume you view him as on the Left - if you don't things can get a little complicated) was a racist, and I could cite numerous other examples. I never cease to be amazed that the "Left" [See Rick Norwopd] know so little about their own history. There is an article here

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/leftrace.html

which covers a little of that history. I do not recommend that Rick Norwood or THE FOUR DEUCES read the article (best dismiss it as some nut who should be sent to a re-education camp or better still completely silenced) but I supply the link in order that I satify his exacting requirement for evidence, which is not of course to say that you will agree with Jon Ray! I apologise Rick Norwood for picking on you, but at times your bigotry is truly jaw dropping. This is all a bit of a distraction of course from Boris G asking if Right = Inegalitarian = Hierarchical.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

John J. Ray's views are fringe, and presenting a link to his essay does not forward discussion. TFD (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"I do not recommend that Rick Norwood or THE FOUR DEUCES read the article - best dismiss it as some nut who should be sent to a re-education camp, or better still completely silenced." Ah Yes. Right on cue. THE FOUR DEUCES. I am still laughing at when you dismissed some of the most important European historians of their generation as fringe.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did read the article, in fact had read it before. I take an interest in the extreme right, and am interested in their world view, which I find interesting. However, Ray's views, for example the America's founding father's were Communist, are not accepted by mainstream historians, and little of what he has written in a long time entered academic discourse. Here is a link to a reply to him written in 1996. TFD (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the authors of that paper respond to John Ray's criticism of their work (on Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality) by asserting that he is an anti-Semitic former Nazi gives you a rough idea of its intellectual quality. Strangely enough, if you look up the topic of “Authoritarian Personality” on Wikipedia you will find all of the references to John Ray have been deleted, by somebody called THE FOUR DEUCES. For my amusement I looked up their evidence for declaring that this well known (for those who can read) Pro-Jewish opponent of the Nazi Party was in truth a former Nazi supporter. Ten seconds later up comes

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/nazimail.htm

“Back then John Ray, a student at the University of Queensland used to watch it all unfold. Ray, now a retired university lecturer...recalled the scene in Centennial Park. "It was my regular Sunday entertainment. "A mate of mine, Alec Barnes, who became quite a famous amateur photographer, first got me into it. "We'd go down to the park. He'd capture it all on film and I'd do verbal battle with the Nazis....Ray never belonged to the Nazi Party. He had good reason to take in everything that was said and done. Ray reported regularly to Queensland's then-special branch – the organisation within the police force that kept watch on so-called subversives. "And they paid me for it," says Ray.”

Ah yes, clearly a Nazi.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This year I will be 70 years old. I grew up in the American South. I never once, not once, heard "right-wing" used to describe anyone who opposed segregation. For ERIDU-DREAMING to expect me to believe that "right-wing" means anti-racist is as if he expected me to believe that "red" is commonly used to describe the color of grass. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said that "Right-Wing means anti-racist" I said that the "Left-Wing" (both now and in the past) have been racist, which is not quite the same thing.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Never heard that, either, and I notice a subtle change in what you wrote. I'm talking about what words mean and how words are used. You're mind reading. That is, you are not addressing the question about what the phrase "left-wing" means, but rather what left-wing people are. Of course, the only way to tell that a person is racist is to read his mind, since people who identify as left-wing never say they are racist.

Can you provide any example of the phrase "left-wing" being used to describe someone because they are avowedly racist?

Rick Norwood (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you recall, you implied that racism should form part of the definition of what it is to be Right-Wing i.e. right = racism. I pointed out that there is a long history of racism on the Left. Marx for example (who is usually viewed as being on the Left) wrote articles advocating racial genocide. This however takes us a long way away from the Boris G question: Is Right = Hierarchical correct?.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong in every particular THE FOUR DEUCES : well except for the living in England bit. If you are hoping to join the secret police do not give up the day job.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Then aI shall remove my comments. TFD (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: Sources say that right-wing is often used to describe racist organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan. You're the one who carries this to an extreme, pretending that someone has said "right = racism", when in fact nobody said that. I also find it hard to believe that you really can't distinguish between the idea that some leftists are racist, which is true, and the idea that the phrase "left-wing" is commonly used to describe people because they are racist, which is false. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, since you are relying upon different assumptions to me, it is hardly a surprise that you are arriving at different conclusions. I think it is fair to say that since you have reached the venearable age of seventy it is highly unlikely that you are going to change those assumptions, and so, please forgive me for not wanting to endlessly repeat myself.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I make only minimal assumptions. Addition is commutative. Two points determine a line. Things like that. I prefer data. And logic. What assumptions do you rely upon? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

How long is a piece of string?

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is a mouse that spins? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, you are presenting the views of a fringe writer on a blog and asking us to accept it as better evidence than a reply in Political Psychology. I suggest you read WP:RS. TFD (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"I am still laughing at when you dismissed some of the most important European historians of their generation as fringe."

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside crank websites, Ray is not considered to be one of the most important European historians of his generation. TFD (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"I am still laughing at when you dismissed some of the most important European historians of their generation as fringe."

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A different perspective

A useful perspective to terminology here would be to extend good faith to all political movements. Under this approach, all movement want prosperity and happiness for the vast majority of their people, but differ mainly in the means to acheieve this. This approach may be applied to all or most political movements, even to such extremes as Nazis or Khmer Rouge. Hitler wanted the best for German people, but his approach was disaster for everyone else, including Germans themselves. Stalin is also rightly considered to be mass murderer of enormous proportions, but he also considered these to be necessary sacrificies for the future communist paradise.

While I can understand the difficulty of extending good faith to such monsters, it is very reasonable and healthy to extend it to mainstream movements. That is, mainstream left and mainstream right have similar goals of general prosperity and well being, but differ on the strategies how to achieve it. The right favors unrestricted free market as the best means to acheieve the quickest economic growth, while the mainstream left favors putting constraints on this in terms of minimum living standards, gap between rich and poor, environment, etc. The right thinks the happiness is achieved through fostering individuality and family, while the left beleives in community spirit. And so on.

I am not sure if and to what extent this concept can be extrapolated back in history, or even to present-day non-democratic regimes. But in democratic countries it is kind of obvious. If any movement was only really concerned with the well-being of one per cent, surely the voters would find out sooner or later, and this movement would no longer have any electoral success.

I know I need sources to back it up. However this is more of a meta-statement, to guide the way we have to approach this, rather than about any specific wording. The wording needs to be based on sources, but the concept written above may provide the thread (so lacking across Wikipedia articles on all topics). - BorisG (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to Lipset's description. When the Conservative Party was formed, only 1.2% of people could vote so at that point they did not need to extend their support beyond the 1%. Most conservative parties failed to expand their base and have disappeared. TFD (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I am talking about the present-day right and left. - BorisG (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the Republican Party, which today is the conservative party, totally got its ass kicked in the last election...oh wait...they actually swept the House of Representatives, the most democratic of the three elected parts. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Republican Party is liberal not conservative - John Locke, Adam Smith, founding fathers, American Revolution, nonconformist religion, limited government, etc. TFD (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

IOW, the "political spectrum" is a constantly changing and evolving target, varying from place to place, from time to time, from issue to issue. Thanks for making this quite clear. Collect (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Please notice that the U.S. has only two major political parties and therefore not all of the major ideological families that can be arranged from left to right are represented. Hence the Republican Party does not refer to itself as "right-wing", but as "center-right" or "center". TFD (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And this disproves my statement that the "spectrum" is far from immutable in what manner at all? Collect (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not following your reasoning. Do you have any sources that explain what you are saying? TFD (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Only the same few dozen I have cited before - which show that the "spectrum" is mutable, and not readily definable except, at best, in a specific country at a specific time. I really do not think this game of asking for the same sources over and over and over benefits anyone much. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You provided sources that said additional axes should be used in addition to left/right. TFD (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And sources saying that the "spectrum" was not of value, some that multi-axis spectrums might work, and some which said the whole idea is pretty much useless. None said that any spectrum is an absolute in any manner whatsoever. Now at least you accept that I have given a multitude of sources to iterated demands for the same sources over and over and over and over. Collect (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you provide one of these sources and we can evaluate its degree of acceptance by experts. TFD (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And over and over. See above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So your reply is that you cannot find a source, but you WP:KNOW the answer. Ironically it does not stop you from inserting the description "left-wing" into articles about media or BLP articles. Why do you want to add descriptions that you believe to be meaningless? TFD (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"a blend of beliefs which include economic libertarianism, social conservatism, and support for a hawkish foreign policy"

This line keeps being inserted seemingly without regard for the sources. With regards to the deleted sources; the John Robert Moore article does not attempt to give a broad definition of "right-wing" but is an analysis of American conservatives in the New Deal era. The Steven Lukes article also does not give a specific definition of right-wing but discusses different currents of rightist movements. It does mention the "neo-liberal right" which supports economic libertarianism but it also states that this neo-liberal right supports elitism and order like the traditional right. So this source can not be used to prove that the right no longer support a hierarchical society. I would also like for someone to point out where in any of the sources does it define the right as support for a hawkish foreign policy. LittleJerry (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Moore uses the term "right" and although he described a group of congressmen as conservatives, he was not attempting to define conservatism. Neoliberlaism had not been developed and these congressmen were isolationists, not hawks. TFD (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Again assertion of what one "knows" does not work on Wikipedia. Cheers. Might you give sources for what you have just asseted? Collect (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I don't think that WP:KNOW says we cannot know what is in sources. TFD (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You made assertins. I asked for your reliable sources for your assertions. Simple. Provide them - or simply say that you "know" what is in them but will not provide them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing a source, the "Conservative Coaltion in the United States Senate, 1942-1945" by John Robert Moore.[6] The Road from Mt. Pelerin, among other sources outlines the history of neoliberalism. Amazing that you would attack editors who challenge unsourced or incorrectly sourced material in an article and ask them for sources rather than sources for the text in the article. TFD (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who made the claim above which I am addressing - and you are declining to provide a reliable source for your claim. It is not "attacking" anyone to simply ask for sources, TFD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And I just provided two sources, one of which is the one we are discussing, and therefore no need to present it again. TFD (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your claim was:

I don't think Moore uses the term "right" and although he described a group of congressmen as conservatives, he was not attempting to define conservatism. Neoliberlaism had not been developed and these congressmen were isolationists, not hawks

And the sources you aver you gave (where?) do not back up your claims for them. Now again - provide sources for your specific claim I just quoted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You want me to provide a source saying that a source does not make a claim? I fear you have got ahold of the wrong end of the stick when it comes to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

IOW you decline to provide any source for what you asserted to be the WP:TRUTH. Cheers - Now we know how to regard some sources. Collect (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The William F. Buckley quote that I have just inserted is a valid source. It is better to trust actual intellectual leaders of the Right to tell us what they believe than to get it second hand from left-wing academics. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

While it is a reliable source for Buckley's views, it has several problems. First, it is not a reliable source for what other U.S. conservatives believe. Second, there is no mention of the Right in the mission statement. TFD (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well then, if Right just means opposition to Left, why all this nonsense about hierarchy? Buckley was the leader of the American conservative movement; he is a much more accurate source for the beliefs of the American Right than some left wing academic like Tatalovich is. Wikipedia uses the term "Right wing" and "conservatism" interchangeably; if you notice, this article is part of WikiProject Conservatism. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing up definitions and descriptions. For example we describe birds as having wings, although that is not part of the definition. TFD (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

suggestion: new section on definitions

There is so much argument over what is truly "right-wing" in this page I think it would help to have a section on different definitions of the term. For one thing the definition seems to have changed over the years and in some countries is not what you'd expect. For example during the perestrioka period in Russia, "left" came to mean supporters of free markets and liberalism, and "right" socialism and communism (see). I've also read that in China during the Deng period (maybe still) "conservative" and "left" were synonymous. So it can get complicated. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Political parties in post-communist Eastern Europe, p. 54-55, the ex-Communists in Eastern Europe show similarities to Western European conservatives, but are still called left-wing. (I no longer have full access to the book, but you can see a snippet view here. Also, your source appears to be about "left and right", not the Right per se. For left-wing politics, most sources are about the Left itself. For example, books about the Left in the UK and US may not identify an indigenous Right against which the Left is compared. Yet all the sources presented for this article define the Right in contrast to the Left. TFD (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Does a source being `about "left and right", not the Right per se` disqualify it??? Anyway, I think it would be good so have a section on the various definitions. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There are zero definitions universally applicable is the main problem here. And no source saying that a universal definition applies has been furnished either. There are, moreover, a great many definitions applied to specific time periods in specific countries, but do we really want to state the multitude around? Cheers. `Collect (talk)

The definition is opposition to the Left. TFD (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition by tautology?? Astounding = and ludicrous. Collect (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what "tautology" means. Defining a group by what they oppose (e.g., anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism) is not a tautology. TFD (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Left = opposite of right. Right = opposite of left. Tautological observations. Collect (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy is called equivocation (metaphor). For example, "All jackasses have long ears, Carl is a jackass. Therefore, Carl has long ears." "Left" and "Right" are metaphors, but you are talking about directions. Left is not defined as the opposite of Right, but rather as soclialism, communism, anarchism and related groups, all of which are clearly defined, and the Right opposes them. TFD (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is impossible, because the leftists editing this article want to define the Right as believing in hierarchy, when in reality the defining feature of the Right is believing in limited government and traditional moral values. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You need a source for that, preferrably one that is clear about what the terms mean. Would a right-wing government for example abolish monarchy, aristocracy and the established church, level class, gender and racial divisions, how do limited governments enforce public morality? BTW I noticed you put the National Review mission statement back claiming that the terms conservative and right-wing are interchangeable. They are not and if they were then this article should be a re-direct. TFD (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It was hard to determine which noticeboard to post your addition to, it violates OR, POV, and RS - but I have posted to WP:NPOVN#Right-wing politics. Incidentally, you should avoid personal attacks, such as calling people with whom you disagree "leftists". It is ironic, because they are merely trying to include the defintions accepted by conservative writers. TFD (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you noticed that this edit war is not getting anywhere?

I tried to provide a neutral definition, but neither side liked it. I'm going to try again, using standard reference works. I suggest that the use of standard reference works is the only way this can be resolved, and that a never-ending series of reverts back and forth between two wrong definitions accomplishes nothing.

I would ask any changes be referenced, and that the references use the word "right". References that use the word "conservative" but do not use the word "right" may be misleading. I would also suggest that references be to standard reference works, not to the popular press. Finally, it would be a big help if actual quotes from the references were provided. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current version, provided my inclusion of Buckley's quote remains. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you ask in an edit summary "Why then, is this article part of WikiProject CONSERVATISM?) " It is part of the project because you want it to be. So lets remove it. TFD (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that when you restored your NR quote you wrote, "Nobody ever speaks for the universal anything." I do not know what that means but it has a sense of poetry. I would be appreciative if you could explain the meaning. TFD (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I want it to be? I had absolutely nothing to do with this being classified as part of WikiProject Conservatism. I hardly even know what a WikiProject is. LittleJerry objected to the quote on the basis that Buckley doesn't speak for the universal Right. Well, no academic speaks universally for all academics, and yet we use academic sources in the article. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Although no academic speaks for all academics, they may explain how academics view a subject. Buckley was only explaining how he viewed a subject and incidentally was not talking about right-wing politics. I think that they only started calling themselves right-wing after Murray Rothbard chose the term and did not even call themselves conservatives until shortly before the magazine started. They originally wanted to call themselves liberals. See the Timeline of modern American conservatism. TFD (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the current lede is too large, given the article's size. Some of the information should be moved to the history section. LittleJerry (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Focusing on modern day conservatism involving libertarianism or support for laissez-faire capitalist values is very Anglophone world oriented - does not represent a world view of right-wing politics

Claims that right-wing politics today has solidified into a libertarian, laissez-faire capitalist values does not represent a world view - this is largely a phenomenon in the Anglophone world - especially the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia amongst others - it has spread into Europe but it does not universally represent right-wing politics in Europe, nor much of the world either. Historically, even in the Anglophone world, right-wing politics was strongly opposed to laissez-faire economics and unconditional libertarianism.--R-41 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a very strong right-wing movements in the world that has existed for centuries that bear no similarity to libertarian laissez-faire capitalist conservatism - that is especially Catholic and Muslim religious right-wing movements. The Catholic right in particular does not agree with social libertarian and laissez-faire values - since the Catholic Church's announcement of Rerum Novarum, the Catholic right opposes laissez-faire policies - and supports corporatist economic policy - including inclusion of both employers and employees in setting economic policies. The Catholic Church is strongly socially conservative and opposes social libertarianism - it believes people should follow the social ethic of God as in Christianity. Iran's religious right-wing Shia Islamic theocracy that espouses strict social conservatism - supports anti-capitalism, Ahmadinejad went to Cuba - an officially non-religious communist country, to state Iran's and Cuba's common anti-capitalist stances and stated that capitalism is dying, see here: [7].--R-41 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing politics was founded as the politics of acceptance of social hierarchy as opposed to left-wing politics as being the politics of seeking social equality. Right-wing politics is based upon the belief that hierarchy and order were preferable to forced attempts to level hierarchy into what they deemed to be an unnatural equality that would result in in a lack of authority in society. The right alleged that in left-wing egalitarian society everyone would regard themselves as being equal authorities of themselves and reject hierarchical authority, resulting in a breakdown in the legitimacy of society being able to bring to order its citizens, thus causing anarchy, disorder, chaos, and tyranny in order to achieve its claimed goals of social equality and eliminating dissidents - the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror by the Jacobins is an example used by the right to demonstrate this. A more recent example used by the right today is the October Revolution of 1917 followed by Stalin's Great Purge. This is the basis of the right - that the left seeks to impose an ideal of equality that is unnatural, or other right-wingers believe is impossible, and it results in disorder, violence, and tyranny to achieve and impossible ideal, and that in reality society is inevitably hierarchical to some degree and that there must be authority in society to maintain order.--R-41 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We are working to make the article less anglo-centric. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The previous version, focusing on preserving hierarchy, gives an absolutely false view of the state of the Right in the Anglophone world. If you would like to distinguish between the two, go ahead. But it's ridiculous that the English Wikipedia should depict the state of the Right only as it exists outside the English speaking world. Again, the words "conservatism" and "right wing" are interchangeable, as this article is part of WikiProject Conservatism. {{subst:unsigned:Falconclaw5000}}

I do not think the usage is different. In the English-speaking world it means extreme, reactionary, fascist or authoritarian. The only groups that try to redefine it are themselves on the fringe. TFD (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your main problem is that you do not have reliable sources saying " 'Right' means extreme, reactionary, fascist or authoritarian." The fact you assert that this is the definition is wonderfully absurd, especially since you also say that Right is simply anything opposed to Left. Sorry -- I fear that your new definition is as flawed as any ever proposed here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about the usage. Google for example "Stephen Harper" + "right-wing". You get, "Tax cuts drive Harper's right-wing agenda", "This is representative of the views of right-wing extremists like Harper", "most right wing gov't Canada ever ..."[8] Notice that the sources that use the term right-wing are all opponents. Harper would not call himself right-wing, any more than he would call himself extreme, reactionary, fascist or authoritarian. Only fringe politicians call themselves right-wing. TFD (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And "Stephen Harper" + "Conservative" gives vastly more hits. So much for using Google as your main source for WP:TRUTH. Collect (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain your statement as it is not clear what you mean. TFD (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, why don't we just define "right wing" as meaning fascist or authoritarian? And which mainstream politicians define themselves as being "left wing?" Certainly nobody in the US. Google "Obama left wing." It seems that left wing ALSO means fascist and authoritarian! https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=obama%20left%20wing&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=4084e84d72bbc120&ix=sea&ion=1&ix=sea&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4084e84d72bbc120&biw=888&bih=447&ix=sea&ion=1 Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream politicians in the U.S. do not identify themselves as left-wing because the Left in the U.S. is not mainstream, unlike the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Similarly, politicians in these countries do not identify themselves as right-wing, because the Right is not mainstream in any of these countries. Mainstream politicans who call themselves left-wing include Ed Milliband, Nycole Turmel, and Julia Gillard the leaders of the left-wing parties in those countries. Incidentally, your google search for "Barack Obama" + "left-wing" is similar to the search for "Stephen Harper" + "right-wing" - it returns hits from people who oppose him and paint him as being right or left wing. TFD (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000 said: "But it's ridiculous that the English Wikipedia should depict the state of the Right only as it exists outside the English speaking world. Again, the words "conservatism" and "right wing" are interchangeable, as this article is part of WikiProject Conservatism.". I did not state that it should be ignored or maximized in the article - but that the context of right-wing politics must be understood in a way that applies to the different societies it exists in. It is important to understand the original right-wing politics as what was first made identifiable in France after the French Revolution. Why? Because the "conservatism" in Anglophone countries that Falconclaw speaks of today is in reality a mixture of classical liberal values of laissez-faire economics with conservatism. I assume that Falconclaw is a conservative of the Anglphone world type I have described above - he should notice the uneasiness he has with the idea that the right-wing is associated with hierarchy. That uneasiness involves the acceptance of equality of opportunity as part of the classical liberal mindset that remains part of Anglo-American conservatism, but Anglo-American conservatism does not accept equality of outcome as a goal as movements to the left do.--R-41 (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing groups in the past and even today amongst more extreme right-wing groups - the idea of people being equal by law or having equality of opportunity was seen as unnatural leveling of what they perceived as a natural hierarchy of aristocracy. The right may not necessarily support deliberate construction of hierarchical society, they do not typically see hierarchy as fair to all in fact - as Thomas Hobbes said life is "nasty, brutish and short" but they accept it as an inherent reality of nature. Even today the right in the Anglophone world continues to state the existence of hierarchy in society - American right-wing politics in its conservative, libertarian and neoliberal nature, emphasizes the difference between self-made people in business and careers as successful people while looking upon people who are able but do not look after themselves - or those continuously dependent on society through welfare - as failed people who leech off society and drain it. Today, there exists in the various religious right movements especially in Western religions, the hierarchical division is between the pious who are deemed close to God and salvation and the damned who are far from God and damnation.--R-41 (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Anglo-American conservatism" is a fiction, not supported by mainstream research. TFD (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

By Anglo-American conservatism, I am referring to liberal conservatism - the conservative ideology that fuses conservative values with acceptance of the basic system and values of liberal democracy, economic liberalism, and other liberal values; in Britain its champion ideologist was Edmund Burke; in the USA its champion ideologist was William F. Buckley, Jr..--R-41 (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@R-41 sorry, I don't agree with you, to put it mildly. Left vs right is a Western concept, and is mostly used in the Western world. For other countries, it is often easy to define, by analogy, left-wing, but the analogy is limited. Almost any party or political movement in the West is easily placed, at least approximately, on the left-right spectrum, but outside of the west and europe it is difficult. Is pesident Nazarbayev of Kazachstan right-wing or left-wing? Or Burma's junta? Or take China where the communist party is presiding over the most rapid spectacular development of capitalist economy and free market... For you Iranian Mullahs are right-wing and their freindship with Cuba proves that right-wing may be anti-capitalism? Hillarious. They are friends because they both oppose the US; this has nothing to do with domestic economic policy in either country. Broadly speaking, socialism is left-wing, capitalism is right wing. And what about societies where the main conflict is not capitalism vs socialism? Well, I do not think the concept of left vs right is applicable to these societies either. Also I do not think anyone has suggested that right-wing=libertarian. Right wingers are libertarians on economic issues but conservative on social issues. Libertarians are right-wing on economic issues but liberal on social issues (e.g. immigration, drugs etc.).

@TFD, I am confused. Is Harper right-wing or not? - BorisG (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then explain what right-wing means. How does right-wing apply to the diversity of movements in the past to present including Catholic religious movements, absolute monarchs, noble people advocating nepotism and mercantilism, others advocating meritocracy and capitalism? The original right in France was anti-capitalist - supportive of aristocratic land ownership, monarchism, and in favour of mercantilism - involving protectionism, capitalism was to the left of aristocratic economy and mercantilism; and capitalism at this time was advocated by classical liberal radicals who opposed monarchies. The French parliament immediately after the French Revolution had capitalists sitting on the left side of the parliament and the aristocrats and mercantilists sitting on the right side - this has changed with the decline of aristocracy on the right and the rise of socialism. shifting the spectrum leftward but placing capitalists as the conservative side and socialists as the radical side - aristocrats today who advocate return of nepotism to replace today's meritocracy would be considered far-right reactionary by today's standards. The Catholic religious right has always been highly sympathetic to the poor and scolds unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism as crassly materialist and destructive in its competitive individualism to its Christian humanitarian doctrine of compassion for the poor through charity - at the same time the Catholic right has strongly opposed liberal social values and has strongly opposed socialism. As for Iran would you seriously believe that Iran - that demands strict traditionalist adherance to the teachings of the Quran and opposition to liberal social values is left-wing merely because it is seeking alliance with officially athiest and communist Cuba? You need to understand third-world politics - since the end of the Cold War, countries like Cuba and Syria have been making "sales pitches" to potential donors like China and in this case Iran to assist their countries - to replace lost funds previously given by the Soviet Union - Iran offers Syria and Cuba assistance in exchange for alliance. But back on point, please explain what right-wing means then.--R-41 (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

BorisG, while Harper is to the right of the Canadian spectrum, that does not necessarily make him a right-winger. His party would more typically be described as center right. I agree with your comments about third world parties, although there are some that can be placed on a political spectrum because of their adoption of Western ideologies, especially in Latin America. But elsewhere typical cleavages are tribal or religious. R-41, Buckley claimed to unite conservatives and ant-New Deal liberals through "fusionism". But the existence of Burkean conservatism in the U.S., outside the writings of Kirk and Viereck, is not generally accepted. See for example Viereck's "The Pseudo-conservatives", Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative", Auerbach's The conservative illusion, TFD (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

TFD, let's focus on the definition of what right-wing means, BorisG should describe in detail what right-wing means - according to him and his evidence. If it is accurate, it should be able to account for the history of right-wing politics and the diversity of right-wing views - such as Catholic religious right that substantially differs from pro-capitalist right-wingers as I mentioned earlier.--R-41 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If one of the editors who is most active in editing this article believes that (with the exception of some people on the "fringe") Right-Wing means "extreme, reactionary, fascist or authoritarian", and another of the most active editors on this article defines the political Right as people who "support the upper class against the working class" (no laughing at the back) it is clear that the odds are stacked against any attempt to make this an accurate article.

On a more constructive note, I originally defined "Right-Wing" as anti-egalitarian, but actually this is perhaps not the best definition, because it defines the Right via its opposition to egalitarianism. But opposition to the antinomian "utopianism" of the Left is more fundamental than its anti-egalitarianism.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not saying that I believe that is what it means, merely that that is how the term is normally used. Mainstream politicians do not call themselves right-wing. If you doubt that, then find an example. TFD (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@R41, you are right that originally right-wing meant support for absolutism and aristocracy. But it has evolved, and now it almost universally means support for capitalism, and not only in the Anglosphere. But oyu are correct in saying there is a genuine tension between ttwo aspects of conservatism: social (or should we say cultural) conservatism and economic liberalism. It is more organic in the US, where is no tradition of absolutism, royalty or aristocracy. However in the UK it is manifested in the fact that Thatcher, the champion of free market, was criticised for dismantling many traditional institution. I remember that when a proposal came to privatise The Royal Mail, a natural step for Thatcherites, some Tory MP's objected because 'as a conservative, I do not changed what works well'. Yes there is this tension. But the main things remain: the right are conservtaive on social/cultural issues and pro free market on economic issues. And if one of these component is absent, as in your Catholic example? Well, then their position on the left-right spectrum is not well defined. See political compass. No I did not say Ahmedinejad is left-wing because he is friends with Castro. I said the left-right concept does not apply to him at all. The word is really used with respect to Iranian politics.

@TFD, why would you take Harper's self-description rather than that of his critics'? I take your point that people are kind of shy of calling themselves rigt-wing, not quite sure why. But I seriously doubt there is any meaning of right or left except in relative sense. Like in this paper. - BorisG (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But that still is very exclusively Western view - other societies in Eastern Europe accept left-right distinction but not all of their right-wing movements are friends of Western capitalism. But then, even today there are paleoconservatives in the United States and national conservatives that are openly protectionist and hostile to free trade - Lou Dobbs is the best example in the US. Far-right nationalist and religious movements (and I am not talking merely about fringe Nazis who I know people will remind me are "National SOCIALISTS" in caps - I am talking standard far-right) in Eastern Europe are protectionist and oppose Western lifestyle as decadent and morally corrupt. For instance - at least since the 1990s you will not find the very influential far-right Serbian Radical Party as a friend of the Western world or capitalism - it is protectionist, opposes integration into free trade with Eastern Europe, and despises the United States and the West especially after the Yugoslav Wars. On the moderate right - even the British Conservative Party took on an anti-laissez-faire and anti-free trade stance in the late 19th and early 20th century, with the influential Conservative Foreign Secretary Austen Chamberlain openly denouncing free trade and advocating imperialism in Africa to create new colonies for material goods and sought to effectively found a neo-mercantilism - he remained prominent in government and the British Conservative Party into the 1930s. Yes, government and economic systems change but the left-right distinction has remained - if it is so different from the original definition, then why has it remained? There must be a consistency between past right-wing movements and current right-wing movements.--R-41 (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe that from what was compiled earlier in the intro but was removed - and seemed it far more universal and accurate - it is the acceptance of an inevitability of social hierarchy that permeates across the right - there is a deep-seated nervousness to the idea of egalitarianism - especially in the form of equality of outcome as forcing people to give up their positions to achieve equality. Make no mistake it does not mean that right-wing people are all snobs looking down on people viewed as inferior - on the moderate right it is the belief that inequality is inevitable and note that schemes by society to create social equality have disasterously failed - especially in the French Revolution and the October Revolution. However on the far right, the view of the inevitability of inequality takes on the extreme form of supremacism - that because people are believed to be naturally unequal - those who have ideal qualities are innately superior to those who have unideal qualities who are regarded as inferior - aristocracy is the political and economic form of this. Racism often takes on a far-right form - regardless of what a racist's views on other issues are that may be left-of-centre - like the Dixiecrats. That being said I am not stating that all racists are far-right though - there has been innate racism in left-leaning movements - the concept of White Man's Burden - that sadly still exists in many TV ads for charity for Africa - depict people in underdeveloped parts of the world as immature, backward, desperate people who need the help of white civilization to bring them to equality with whites. In response to your earlier query - yes many governments that are officially "socialist" or "democratic" are strongly hierarchical - that may be the result of corruption and narcissism of their leaders - or an example of the well-known political science concept of the iron law of oligarchy that claims that even egalitarian movements inevitably succumb to hierararchical organization due to the needs of order in organizations themselves.--R-41 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@R-41, The article should reflect the current usage, not that in the early 20th century. Your examples of anti-capitalist right are all form far right. In my understanding, there is a sea of difference between right and far right. Eastern Europe is a very special case, especially Russia and Serbia, where extreme nationalists come, almost universally, from the former ruling communist parties and form coalitions with them (against Western values, America etc). In Russia these are often called Red-Brown Coalition. This is very distinct from the mainstream right. The best example is Union of Right Forces, a moderate pro-democracy, pro-market and pro-western party in Russia. Interesting example, because it was not afraid to call itself right, even in a country with deeply seated left-wing indoctrination. Maybe that's why they had little support among the masses.

@TFD, after further thinking, I now understand your point about Harper and his critics. You do have a point about the usage. But with one caviat: these critics are from the left, and so the understanding of the term as extreme, etc, reflects its usage by the left. Not sure this is represenative enough to define the term objectively. - BorisG (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Think about the logical fallacy about what you are saying: you are saying that the article should only reflect current usage of the term right-wing - particularly the capitalist right, that you claim is not connected or at least is fundamentally different with the historical right that included monarchism, aristocracy, and the established Church. Then what is the common thread that allows people to call them universally right-wing? You claim that the anti-capitalist right only includes the far-right, I gave you the example of the Catholic right's long advocacy of opposition to laissez-faire capitalism and the materialist ethos of capitalism - the Catholic right has been on both the centre-right and the far-right - it remains strong in recent history (1945 on) and up to today and is a strong force in Europe and the Catholic Americas (Latin America and Francophone America - particularly Quebec in the Union Nationale). The issue of time as representative of change in ideology has to be taken in context of civilizational change - civilization is thousands of years old - the left-right dimension as conceived of in France has only existed since the 1790s and there were strong far-right monarchist political forces in France and elsewhere in Europe up to and including World War II, such as Action Française or Francisco Franco's quasi-fascist authoritarian conservative Falangist-Carlist alliance that existed into the 1970s that was closely connected to the Catholic Church and the long-lasting feudal Spanish aristocracy - in terms of time - it is within one lifetime, many veterans of WWII are still alive today, and more humourously the American comedian Chevy Chase who declared that "Franco is still dead" in 1975 is himself still alive today along with many others who have personal recollections of the Franco regime. Lastly, you are dismissing the far-right as not representatitive of the right - but you emphasize the centre-right as representative of the right: at Wikipedia we are not at will to discern whether centre-right or far-right political ideology is the legitimate representation of the right, we only are to record it these perspectives in encyclopedic entries.--R-41 (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that some right-wing regimes were authoritarian (e.g., Franco) does not mean that authoritarianism is an attribute of the right, any more than the existence of Stalin is evidence of the authoritarianism of the left. The left always try to portray far right as a sub-class of the right, while the right usually try to distinguish themselves from far right. But I think at least since the fall of colonial empires in 1960s, if not through the entire 20th century, the left-right divide has been between socialism and capitalism. If you don't agree with this simple proposition, then I cannot help it. - BorisG (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to get back to sources. The book The New Right (1987) said that what we would now call neo-liberalism came to be called the "New Right", but it was not "that old-style, neo-collectivist and anti-liberal 'Right' associated with some types of European conservatism".[9] The author made no claim as to whether the New Right is right-wing, just that that it was what is was commonly called. I do not think that we can conclude from this that the meaning of the term has changed. TFD (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not proposing anywhere that the right-wing is staunchly authoritarian. The original right in France however did emphasis order - as in the rule of law as preceding in importance idealist pursuits of egalitarianism, and other political agendas. "The left is always trying to portray far right as a sub-class of the right, while the right usually try to distinguish themselves from far right" - that is a POV opinion and shows a logical fallacy. The far right is of course a sub-class of the right - the far-right reactionaries in the French parliament led by Joseph de Maistre sat on the right side of the legislature alongside more moderate right-wing movements - that doesn't mean that they agree on everything of course. "The left is always trying to portray" - that's a straw man fallacy because who stands for the left as a whole? And how can you know the alleged plans of the whole left across the world to "always" discredit the right in a specific manner? I am centre-left and I do not see centre-right or moderate right parties as being close to the far-right - even though they are of the same genre, they are close to the centre with some right-wing attributes - which means they accept some degree of moderate left ideals (most likely equality of opportunity and that people should be considered born equal and have equality under the law), just as the centre-left has some degree of moderate right ideals (most likely that the pursuit of egalitarianism should be pursued orderly - through the rule of law - rejecting revolution as proposed by the far left; and that there are limits to egalitarianism - they likely view complete equality of outcome as extremely unlikely to achieve). The left-right divide is not just about socialism versus capitalism - that stereotypes the left as all being socialist and the right as all being capitalist - it involves social issues - abortion, law and order, woman's role in society, affirmative action, immigration, minority rights, multiculturalism, LGBT rights, etc.--R-41 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The terms "left" and "right" to describe political ideology did not arise until the 20th century. Prior to that they merely referred to where one sat in the legislature. See Marcel Gauchet's article "Right and Left" in Realms of memory: conflicts and divisions, Columbia University Press, 1997. TFD (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But where they sat in the French legislature related to the values they held, the more egalitarian-aiming social justice-emphasizing politicians sat on the left, the ones who were more accepting of existing social hierarchies and social order-emphasizing politicians sat on the right.--R-41 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What is important though is that the terms left, right and centre became associated with those groups that sat in those places c. 1900. De Maistre conservatives sat on the right, socialists on the left and liberals in the center. What creates ambiguity today is that those conservatives have largely disppeared and liberals and Christian Democrats (who were called "Centrists" now occupy the right. Do we now call them right-wing? And of course Anglo_Scandinavian conservatism c. 1900 was too liberal to be called right-wing. Why would be call them right-wing now, other than that it is a useful journalistic shorthand? TFD (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They have shifted to being representative of the right because liberalism used to be strongly left in comparison to aristocratic proponents. Now socialists have taken the centre left (social democrats) and the far left (communists, anarchists, etc.) and aristocracy that formerly were ruling elites were replaced by merchants and businesspeople as the dominant people in society - as they controlled trade. The original left - that included laissez-faire capitalists at that time - was opposed to aristocracy, the modern left is more focused on hierarchical business-based societies because hierarchical aristocracy has dissappeared in the Western world. Liberals are still to the left of conservatives on social issues, and social liberals are more to the left on economic issues than classical liberals and neoliberals.--R-41 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are saying that one can always arrange political groups along a left-right axis. In that case the axis retains meaning but no meaning can be assigned to either end, because liberals can occupy either the left or the right of the spectrum at different times. So Bastiat was left-wing, Mises was centrist and Rothbard was right-wing, despite espousing bascially the same opinions. If that is the case then it does not justify this article. TFD (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Then what does left-wing vs. right-wing mean? What the intro previously had was a multiple sourced statement in the lead that states that right-wing politics involves the acceptance of social hierarchy. This acceptance of social hierarchy varies on the right - from a mild acceptance on the centre-right that does not support goals for equality of outcome but has supported equality of opportunity, equality under the law, and support of some actions for social justice that are achievable under the rule of law etc. The composition of the left and right has changed over time due to political circumstances - but the principles remain: of advocacy of equality and advocacy of social justice (left) vs. acceptance of hierarchy and advocacy of social order (right) is the main basis. Why does it change - because the value of achievements deemed important to a movement generally depreciates over time - replacing aristocratic nepotism with meritocracy in society was a huge and radical achievement for the original left - meritocracy is taken for granted now, the right emphasized the need for law and order such as the major achievement by original right in Britain who through the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 created the model of the contemporary organized metropolitan police forces as a constant presence in cities - this is taken for granted now. If it is wrong that left vs. right is on an egalitarian + social justice vs. hierarchical + social order dichotomy, then please explain what the left-right political spectrum means.--R-41 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about the political spectrum, it is about the Right. By your definition a social democrat in the English-speaking world who is a member of the Left suddenly becomes a member of the Right by moving to Venezuela. Closer to your home, a Quebec Liberal goes to bed a Leftist on election night 1973 and wakes up a right-winger because the PQ has replaced the UN as the official opposition. TFD (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to describe it as best as I can - I am not familiar with all of the histories of the examples you have stated. I do know that the Quebec Liberals have changed from being a social liberal party in the 1960s to being a more business friendly party under Robert Bourassa and a neoliberal party under former federal PC party leader Jean Charest. But if I am mistaken then what does left-wing vs. right-wing mean then? What is the dichotomy? What does right-wing mean?--R-41 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Are Right Wing and Conservative really completely different things?

This is the objection to the Buckley quotation. If they are entirely different things, then why is this part of WikiProject Conservatism? Is it really deniable that in post-World War II America, the Right = Conservatism?

Yes, the Buckley quote is applicable mainly to the Right in countries like America, the UK, and Canada. So what? This is a huge part of Wikipedia's readership - I'm not saying we should devote the entire article to the Anglosphere, if someone wants to write a section about what the phrase "right wing" means in the Third World that's fine, but why can't the quote be there? It's a good illustration of right wingers believe.

And with all this concern about world wide application, why should the article focus so much on revolutionary-era France? The phrase "right-wing" may have originated there, but modern day right wing attitudes, what one editor called "liberal conservatism," like that of Edmund Burke (I read both liberal and conservative publications. Only conservatives offer paeans to Burke) did not. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckely wrote that he was "on the libertarian side" and "on the conservative side" - that is not a normal definition of conservatism. He did not say he was defining conservatism or the Right. Many of his supporters rejected the term "conservative". And "right" and "conservative" are not synonyms, otherwise we could merge the articles. TFD (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid black and white thinking. Right-wing and Conservative are not completely different things. Nobody said they were. Neither are they identical things. This article should focus on Right-wing. The article Conservatism should focus on conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckley's quotation is a useful counterweight to the fact that this article relies predominantly on left wing, anti-Right sources. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide a source saying that they are the same thing and then we can turn this article into a re-direct to conservatism, per WP:DISAMBIG. In the meantime, Buckley was not talking about the Right or even conservatism. BTW, the political views of authors are irrelevant to rs. As a wise man once said, "facts are stupid things". It does not matter how the author votes, so long as his facts are vetted. TFD (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, there's no such thing as completely objective, undisputed facts about contentious areas of political science. Karl Marx and Buckley had different "facts." Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

From the article on conservatism: "Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism that combines liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, the right wing of the liberal movement.[29][30][31] The roots of conservative liberalism are found at the beginning of the history of liberalism. Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy. The events such as World War I occurring after 1917 brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.[32]" Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Libertarians

Some editors of this article want, for reasons I do not understand, Right-wing to equal Libertarian. But while they are willing to argue the point ad infinitum, they are not able to provide any references for this point of view. This renders the arguement pointless, since Wikipedia requires references. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source in intro by changes to the sentence it is sourcing

Here is the sentence: "Historically they refer to support for a hierarchical society justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition." (Source: Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) pp. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy.) The bolded world "historically" was added by a user that is not used in the reference that is talking about the left vs. right spectrum in general - not historically. Thus the inclusion of the word "historically" is a misrepresentation of this source.--R-41 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the lede should revert to its previous form and the stuff added by Rick Norwood should move to the history section. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Before I added material to the lead, it was being reverted back and forth several times a day between the "support for hierarchy" version and the "support for small government" version. The material I added is referenced, and covers both. Do you want to return to the revert war? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Action can be taken by administrators to stop a revert war. Are you suggesting that a conclusion not agreed upon by you legitimizes revert edit warring?--R-41 (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm "suggesting" that referenced material is better than unsupported opinion. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do Leftists comprehend the Right?

I cannot help noticing that the article uses Leftists (such as Seymour Martin Lipset) as authorities. I am guessing that the Wikipedia article about the Left does not rely upon Right Wing critics of the Left to supply its definition.

It is pretty evident that most of the people on the political Left who are editing this article have very little conception of what it is to be on the Right politically.

They notice people who oppose them, and go in search of an explanation. Some Leftists believe that people on the Right fail to comprehend that things can be made better, others says that they resist change because they do not like change. Some say that the Right opposes progress on the grounds that it is in their self-interest to keep things the same, others conclude that people on the Right are bad people, and bad people do bad things.

When the Right talk about the Left they also often assume they are either idiots or bad people. They assume for example (to focus on the egalitarian argument for a moment) that when people say that everybody is equal they do this because they are stupid or because it helps them get political power.

The Right-Left dichotomy is too persistent for it not to mean something, but what? I wrote the original Wikipedia definitions for the Right and Left on Wikipedia, suggesting egalitarianism of the Left, and anti-egalitarianism of the Right. I notice that despite numerous changes these definitions have survived more or less intact, but I now think that they fail to go to the heart of the issue. When Bobbio (for some reason this Italian Leftist is viewed as an authority giving an "international" perspective) defines the Right as anti-egalitarian, he is framing what the Right believe in Leftist terms.

So what do the Right believe? Crudely, the Right believe that the universe not only has an order, but that this order has a moral dimension. Inequality is just ONE aspect of this order. In other words it is not the case that the world can be anything we want it to be, we are constrained by what is the case, and this constraint includes right and wrong. The Left on the other hand claim that we impose values (and for post-modernists this includes truth) upon the world. If values are created, why not re-form human societies so that everybody is equal, in accordance with principle that nobody is better than anybody else, because what everybody believes, achieves, or believes to be the case, is of equal value.

The point here is not equality v inequality it is (for the Right) accepting the world or trying to remake the world.

To put it like this implies that modernity is inherently Leftist, and to some extent this is true. It is possible to make a division on the Right between those who view Modernity as one a big (hubristic) mistake, and those who accept many of the criticisms which Moderns have made about the way in which previous societies were organised. To be on the Right in this second sense is to accept that it is possible to change the world for the better, but it is combined with opposition to the antinomian utopianism of the Left; whose false utopian assumptions generate bad societies. The politics of the Right in other words can be described as the politics of imperfection; if perfection can be achieved it exists in another reality.

If we view "modernity" as the rejection of tradition on the basis of an appeal to new knowledge, this explains why, as our assumptions have become more and more "modern", more and more views that were once on the Left are pushed to the Right. Some people therefore have objected to seeking to define the Right as believers in hierarchy. They say that because I am on the Right I believe in a society that rewards excellence, and this is best achieved in a free society. They oppose the Left because they see it as attempting to use the power of the State to impose utopian ideals that destroy a free society. For example, they claim that when Communists abolished free markets this led to the starvation of millions i.e. utopianism did not improve the world it made it worse.

Some on the Right believe in free markets others seeks to constrain markets, but what the Right have in common is the belief that while humans can know the difference between good and bad, to be human is to be finite, fallible, and "fallen". The more Right you are the more pessimistic you are about our capacity to change things for the better, but to claim that being on the Right (in it contemporary meaning) designates complete pessimism about social change is false. In the West we are (nearly) all moderns now, and so the Right-Left dispute is about where to draw the line between what we can change for the better, and what we should accept e.g. Is a society which accepts private property a better or worse society?

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)).

Seymour Martin Lipset was a leftist when he was a college student. This article does not reference work he wrote as an undergraduate, it references work he wrote as a professional scholar.

To explain the motives of those who edit articles is mind-reading. In particular, most of the people I love are on the Right, and I certainly do not think they are bad people. You have been called on this before. Stick to facts, avoid personalities.

Most sources agree with you that the essential difference between left and right is between egalitarianism and hierarchy. Your explanation of the difference between Left and Right today is well-written, and I agree with almost all of it.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is one thing to state that there is a left-right axis, but another to determine where the dividing line between left and right lies. While there is no serious dispute that traditional European conservatism was right-wing, the extension of the concept to U.K. and U.S. conservatism is recent and controversial and was ironically pioneered by the Left. What I find bizarre is that rather than objecting to the description, some conservatives embrace it, redefine it, and even claim that the traditional right was really left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Right wing in the Anglophone world means conservative. They are one and the same. "William F. Buckley Jr. was an immodest man with much to be immodest about. Not only was he the high priest of the modern American conservative movement and the founding editor in chief of its leading intellectual publication, National Review; he was also a gifted polemicist, best-selling novelist, sesquipedalian speaker, television star, political candidate, yachtsman, harpsichordist, wit and bon vivant. Small wonder that I once saw him nod approvingly when a tongue-tied freshman referred to his 1951 autobiographical best seller as “God as Man at Yale.” He performed his many roles with such panache, and such obvious enjoyment of being William F. Buckley Jr., that he captivated people who otherwise would have despised someone who did much to move the United States politically to the right from the early 1950s until his death in 2008. But even liberals had to laugh when Buckley, asked whether he slouched in his chair as host of the TV program “Firing Line” because he couldn’t think on his feet, drawled, “It is hard . . . to stand up . . . under the weight . . . of all that I know.”

Of course the focus on equality vs. inequality is a leftist perspective. Rightists don't see it that way. Largely, they see it as government coercion vs. individual freedom, including economic freedom. Inequality isn't the issue for us. They don't advocate inequality. They advocate limited government when it comes to economics. The article, as written, might be appropriate for 18th century France, but not for the 21st century English Wikipedia.

I agree that the fact that an Italian leftist says something gives him an "international perspective" is hilarious. I also think calling these left wing academic hacks "scholars" is absurd as well, when they can't even talk about the Right in the terms that the Right uses.

If I had to pick one defining difference between the Left and the Right, it would be that the Left prioritizes economic equality, whereas the Right prioritizes economic freedom. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

‎ You need a secondary source that supports your view, particularly that Buckley was talking about the Right. Ironically, it was "left wing academic hacks" who decided that people such as Buckley were right-wing. Only extremists call themselves right-wing. Also, scholarly writing, whatever the political beliefs of the writer, is more reliable than magazine mixsion statements. TFD (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/books/review/buckley-william-f-buckley-jr-and-the-rise-of-american-conservatism-by-carl-t-bogus-book-review.html?pagewanted=all Buckley's National Review column was called "On the Right." Many scholars thought that the Soviet Union's massacres, mass murders, and starvations were overstated and that it was a fine place, until Gulag Archipelago came out. If Wikipedia published an article based on their scholarly work, Stalin would seem better than Roosevelt. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Also http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1717900,00.html Falconclaw5000 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources address the text you wish to insert. Ironically, your first source is from a book review in the New York Times (!) by a left-wing academic about a book written by a self-described (U.S.) liberal. We have already established that the Left calls Buckley "right-wing". Your second source is a tweet, not rs. TFD (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is on the term "right-wing" not American conservatism. Please stop imposing your Anglo-Americentric view. LittleJerry (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Many people use "right-wing" and "conservative" and even "right-wing" and "Republican" as synonyms. More generally, many people use words badly. But if they were in fact synonyms, how are we to understand such common observations as contrasts between the right-wing and more moderate conservatives, or statements than in recent years the Republicans have swung far to the Right. If there words were synonyms, these phrases would be meaningless.

Libertarians think that the main difference between conservatives and liberals is economic, but the small percentage of votes Ron Paul has gotten in the Republican primaries is ample evidence that, at least in the US, that is not the main issue separating conservatives and liberals. The number one issue in the presidential race at the moment is birth-control.

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this section? To deny that left-wing people can comprehend the right and that right-wing people cannot comprehend the left? One user has dismissed Norbeto Bobbio as just "some Italian leftist" - he is also a respected philosopher - and what exactly in what he says that has been included in the intro is so intolerable? If it is merely because someone discovered that he is "left-wing" and thus unreliable then this is idiotic Dark Ages black and white thinking prejudice of "oh he believes in such-and-such, thus he cannot be trusted". Christopher Hitchens was an athiest, but he was invited to lectures on religion to discuss his critique of religion side by side with religious proponents. Is this section proposing the censorship of people because of personal political beliefs? Should we only listen to fascists about fascism and communists about communism? People have differences of opinion and views - to say "ah this person is a stated left-winger and therefore they are completely unreliable for material on right-wing politics" is completely and idiotically prejudiced because it does not base its opposition upon the content of their work at all! Bobbio says that the right has a legitimate basis for its beliefs - in that the right believes that achieving complete social equality in society is impossible and that there will always be social hierarchy that is inevitable and natural - and this point is a very strong point for the right - because the left has been unable to concisely prove that social equality is natural - bear in mind that I am a centre-left social democrat saying this. I as a leftist believe that the right over its history has had many convincing views of society which is why people like Thomas Hobbes' view of society without law and order as leading to a natural state of all-out anarchic war, and Edmund Burke on the dangers of too much egalitarianism - especially revolutionary egalitarism; they are still discussed today and I agree with some right-wing ideas and I agree with a number of left-wing ideas. I do not want myself or anyone including scholars or philosophers like Bobbio or even ones I disagree with like Ayn Rand or Thomas Hobbes to be censored, ignored, or disregarded by idiotic Dark Ages prejudice involving suspicion of beliefs being of one group always being toxic to another and thus segregating them.--R-41 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, what you fail to understand is that nobody considers American conservatives or libertarians right-wing simply because they support individaul liberty, but for how they view liberty. They both believe that society should be stratified and that if one group wants to be on equal par with other, they should work their way up the social ladder. They believe that such a society allows for more freedom, and the imposition of equality threatens freedom. More left–leaning individuals believe that society should be levelled to where it is more inherently equal. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother wasting your time conversing with the person who posted this "Do Leftists comprehend the Right?", it is so offensively discriminatory and prejudiced on a Dark Ages level of intolerance - it's just like those in the Dark Ages who would say "Do heathens comprehend Christians?". This section only reveals the original poster's unfortunately open black and white thinking prejudice against left-wing people that claims that left-wing people are incompetent to understand their own biases and account for them in their work. By the standard of the poster that no outside views on right-wing politics are valid, then by that standard should we thus take Stalin's word on Stalinism - that he advocated a peace-loving, proletarian brotherhood of all people of the world united in a caring, compassionate state by a democracy of workers - and should other views arise, ask "Do capitalists and Trotskyists comprehend Stalinism?" - such questions like this pigeonholes people into stereotype groupings defined by strawman fallacy - who can stand for all the left for instance? The user who posted this says "we rightests" stand against state intervention, for democracy, for individual liberty, laissez-faire capitalism, etc., etc. - that is the modern libertarian centre-right that is linked to the ideals of classical liberalism with a tinge of conservatism, as in upholding the tradition of the capitalist economy - what about the Catholic right that supports government intervention in the economy and supports people limiting their actions to those ordained by the Bible and refusing to do those opposed by the Bible, or what about absolute monarchists like Thomas Hobbes who advocated a strong state? Or reactionaries who advocated aristocracy and mercantilism and strongly opposed individualistic liberty and parliamentary democracy like Joseph de Maistre or the more recent Charles Maurras of Action Francaise? Or British conservatives who opposed free trade and laissez-faire economics for many years - deep into the 20th century? The user's description of "we rightests" do not represent these examples of right-wing politics, they do not universally uphold individual liberty, opposition to state intervention, democracy, and laissez-faire capitalism in common. Just as the far-left is not all statists - anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin wanted to destroy the state and have small voluntarily-united communities replace them - by the way from the late 19th century until the 1920s (and into the 1930s in Spain during the Spanish Civil War), just somewhat later than the Bolshevik Revolution, it was the anarchists, NOT the communists, who were the primary popular troublemakers of the far left: anarchists bombed Wall Street, assassinated major public figures - including the assasinations of: US President William McKinley, Tsar Alexander II of Russia, and the King Umberto I of Italy all to gain attention to their cause of a stateless society--R-41 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As for alleged unrepenting bias of the left: I know an ex-Marxist history professor who is very open to right-wing people having their voices heard in academia, just as I have known a conservative politics professor who is open to hear out voices on the left - in academia you need to listen to your critics before publishing or your work will be a flop and torn to pieces by critics, it is different then the cheap partisan grandstanding of politicians in elections. As I said before and will repeat exactly again so it is clear especially to the user who posted this blatantly discrimatory, prejudiced, and offensive section: I do not want myself or anyone including scholars or philosophers like Bobbio or even ones I disagree with like Ayn Rand or Thomas Hobbes to be censored, ignored, or disregarded by idiotic Dark Ages prejudice involving suspicion of beliefs being of one group always being toxic to another and thus segregating people into "us" versus "them" categories of "we rightests" versus "you leftists". I would appreciate it if someone would just close this section down with the Wikipedia "hat" template, because it is so obviously intended as a soapbox - and these are opposed by Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to draw attention to the political affiliation of an author if they are being used as authoritative source in an article seeking to define what it is to be Right-Wing. R-41, you are either being naïve or disingenuous to claim otherwise. To answer your question, I would not use Christopher Hitchens as an as an authority on the Christian religion, and if reference was made to him in a Wikipedia article on Christianity, I think it is entirely reasonable to identify him as an atheist.

Advocating hierarchy is an odd way to define Right Wing politics, and only makes sense as a contrast to egalitarianism. I don't see much evidence that the Leftists who are contributing to this article have much understanding of the political Right, and I put forward the suggestion that this probably has something to do with their political assumptions.

The Right is (generally) not ideological, whereas the Left (generally) is ideological. A five year old could understand the ideology of The Communist Manifesto in about 5 minutes, but I very much doubt a five year old world be able to understand the political views being defended by Edmund Burke.

Neither Thomas Hobbes nor Ayn Rand are Right-Wing philosophers by the way. That fact that you believe them to be Right-Wing R-41 tells me more about your confusion than it tells me about Right Wing thought.

I think that Little Jerry makes a good point about how liberals and conservatives have a different undersanding of liberty. Freedom is not an end in itself for conservatives, it is a means to an end, the end of realising various ideals such as truth and justice. It is because our access to these ideals is fallible that some conservatives value liberty, not because they reject the objective validity of those ideals.

P.S. I appreciate you have have poor reading skills R-41, but I was seeking to articulate what somebody with Falconclaw's political assumptions might say. Given that you fail to quote what I said correctly, I am not sure why you feel the need to put quotation marks.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You are still associating the right with the classical liberal conservative centre-right, there are other right-wing movements from the centre-right to far-right that do not agree with laissez-faire capitalism, or do not agree with parliamentary or legislative democracy, or are very statist. It makes far more sense from a number of scholars accounts that the right is associated with a predisposition to accept social hierarchy as natural or inevitable along with a predisposition of social order as basis of society, in opposition to left-wing politics with a predisposition to advocate social equality and a predisposition of social justice as the basis of society - whose most radical proponents sought to abolish all traditional stratified institutions - including the aristocracy, the monarchy, and the Catholic Church. Opposition to the egalitarian social levelling particularly of the radical left, rallied the aristocracy, monarchists, and the Catholic Church together to defend their positions against social levelling schemes of the radical left through claims of them providing social order and stability of society through traditions. Your definition of the right as inevitably supportive of the classical liberal originated concept of individual liberties, of being against state intervention only describes the British and American developments of Burkean conservatism, libertarian conservatism, and neoliberalism. It does not account at all for continental conservatism known on Wikipedia as "Latin conservatism", or the Catholic religious right that supports the Catholic Church's advocacy Christian corporatism while opposing laissez-faire capitalism (by 1931 the Catholic Church openly condemned both "capitalist individualism" and "socialist totalitarianism"). Therefore none of these right-wing groups fit anywhere close to being united on what you describe as "we rightests". Your accusation of left-wing being incompetent of understanding the right is blatant black and white thinking of stereotyping whom you regard as your "opponent" as automatically "wrong", "devious", "weak", or "corrupt" - that kind of thinking would be acceptable in the Dark Ages - today, it is known that anyone who has led a military in war who has assumed their military opponent to be automatically "wrong", "devious", "weak", or "corrupt" - has been severely in danger of losing a war due to assumptions of what their opponent will do based on strawman fallacy. Right-wing people at the time when there was first a left-wing and right-wing of the French parliament, at that time said that violent anarchy was the inevitable result of egalitarianism pursued to its end: that under egalitarianism, everyone would believe that they are equal authorities of themselves, reject any hierarchical authority, and will refuse to be forced to make contributions (like taxes) to society as demanded by the state - resulting in violence, and the French Revolution is an excellent example of egalitarianism in practice becoming a tyranny of anarchic violence as they claimed. I am left-wing, and I acknowledge that there have been very strong arguments by the right for their positions, so don't stereotype people with left-wing views as automatically and deliberately trying to make the right be seen as disreputable.--R-41 (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't define the Right as “inevitably supportive” of Classical Liberalism. I presume you are talking about Falconclaw, but he can answer for himself; unlike the person quoted as saying “we Rightists” - which of course is a quote you made up. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I saw something along the lines of "we rightests" - I could have been mistaken, and again you are accusing me of lying - once again demonstrating your inherent tendency to assume bad faith of people you disagree with. How does that justify assuming that someone is "wrong" because of the views they hold? What I saw was FalconClaw's statement I suppose, when he says "If I had to pick one defining difference between the Left and the Right, it would be that the Left prioritizes economic equality, whereas the Right prioritizes economic freedom." - that is what is naive, the original right had aristocrats who refused to give up their feudal lands or enfranchise their peasants by allowing them to own significant portions of the land that they worked on for the aristocrats - capitalist classical liberals in France at this time were on the centre-left in comparison to the dominance of aristocrats on the right - because the classical liberals believed in equality of opportunity and the Adam Smith notion that people deserve the "fruits of their labour".--R-41 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the article I posted? I'm sorry to say this, but only someone with the reading comprehension of a three year old can say that it is about the Right, not American Conservatism. American conservatives ARE right wing. They are one and the same. You cannot be a right wing liberal. You cannot be a left wing conservative. Liberals are on the Left. Conservaties are on the Right. These are some of the most basic concepts in existence. Again, this focus on inequality is inappropriate. Inequality does not feature much in right wing thought and ideology. The preservation of inequality is not a goal of the Right in it of itself. All major Communist regimes participated in widespread murder. By your logic, communism is all about murdering people. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"You cannot be a right-wing liberal" - Have you ever heard of neoliberalism - British Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher advocated that, and present Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron regularly defines Britain in a positive way as a "liberal democracy". And if the issue of advocacy of social equality vs. acceptance of social hierarchy, social order vs. social justice are not the dichotomies, then what could possibly unite: conservatives, reactionaries, aristocrats, monarchists, mercantilists, capitalists, secular classical liberals, liberal conservatives, libertarian conservatives, conservative nationalists, conservative religious people, neoliberals, etc. into the definition "right-wing"?--R-41 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a different use of the word "liberal." Let's not pretend that the word "liberal" is universally used the same everywhere. Liberal used to mean, roughly, pro-laissez faire capitalism (see classical liberal.) It then switched to mean "progressive," in other words, a position in between socialism and capitalism. Neo-liberal does NOT mean politically liberal. Nothing unites all the various ideologies listed. Fascism is considered by many to be a right wing ideology; it has nothing in common with right wing libertarianism, and indeed has much more in common with communism, and, to an extent, leftism, which is almost always in favor of centralization of power in the hands of those who run the government. In other words, it may indeed be more accurate to say that leftists are more elitist - after all, who's the one always fetishizing about "experts?" Democrats or Republicans? Who's the one who believes in central planning? Rightists or leftists? The reality is, fascism is not really right wing - it's national socialism; it's left wing. Monarchists and liberal conservatives are not part of the same ideology, either. The historical Right is completely separate from the modern, especially American and British, Right. You say my definition ignores European Continental conservatism. Well, yours ignores American and British conservatism! Falconclaw5000 (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Well, yours ignores American and British conservatism!" - oh really - you mention that there can be no such thing as "left-wing conservatism" - you are partially correct - conservatives identify as being right but British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli created progressive conservatism that supports a social welfare state. Also this progressive conservatism pursued under Stanley Baldwin and particularly Conservative foreign secretary Austen Chamberlain turned strongly against free trade and openly promoted the British Conservative Party in elections as protectionist and a supporter of social welfare - attacking liberals for allegedly being against the poor for their then-laissez-faire and free trade policies. "This is a different use of the word "liberal"" - nope, social liberalism developed out of classical liberalism in Britain and elsewhere in response to the rise of labour unrest to laissez-faire capitalist policies, even social liberals maintain a commitment to capitalism - in a regulated form and advocate equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome. You say the modern right is completely separate from the historical right - that doesn't make sense because why would we still call it right-wing if it is completely separate? You say the left is all about the state having control - increasing as one moves leftward - then what the hell were Mikhail Bakunin and the anarchists calling for anarchist revolution to establish a local voluntary community-based socialism and calling for destruction of the state?--R-41 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you focused on Falconclaws's key point:

"The preservation of inequality is not a goal of the Right in and of itself."

The Right oppose radical egalitarianism, but it is misleading to DEFINE the Right as those who seek to preserve inequality. This is to frame the Right in terms derived from the Left.

Acceptance of some inequality is a consequence of its other beliefs. It is these other beliefs that define the political Right.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me make it clear: The right does not always seek preservation of inequality as a goal, rather it typically claims that inequality is inevitable because social hierarchy is ever-present in natural law. The right distrusts egalitarian schemes of societies attempting to forge social equality where it has not normally existed in nature. There are some - particularly on the far right that do seek preservation of inequality as a goal. It is not that most right-wing people desire inequity and inequality for people, it is that they believe that the concept of achieving complete social equality is either not possible or extremely dangerous to society and its people.--R-41 (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Where are these sources from right-wingers calling themselves right-wing and defining the Right? The only sources i can find are by extremists. TFD (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I do free market type not believe that there should be a social ladder in which people must move up? LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to let this article be written like a Marxist hit piece. What exactly about Nobbio qualifies him as writing from an "international" perspective? Why isn't Buckley, the most prominent Rightist of the 20th century, even mentioned?

Responding to Falconclaw, whose comment is quoted above.

1) It is not helpful to characterize everyone who disagrees with you as a Marxist. As far as I know, there are no Marxists editing this article. If they are, they do not let their Marxist beliefs color their edits.

2) The name you are groping for is Bobbio. Here is what one review says about the cited book: "Are contemporary political issues best understood in left-right terms? With his customary lucidity and wisdom, Professor Bobbio, Italy's most distinguished political thinker explains the persistence and defends the relevance of the distinction in the face of "the great problem of inequality between people and between the peoples of this world" in a short work that is far-reaching, simple and deep." Steven Lukes, European University Institute That seems to support Professor Bobbio's qualifications as a major writer, writing from an international perspective.

3) The most prominent Rightist of the 20th century by far is Adolph Hitler, which is one of many reasons I do not understand your efforts to identify Libertarianism with the usually perjorative phrase "right-wing".

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Bobbio - not because I agree with Falconclaw, but because the controversy of it just keeps coming up. I find it ashame that censorship of Bobbio has been pressed upon this article because he is left-wing, and that Falconclaw is suggesting that only right-wingers can speak for the right-wing - that is again censorship and is equivelent to saying that only communists can speak for communism accurately and only fascists can speak for fascists accurately. There still is the source in the intro that states the right-wing's association with the acceptance of social hierarchy as based upon natural law and tradition - a user attempted to change the meaning of what it said by claiming that it only mean "historically" for the right - when it never said that it meant historically - but this edit has been reverted. --R-41 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw: I just used Google scholar to search for the phrase "right-wing". The top three hits were: Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism B Altemeyer, 1988; The politics of unreason: Right-wing extremism in America, 1790-1977, SM Lipset, 1978; and Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe, HG Betz, 1994. The pharse "right-wing", outside modern US politics, does not mean what you think it means! Rick Norwood (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You have certainly told us all what you WP:KNOW, but that is not exactly the best way to proceed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect, your comments do not appear to make any sense, and clicking WP:KNOW I get a quote saying, "It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so." Are you claiming that what Rick Norwood says "ain't so". If you are then how do you WP:KNOW it ain't so? TFD (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood: Finding books written by Leftists with "Right-Wing" in the title which assert that it is wicked to be Right-Wing is hardly the find of the century. I have news for you. I can find three books with the word "Left-Wing" in the title, in which opponents of the Left claim that it is wicked to be Left-Wing.

Quite why you think a positive endorsement by the Leftist Steven Lukes of Bobbio's political claims changes anything is unclear.

The Four Deuces: You seem to think that if you repeat the claim that only "extremists" call themselves "Right-Wing" enough times, that will make it correct. Good luck with that one.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just remove Bobbio's statement if it is so egregious. But explain why is it egregious - what does Bobbio say that is so biased?--R-41 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, if you think that non-extremists call themselves "right-wing", then please provide an example. Even most extremists have stopped calling themselves right-wing. TFD (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckley's column was "On the Right." Quod erat demonstrandum. Collect (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not expressing an opinion, I was citing a fact. The search of google scholar did, in fact, return the three titles I cited. These three titles used "right-wing" in the way it has been used for a very long time, and the way it is still used in academia, and still used internationally. Some editors want to purge this article of international or scholarly uses of the phrase, on the assertion that anyone who uses words correctly must be "Leftists", and that only the modern usage in the popular media is the correct usage. But they go beyond that, and want this article to assert that the "real" meaning of "right-wing" is not even the popular media usage, but the Libertarian media usage. As I've pointed out, this article is here to report how the phrase is used, not to change how the phrase is used. Why not call libertarian views "libertarian"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate Rick Norwood that only you know how the phrase "right-wing" should be used, but a few seconds Google search supplies this usage from Australia

http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Whats_the_difference_between_left_and_right_wing.aspx

"Whats the difference between left and right wing?..To explain this I’ll compare and contrast the positions taken by the far left and the far right. Be aware that many people’s political beliefs are on a continuum between left and right.

1. Role of the individual and government

My friend used to have this analogy = left wingers believe that the state is more important than the individual, right wingers believe that the individual is more important than the state. That analogy is semi-true. Left wingers believe that governments are a force for social justice and change, and so should intervene in individual’s lives to ensure social justice is achieved. Right wingers believe that governments are big and unwieldy and so should not interfere with people’s lives at all. They believe that government interference contravenes an individual’s right to liberty. For this reason left wingers have traditionally favoured ‘big’ government while right wingers favoured ‘small’ government.

2. Formal versus substantial equality

Right wingers believe in formal equality. They believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law and should be treated equally by government. Examples of right wing formal equality include equal pay for equal work and civil and political rights. Left wingers believe in substantial equality. They argue that not every individual is the same and so government policy should be aimed to create substantial rather than just formal equality. Examples of left wing substantial equality include affirmative action and social and cultural rights.

3. Markets and the economy

Right wingers favour laissez-faire, free market economic policies. This is in line with individuals controlling their own lives, deciding their own version of the good life, and emphasises the role of individual initiative. Examples of right wing economic policy is Voluntary Student Unionism, emphasising a pay as you go approach so that students who want services should pay for them, and Work Choices legislation, which removes regulation and promotes the use of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). AWAs are designed to allow employers and employees to bargain with each other as individuals.

Left wingers favour interventionist, regulated market economic policies. In the past they have favoured publicisation of industries, of which extreme example is the command economy of the former USSR. Left wingers emphasise the importance of regulation, initiatives that allow employers and employees to bargain equally, and the dangers of free market exploitation. Examples of left wing economic policy would be supporting the role of unions in collective and enterprise bargaining, as this recognises the power employers have over employees in the bargaining process, and consumer protection legislation such as the Trade Practices Act.

Summary

Right wingers are libertarians. They believe in liberty for the individual as the most important fundamental principle society should be based on. This libertarianism has morphed into neo-liberalism, which emphasises individual initiative for all interactions with government. For example, Work for the Dole is neo-libertarian as it is trying to get people off the dole (which is funded by government acquisition of individual’s wealth (taxes)) and into work where they can work for themselves.

Left wingers are socialists. They believe that government should be doing things to help the entire society. This focus has lead them to focus on the disadvantaged peoples in our society as these peoples are often treated the worst. Socialists emphasise the ability of collective action in achieving outcomes in relation to equality and social justice. For example, universal education is a socialist objective because it would provide all people, irregardless of how much money they have, the opportunity to get an education and thus improve their lives.

And finally: As you can see, left and right wing doesn't encompass progressive or conservative. You can have conservative left wingers and progressive right wingers. Both major political parties in Australia, the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia, have progressive and conservative elements within them.

Examples of parties

Left / Environmental: Australian Greens http://www.greens.org.au/

Centre-left: Australian Labor Party http://www.alp.org.au/

Centre: Australian Democrats http://www.democrats.org.au/

Right: Liberal Party of Australia http://www.liberal.org.au/

Right: The Nationals http://www.nationals.org.au/

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)).

Insults do not advance your argument. I have never claimed to "know" what the phrases mean, only to have the ability to look things up and cite sources.

The article you quote seems to be a fairly accurate explanation of what libertarians mean by "right-wing". It doesn't explain why, during his lifetime, Francisco Franco was so often described as right-wing. In other words, the article you cite claims that the change in meaning over time is now complete. But that article is by its own description an opinion. I don't see that reflected in the books and articles I read.

Let me give you an example. The word "girl" used to mean "boy". Over the centuries, its meaning changed, to include all children of both sexes, and over more centuries, its meaning changed further to mean only female children. That change is now complete, and there is no reason in a modern article on the subject to even mention the old meaning except possibly as a historical footnote.

On the other hand, the word "literally" used to mean "in fact". In the past few decades, there has been some shift in meaning toward meaning "emphatically", as in "I'm literally drowning in paperwork." That shift is not complete, and so to define "literal" as meaning "emphatically" would not be correct in a modern article.

The subject under discussion here is whether the shift in meaning of "right-wing" is now so complete that the older meaning is obsolete. I can cite many examples to show that it is not. Here is one, picked more or less at random from the 2012 World Almanac, "...a July 1936 extreme right rebellion led by Gen. Francisco Franco and aided by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy succeeded..." I don't think you can made a case that the World Almanac is Marxist, or that they mean to say that Franco was an extreme supporter of small government and free enterprise.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Care to see how the World Almanac fares at RS/N? I suggest that it is a simplified tertiary source at best, and not WP:RS for anything much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. For your information, the Liberal Party of Australia, together with the Torys and Republicans, is a member of the International Democrat Union, an organization of "political parties of the centre and centre right".[10] TFD (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why censor Buckley?

I saw a comment about the tragedy of "censoring" Bobbio from this article. Well, I put him back in, and Bobbio is about the 20th leftist who's perspective given in this article. His perspective isn't international, it is Marxist. But there is not ONE perspective from the Right. So why censor Buckley? You don't think Buckley is a serious thinker? He is one of the most serious thinkers of the 20th century, admired from both the Left and the Right, and his stature certainly exceeds Mr. Bobbio. Just because something is an academic work, doesn't mean it isn't political propaganda, as Rick Norwood showed when he displayed the Google results for Right Wing (clearly, Norwood thinks Right Wing means "evil," while left wing means "good," (good like Stalin?)). Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that Bobbio was a Marxist. But you have failed to provide a single source from a right-wing person who calls himself right-wing. As I said before, only extremists call themselves right-wing in sources. TFD (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How soon they forget -- Buckley had a long-time syndicated column "On the Right." I rather think this is self-evidently an identification with the "Right." Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Big leap Collect. While I suspect your judgment is impeccable, policy requires a published writer to make the connection. TFD (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckley, indeed, was a "published writer" and note that WP specifies that people can make statements about themselves, and be considered a "reliable source" for such. I also suspect he is RS for making "political statements". Next? Collect (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000: You are mind reading again. I have never said that "Right-wing" means evil nor that "left-wing" means good. Why is it so hard for you to deal with what I say, instead of putting words in my mouth. Bobbio is not a Marxist. He is an anti-Marxist, deploring the use by Marxists of violence to achieve thier ends. It does not advance your point of view to lable everyone you disagree with "Marxist". As for your assertion that 20 leftists have their views included in this article, please provide a list.

Collect: I agree, William F. Buckley, Jr. considered himself "On the Right". If this article was titled "The American Right in the second half of the 20th Century", it would be appropriate to use the Buckley quote as what "the Right" meant in that context. But note that TFD is not saying that Buckley did not self-describe himself as "On the Right", but is asking for a commentator who described his views as being "right-wing". It shouldn't be hard to find one.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Normally a person is a reliable source for his self-identification - but since you want yet another source other than the person himself making the statement try [11] Time magazine, and the rather clearly named book [12] Strictly Right: William F. Buckley, Jr. and the American conservative movement among a huge number of reliable sources. You're welcome. Collect (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why censor De Maistre?

A rhetorical response to the statement above on Buckley. The intro already mentions the indivualist and libertarian right along with the collectivist right. Falconclaw, you should post that statement by Buckley on an article about American right-wing politics where it would be particularly useful. Here it is going against the worldview of right-wing politics, that is already described in the intro without that statement. If you emphasize one right-wing proponent like Buckley, then later someone will bring up Joseph De Maistre because his views are not accounted by Buckley, then someone will say that it is Eurocentric and want Asian political outlook, etc. etc. It is better without the statement and by focusing on the right-wing as a whole while mentioning internal differences and divisions on the right. The statement by Buckley in the lead intro emphasizes the Anglophone world's classical liberal-based right-wing politics of the recent past and present while deemphasizing others - thus it does not represent a world view.--R-41 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But preservation of inequality is not a goal of the Right in America or Britain. Rightists like Ronald Reagan sought to curb dependence on government programs by poor people, which actually increased wealth inequality. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I never SAID preservation of inequality was pursued by the centre-right as in the case of centre-right neoliberal conservative Ronald Reagan. The moderate right accepts the inevitability of significant degrees of social hierarchy to exist, no matter what attempts are made by society to change it. The far right believes that social hierarchy is not only inevitable but desirable. Please stop your edit warring of removing very neutral scholarly sources that explain the differences and divisions in the right between the centre right and far right and the individualist right and the collectivist right. You did not offer any explanation whatsoever for removing that neutral material.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand who De Maistre is, what he represented, or even what the history of right-wing politics has been in Europe. You only understand the American centre-right classical liberal libertarian and neoliberal politics of American conservatism. Your view of left-wing = statist totalitarians versus right-wing = freedom-loving libertarians is a stereotypical claim made by American conservative pundits that does not account for statist right-wingers like De Maistre who advocated absolute monarchy and extreme libertarian left-wingers like the anarchist Bakunin who advocated the complete destruction of the state and the creation of an anarchist socialist system of decentralized voluntary communities. If you want to add material on Buckley in an intro add it to an intro on American conservatism, because Buckley does not represent a world view of right-wing politics.--R-41 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If you meet a person affiliated with the Catholic political right - that is a major political force in Europe and Latin America today, you will find that they would completely disagree with Buckley. Why? Because they view society in a collective communitarian manner and oppose laissez-faire capitalism because of Catholic emphasis on charity to the poor and the Catholic Church's long-held endorsement of Christian corporatism involving cooperation between employers and employees as being the proper economy based on Christian values. The Catholic Church has denounced what it deems "capitalist individualism" and what it deems "socialist totalitarianism".--R-41 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the articles on Buckley you referenced does it state anything about "inequality" or "unequal" social circumstances, I pushed "CTRL-F" and searched "inequality", "unequal" etc. it appeared nowhere there. So it appears that you just made that up out of thin air. Plus the intro already says that the centre-right accepts society providing equality of opportunity but does not accept society providing equality of outcome. You still have failed to address why the sources in the intro's second sentence are wrong? And why have you failed to even acknowledge any other right-wing movements that I have informed you of, that are outside your ideal right-wing movement being a libertarian conservative movement based upon classical liberal conceptions of liberty (including individualism), politics, and the economy (laissez-faire)? In answer to one of your comments earlier, as a centre-left social democrat, I can personally attest on behalf of myself and others to assure you that most reasonable centre-leftists that I have known accept that there were evil left-wing people like Maximilien Robespierre, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and others, in the case of Robbespierre he massacred thousands of people, the other three massacred and millions of people, out of psychopathy, narcissism, and ideological zeal. I am disgusted by Slobodan Milosevic - who as head of the left-wing Socialist Party of Serbia exploited ethnic nationalism to gain power, resulting in the Yugoslav civil wars. I admire George Bush Senior a man who is much underappreciated by both the right and left - Bush Senior pressed hard for the dismantlement of apartheid in South Africa and Africans who remember what he did tremendously respect him.--R-41 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, could you please provide a source that Ronald Reagan ever called himself right-wing. TFD (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reagan 1964 speech:

There is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant-heap of totalitarianism.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good quote, Collect. Or should I say "Pip, pip, and cherrio"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Gauchet's Realms of Memory

A new paragraph has been added to the lead. I don't dispute it, but I would like it to be supported, like the other citations in the lead, with a quote. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

William F. Buckley

In the hope of avoiding more edit wars, I've left the Buckley quote in, but changed the text to reflect that source, which says that Buckley was the "intellectual godfather" of the conservative movement, not of "the Right". On the one hand, certainly Buckley was an important figure among American Right-wing intellectuals. On the other, I would prefer a quote that actually uses the phrase "Right-wing" rather than the word "conservative". The important question here is the meaning of "right-wing", not whether the "right-wing" view is or is not the correct view, and the widely different ways the phrase is used make intelligent discourse difficult. Buckley is famous for nothing if not for proper use of words. I remember when he issued a ukase to the staff of National Review requiring the Oxford comma (I've corrected a comma error in the lead -- poets are people fascinated with death and commas). His reasoning was that a conjunction cannot replace a separator. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Add "long-time writer of the column On the Right " and I think it would work. I rather think the title of his column is a teensy bit self-explanatory? Collect (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, there is no doubt that Buckley considered himself "On the Right", though I'm not sure he would have embraced the epithet "right-wing". I just said it should be easy to find a quote that used that phrase. Buckley valued words and would, I believe, have been disgusted by the misuse of words by the anti-intellectual Right of the twenty-first century. I'm certain he never called anyone a "Marxist" unless they were, in fact, a Marxist -- he would not use that as a general term of dislike or dismissal. I remember once when he debated a Marxist on Firing Line, and admitted on the air that it was the first time he had been totally defeated in a debate. The Marxist won by paying no attention to anything Buckley said, and simply reciting the Marxist Party line.

I suspect that one reason Buckley's son resigned from National Review is that the modern American Right has no respect for words, or for facts, but is only interested in winning votes for Republican candidates. I would love to read a column by Buckley on the distinction between "conservative" and "right-wing". I'm sure he would have had insights that this article could profit from. Is there a searchable database of National Review on-line? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any sources that Buckley called himself right-wing. Hayek called himself a "liberal" and said that liberalism was in the center, not on the right. The editor in charge of ideology at the NR was Frank S. Meyer - he might have written something on this. TFD (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

so On the Right means what, precisely? That he is right-handed? The "laugh test" is hereby invoked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why, if you admire Buckley (as I do) do you laugh at attempts to use words carefully, as he did. I agree, Buckley considered himself "on the Right". Do some research. Find a quote where he stated what the right-wing believed. He wrote a lot. Surely that is in there somewhere. Nobody is saying that there is not an overlap between right-wing beliefs and conservative beliefs. That does not imply that the two are identical, or even that William F. Buckley considered the two to be identical. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckley wrote a column called "On the Right", therefore Buckley was right-wing, therefore any opinion he expresses is about the Right, even if he does not explicitly say so. Whether or not that would be a reasonable approach in a research paper, it is original research and therefore of little use to us. If you want to include Buckely, find a source where he explains what right-wing means. TFD (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You are errant in the extreme. Mentioning his column name is not "original research" in any universe ever created. Cheers - but this is about as far off an arguemnt as ever made on Wikipedia! Collect (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While mentioning the name of the column, forming a conclusion about it is. BTW the U.S. president says he is a Christian. Does that mean that every statement he makes is a pronouncement on Christianity? TFD (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and where did Buckley actually try to analyse the term "right-wing" from a historical and global prespective and try to come up with a defintion based on that? LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, while mainstream source do use the term "Right" to refer to U.S. politics, it is normally used to refer to mainstream Republicans, e.g., Eisenhower. When people such as Buckley, Joe McCarthy or Barry Goldwater were mentioned the term "right" was normally qualified as far right, extreme right, radical right, etc. See for example Daniel Bell's The Radical Right. TFD (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! So a person on the right wing of the "political spectrum" is not on the right wing of the "political spectrum." You have made the argument so absolutely and wondrously clear~ Collect (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying that if one is wealthier than average, then one is rich, but if one is poorer then average, then one is poor. So the U.S. could be described as 50% rich and 50% poor. A rich American vacationing in Bermuda would suddenly become poor, while a poor American vacationing in Mexico would suddenly become rich. How far to the right does one have to be before one is a right-winger? TFD (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that these are terms which can be used in both relative and absolute senses. We still speak of left and right in countries where there is no actual left wing party left in mainstream politics, using it solely as a relative term. The perceived centre point shifts with the parties and ignores the absolute definitions of left and right. Similarly we often talk of rich and poor in relative terms although absolute definitions are available. For the terms to be meaningful they require context. Take the example of somebody on the right of the Democrats in the USA. To the Democrats that person is right wing, to the US as whole that person is still a Democrat and hence left wing, while to the world as a whole, which has not entirely forgotten what the real left is (or was), that person is a member of a centre-right party and hence fairly right wing. None of those descriptions is wrong but each is easily misunderstood without context. Furthermore it is that final, worldwide view, which accords with the absolute definitions of left and right, that we should use by default in Wikipedia as we need to be understood by readers around the world. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) IOW, by "world standards" it is silly to say that Buckley was not right wing at all. BTW, you again point out that there is no absolute "political spectrum" applicable to all eras and all places, or even to all issues. Collect (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

But the term left is more often used as an absolute. The parties called "the Left" have historic roots in socialism. TFD (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In most of the world, yes, but not in the US. Here the Democratic Party is called the party of the Left, and its roots are not in socialism, but in liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

IOW, no matter who slices the cake, Buckley is "on the right". And there are still no meaningful and universal descriptions of the "political spectrum." Which is what the sources actually do agree on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

the lede has become an information dump, most of the information here should be spread thoughout the body of the article.

I don't see why people are obsessed with the lede when it is the body of the article that needs improving. It seems this consent editting is being done to please one editor. LittleJerry (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede is meant to summarise the subject as a whole. Anything in the lede should already be reflected in the body somewhere, covered in more detail and with references. If not, then something has gone badly wrong. Ledes can become bloated when there is disagreement about what are the key points of the subject that require inclusion and so too much stuff gets included. This is common with contentious subjects. It can happen as a result of deliberate POV pushing but more often it comes from good faith differences in understanding over which points are key.

I think that the reason people become obsessed with the lede is that they know that it sets the tone for an article and also that many readers will only read the lede of an article if they just want a basic overview of a subject. I suspect there is also a feeling, probably justified, that if the lede goes to hell the whole article follows.

In this case, I don't think the lede is egregiously long, although it would benefit from tightening. I think the second paragraph is material not covered in the body. I would like to see that slimmed down in the lede and expanded upon in the Varieties section. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal. The lead does not seem particularly long, for such a difficult and important topic. It is shorter than the lead for Conservatism in the United States, for example. But the second paragraph should be dealt with as DanielRigal suggests. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't being done to please one editor - Collect, Eridu Dreaming, Boris, and I all believe that the article is biased towards a left wing worldview. That makes four editors. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And your definition of left wing - having roots in socialism - is not even the definition provided in the left wing article. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw, you really need to learn about the basis of the left-right spectrum. The left-wing originally founded in the French Parliment in the 1790s DID NOT have roots in socialism, socialism DIDN'T EVEN EXIST THEN, until it was first developed in the 1810s and 1820s! Even in the 1810s and 1820s, socialism was a very small and isolated movement on the left at that time. I still cannot believe that you are ignoring everything that has been told to you, you still believe the left-right spectrum is between statism on the left to libertarianism on the right even though I told you about right-wing Joseph de Maistre and his reactionary supporters advocating the extreme statist absolute monarchy where the monarch and his government had unlimited power to rule through a very strong and centralized state; and the left-wing Mikhail Bakunin and his anarchist supporters advocating the extreme libertarian agenda of destroying the state and replacing it with decentralized socialist communities of voluntarily-adhering members. Please acknowledge that you are not familiar with the history of the left-right spectrum, these people or these examples, and please learn about examples of the statist right (such as absolutists) and the libertarian left (such as anarchists), then you can return and make more informed contributions.--R-41 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that this article be re-written, at least the "positions" section. The subsections in that sections should be replaced with subsections dedicated to the different taxa of rightist movements; the reactionary right, the moderate Burkean right, the nationalist right, the neoliberal right, etc. LittleJerry (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The positions statement is small enough for the intro and necessary to discern the different common variations of right-wing politics. It is small and it increses awareness to readers that right-wing politics is not one monolithic entity with a a single, clear set of positions.--R-41 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I said YOUR definition - the definition one of you left-leaning editors gave. I think it was TFD. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

R-41 did misunderstand Falconclaw's comment. But, Falconclaw, when you accuse everyone who does not agree with you of being "left-leaning" you lose ground. Do you seriously think that calling people "left-leaning" because they know a little history is advances rational debate? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What Falconclaw is doing is WP:DISRUPT - he is doing the following disruptive behaviour it describes: "Does not engage in consensus building" - he is not cooperating with users who are, or whom he deems left-wing and "Failure or refusal to 'get the point'" - the 'point' being that the left vs. right is not statism on the left and libertarianism on the right, the examples of the absolutist Joseph De Maistre - for right-wing statism and the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin for left-wing libertarianism disprove this entirely - which he refuses to acknowledge so that he can continue to repeat ad nauseum that the left-right spectrum is just statist liberalism and socialism on the left versus libertarian conservatism on the right.--R-41 (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead.

The second paragraph of the lead has become a real mess, making statements about "conservatism" and assuming they automatically apply to the Right, and inserting before references ideas not included in the referenced work. Some people seem to think that right-wing always means conservative and conservative always means libertarian, while left-wing always means socialist, and socialist always means communist. This is siimplistic thinking unworthy of Wikipedia. Maybe the whole second paragraph should go. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

again tghe real and abiding problem is simple: There is no universal definition of a "political spectrum" which applies to all times and all places, and any article which tries to assert one is going to be horridly flawed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you think is the way forward? My view is that we should say the term "Right" has been defined as x, y and z. What do you think? TFD (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We should be honest and say that "right" means different things in different places and at different times, and that there is no universal definition for any "political spectrum." Collect (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We do say that. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

False Definition

"Right-Wing" does not "generally" refer to "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society" that is like defining a Muslim as generally meaning somebody who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. You will not find a single Right-Wing thinker who DEFINES Right-Wing as "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society" not a single one. Right-Wing thinkers reject radical egalitarianism (and consequently accept or support a "hierarchical" society) but to define the political Right in terms of that opposition is to frame the definition of what it is to be on the Right in terms derived from the political Left. It is as accurate as defining the Left as "Nihilists" or "Utopians" because that is how the "Right" comprehends the Left. You could just as accurately define the Right as anti-Nihilist or anti-Utopian, or to put it more positively, you could just as well define the Right as those who believe in the existence of objective values (truth - morality - excellence) but who combine that belief with a belief in human imperfection (error - evil - failure).

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not one? How about Francisco Franco, to name just one, and who is far-Right as cited in The World Almanac above? But I agree with you, and disagree with those cited sources who would primarily define Right-wing in a negative way as opposition to the Left. We should define Right-wing using standard sources in terms of its positive beliefs. As far as I can see, in every case the Right supports government that increases the wealth and power of those who have the most wealth and power, and most, but not all, standard reference works agree. The Right, like all other major political groups in the modern West, pay lip service to freedom and equality of oportunity, but since everyone does that, that does not distinguish the Right from any other group.

I gave you the example you challenged us to give. Now I challenge you to give any example of any group described as right-wing whose policies do not have the effect of supporting those who already have wealth and power.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And again - The World Almanac is not a WP:RS. Your assertions about "every" right-woing government are. alas, not true. There are no definitions of the "right" which are universally true, thus your assertions fail. Franco was certainly backed by the right of Spain, as defined at that time, but his acts were not those of the right wings of other nations at all -- the US "right" of the twenties was non-militaristic, in fact - isolationist, non-authoritarian, and pretty much opposite to Franco. So which definitions do you assert are universal? Militaristic or non-militaristic? Interventionist, or isolationist? Irredentist or non-irredentist? Heavily church-oriented or anti-religious? In favour of existing aristocracy, or anti-aristocratic? Driven by a cult of personalty, or led by self-effacing leaders? I fear your stated dislike for those "who already have wealth and power" makes you fail to see that such an attitude is found in all parts of the political spectrum, and opposition to such groups is found in all parts of the political spectrum. In the US, moreover, the "right" seems to assert that anyone should have the legal right to seek wealth and "happiness". Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My claim that you will not find a single Right-Wing thinker who DEFINES Right-Wing as "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society" still stands. Being relaxed about INEQUALITY is a CONSEQUENCE of the above mentioned beliefs 1) Objective Values 2) Human Imperfection.

For example, mathematics is about objective truths (not subjective preferences) and some people are (measurably) better at mathematics than others.

As part of their desire to improve their own lives some of those with superior mathematical skills may seek to use them to obtain better paid jobs. Attempting to improve your opportunities in life encourages people to do jobs that require abilities that are in short supply. A successful economy generates wealth.

What matters (in this account) is not inequalities, but seeking to improve the opportunity (for everybody) to create wealth (however unequally) i.e. a rich rather than a poor society. Only an egalitarian would focus on equality of outcome to the exclusion of everything else. Nobody else is excited by the prospect of being equal but poor, and, unless you are seeking to improve your living standards by redistributing wealth generated by others to yourself, in the name of "social justice", few people are excited by the prospect of giving politicians absolute control over their lives. You would also be hard pressed to find anybody who believes that none of the wealth which you generate through your own efforts should be given to help the deserving poor i.e. those who are poor through no fault of their own.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING - Both the church and social standing were arranged in a hierarchical order, from Pope to layman, King to peasant. Are you saying that the Right opposed this structure or that people who supported it were not right-wing? TFD (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends which "Right" you are talking about. I would say trying to understand (for example) the American Right in terms of medieval feudalism is a very odd approach.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm baffled. Collect says "your stated dislike for those 'who already have wealth and power'". I have never stated any such thing in my life.

I said "I challenge you to give any example of any group described as right-wing whose policies do not have the effect of supporting those who already have wealth and power." ERIDU-REAMING seems to have skipped the important word "not". I'll restate my challenge in the affirmative. Groups described as Right-wing support those with wealth and power. Can you provide a counterexample?

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, in every case the Right supports government that increases the wealth and power of those who have the most wealth and power, and most, but not all, standard reference works agree. The Right, like all other major political groups in the modern West, pay lip service to freedom and equality of oportunity, but since everyone does that, that does not distinguish the Right from any other group. (emphasis added)

rather strongly implies that you do not favour such a position as you impute to the "right."

As for WP:RS, almanacs, encyclopedias etc. are considered "tertiary sources" at best, and not "reliable sources" for claims in Wikipedia.

And I noted left-wing groups also support those with wealth and power as well. To wit - the Soviet and post-Soviet governments in Russia, for one example. When left wing and right wing groups can have the same result, it is kind of obvious that ascribing that attribute to the right alone does not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Like the Soviet nomenklature? Show me a Left-Wing government that does not redistribute wealth and power to itself? Some on the Right however seek to redistribute wealth and power BACK to the people away from Left-Wing governments.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: I owe you an apology. I thought the sentence added by TFD above was yours.

The idea that people who object to the extreme concentration of wealth want an equal distribution of wealth is black and white thinking. Most reasonable people are happy for the rich to have everything they want, as long as the 99% have a safe and comfortable life. The rich can have mansions and banquets as long as the rest have a roof over their head and food to eat.

A left-wing movement that does not redistribute wealth and power to itself? How about the New Deal. Now it's your turn. You say "some on the Right". Name one. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Groups described as Right-wing support those with wealth and power." - statement by Rick Norwood. That is a generalization, the Catholic Church and the Catholic religious right has and continues to supporting giving charity to the poor. The right was founded to justify existing hierarchical institutions and hierarchical social status as a necessary means to ensure social order. At that time the right, including the centre-right Edmund Burke, claimed that the pursuit of egalitarianism for its own end would result in disorder - as people would would reject authority figures and institutions for being hierarchical - leading to everyone believing that they were equal authorities over themselves, resulting in the breakdown of society into violent anarchy, as no one would accept any overarching authority to maintain order. This prediction of people like Burke and others proved accurate in the French Revolution - it devolved into violent anarchy. Second of all, in response to ERIDU-DREAMING, in the case of the Soviet government that was officially committed to radical egalitarianism, a valid scientific claim by political scientist Robert Michels has stated in his famous theory of the iron law of oligarchy that any means of organizing society - even in the pursuit of egalitarianism - inevitably results in hierarchy and oligarchy because organization implies control and leadership. Thus it is quite possible according to Michels' theory that complete egalitarianism - at least when pursued through organized means - is impossible. The Soviet Union claimed that a highly centralized state with strong policing powers was a necessary to prevent a counterrevolution promoted by anti-communist powers. Of course, like any ideology in practice, when it becomes an institution, pragmatic and non-idealist people will enter it, and the institution will become pragmatic and non-idealist. The iron law of oligarchy if accurate, strongly applies to the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Church closes churches in poor neighborhoods that do not make a profit. Yes, the Catholic Church and many other organizations that might be described as "On the Right" gave money to charity, but not so much money that their wealth and power were put at risk. When various saints have recommended holy poverty, the Church honored them with sainthood but did not follow their advice. In any case, the Catholic Church has a long history of supporting its own wealth and power. I understand that Burke and others gave what seemed to them good and sufficient reasons for supporting a hierarchy. I'm not saying that the Right is wrong, I'm saying that the phrase "right-wing" is used to describe those who, rightly or wrongly, support established wealth and power. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Right no more define themselves as seeking to support wealth and power than the Left define themselves as seeking to create poverty and destroy freedom. These may (or may not) be the consequences of their assumptions, but it is the assumptions which define what it is to be on the Right (or the Left) politically. The notion that wealth and power is ipso facto supported by the Right is incorrect. In fact it is an absurd claim.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ERIDU DREAMING that support of "established wealth and power" are not the ideological goals of the right. Of course there are wealthy people who support the right but there have also been wealthy people like George Soros who have supported the left (at least the centre-left). Though I disagree with ERIDU DREAMING's complaint that acceptance of hierarchy is not a component of the right. Acceptance of some form of hierarchy is justified by the right as the means to insure social order. To the right, the egalitarianism of the left pursued to its natural end of the abolition of all hierarchy results in no authority figures to maintain physical and moral order over society, which according to the right results in chaos and violence as happened in the French Revolution.--R-41 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not deny R-41 that ACCEPTANCE of inequality is a COMPONENT of what it is to be on the Right. I simply point out that acceptance of inequality is not the DEFINING quality of the Right. Inequality is a CONSEQUENCE of its assumptions. These assumptions include a commitment to value objectivity.

Value objectivity means that rightness and wrongness are not reducible to matters of preference. You are correct R-41 to draw attention to the importance of authority to the Right, but for the Right authority is not justified by power, on the contrary, power is justified by authority.

The term "hierarchy" has feudal implications that few on the Right these days would accept. So what grounds authority for the Right? It is belief in the RIGHTNESS of that authority.

What grounds rightness? It is that which accords with OBJECTIVE rightness. This is not to say that what is deemed to be morally justified is beyond dispute. All claims to justification can be questioned - and in a free society are questioned - but the recognition that authority is justified by something other than a de facto exercise of power is foundational to the Right.

In other words, there are mechanisms for determining what is right and what is wrong, but what is right and wrong is not settled by who has the power to decide.

To use the example of truth. What is true and what is false is determined by objective realities, but the reality of being human is such that we cannot jump out of the context from which we make our judgements, and so all of our judgements (including our moral judgements) are fallible.

In making these judgements (including moral judgements) some have more authority than others. All judgements are not equal. It is acceptance of value objectivity (and the situated and thus fallible nature of our judgements) that leads to an acceptance of inequality by the Right, not acceptance of inequality that leads to the assumption that values are objective. This is to put the cart before the horse. Acceptance of inequality is a CONSEQUENCE of more fundamental commitments.

It is these more fundamental commitments that define the Right. Not an acceptance of inequality.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING, instead of posting long expositions of your belief system, could you please provide a source written by someone who calls themselves right-wing and explain what it means. TFD (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish I understood why this is such a hard point for some people to understand. This article is not about how "right-wing" should be used in some ideal world. It is about how "right-wing" is used in this world. Until very recently, almost nobody would ever describe themselves as "right-wing" or "left-wing". Those words were insults. People called somebody "right-wing" because they supported the existing power structure. People called somebody left-wing to tar them with the communist brush. Neither was not a complement. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are quotations of the centre-right classical-liberal-leaning traditionalist conservative Edmund Burke from his work Reflections on the Revolution in France, he was more moderate than de Maistre:

• • "You would have had a flourishing commerce to feed it. You would have had a free constitution; a potent monarchy; a disciplined army; a reformed and venerated clergy; a mitigated but spirited nobility, to lead your virtue, not to overlay it; you would have had a liberal order of commons, to emulate and to recruit that nobility; you would have had a protected, satisfied, laborious, and obedient people, taught to seek and to recognise the happiness that is to be found by virtue in all conditions; in which consists the true moral equality of mankind, and not in that monstrous fiction, which, by inspiring false ideas and vain expectations into men destined to travel in the obscure walk of laborious life, serves only to aggravate and embitter that real inequality, which it never can remove; and which the order of civil life establishes as much for the benefit of those whom it must leave in an humble state, as those whom it is able to exalt to a condition more splendid, but not more happy."
  • "Believe me, Sir, those who attempt to level, never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground. The association of tailors and carpenters, of which the republic (of Paris, for instance) is composed, cannot be equal to the situation, into which, by the worst of usurpations, an usurpation on the prerogatives of nature, you attempt to force them."
  • "The chancellor of France at the opening of the states, said[…] that all occupations were honourable. If he meant only, that no honest employment was disgraceful, he would have gone beyond the truth. But in asserting, that any thing is honourable, we imply some distinction in its favour. The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person—to say nothing of a number of more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule. In this you think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature."

Edmund Burke was saying that people be treated equally in a moral sense, but that outside of that, inequality is inevitable and that those seeking to create social equality in society on the left that he and others called "levellers" are pursuing an impossible and unnatural goal. He is saying that in all societies there must be an "uppermost" class of citizens to rule. And the last quote implies that treating all people as equally honourable and able to serve office is dangerous because he claims that equal honour is nonsense and that people of "servile employments" should not govern a state. In all these cases, Burke - the founder of moderate, classical liberal-oriented conservatism, is saying that beyond treating everyone equally on a moral ground, natural hierarchy exists and society cannot be equalized by social levelling.--R-41 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • I do not see how presenting primary sources is helpful. TFD (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
      • People think that left-wing editors on this page are lying about the hierarchy component of the right. So I, a left-wing editor, provided words right from the horse's mouth, Edmund Burke, the founder of conservatism. But you are right, we need a secondary source to verify this, and here it is - the intro sentence from the traditionalist conservatism article describing traditionalist conservatism a.k.a. Burkean conservatism - it is sourced: "Traditionalist conservatism, also known as "traditional conservatism," "traditionalism," "Burkean conservatism", "classical conservatism" and (in the United Kingdom and Canada), "Toryism", describes a political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and the intersecting spheres of loyalty." (Source: Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson, ed. (2006) American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, pp. 870-875.) I bolded the hierarchy part as that is relevant to this discussion. This is what the major conservative figure Edmund Burke supported.--R-41 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

At no point did I say that the Right advocates egalitarianism. Do I need to put that in bold letters? I said that its opposition to egalitarianism derives from its assumptions. I get the impression that some on the Left are having real trouble grasping these assumptions. As a result they seek to define the Right in terms which are derived from the Left - which relies upon assumptions which they do understand. It is not opposition to the Left that DEFINES the Right. Other than repeating this 64,000 times how can I make this any clearer?

The Right grounds social practices in traditions. These traditions are orientated by ideals which the Right believe to be objective. The rejection by the Right of egalitarianism is a CONSEQUENCE of their belief in realism - a realism (and this is important) which carries with it the implication that our claims about the world are fallible i.e. the Right is both Anti-Nihilist (which is to say that the Right believe that right and wrong, better and worse, just and unjust, beautiful and ugly, good and bad, are facts about what is the case, and it is Anti-Utopian (in its epistemological as well as it political sense) because we are human not divine.

The definition from "American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia" is a better definition than simply asserting that to be on the Right is to oppose egalitarianism. It is only the Left that believes that the Right is DEFINED by their opposition to egalitarianism. You will not find a single Right-Wing thinker who defines Right-Wing as "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society". Burke derives his opposition to egalitarianism from his beliefs about what is the case, he does not derive his assumptions about what is the case from his opposition to egalitarianism. His assumptions about what is the case are NOT simply reducible to the claim that he is opposed to egalitarianism. That is like defining a vegetarian as somebody who does not eat pork. A vegetarian does not eat pork, but not eating pork is not what defines what it is to be a vegetarian.

It is more subtle than saying you are lying, it is saying that you do not know what you are talking about, which I am sure you agree is not quite the same.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)).

"It is only the Left that believes that the Right is DEFINED by their opposition to egalitarianism." - statement by ERIDU DREAMING - Prove it - prove that the authors of the two sources in the intro (aside from left-wing Bobbio) that describe the right as being principally based on its acceptance or support of hierarchy, are clearly left-wing people with a clear agenda or bias that portrays the right in an inaccurate manner.

I showed you Burke but you are ignoring key components of what Burke is saying. For instance, why Burke emphasize the naturalness of social hierarchy and that social hierarchy is necessary for social order - that there always must be an "uppermost" class of people? Remember he emphasizes that an "uppermost" must rule society and that people of "servile employments" are not deserving of being termed "honourable" as suggested by the French chancellor. You can't compare this to a vegetarian not wanting to eat pork - that is a negation - acceptance or support of hierarchy is not a negation, it is a positive affirmation of social hierarchy as either a reality to be accepted or a goal.

I suggest that social hierarchy is a key component of the right because as one drifts further right and into the far right, the corresponding increase is stronger and stronger emphasis on hierarchy and a more radical desire to ensure hierarchy. The centre right accepts hierarchy as a natural fact but generally accepts equal opportunity, but when you move to the far right, hierarchy is not only accepted but demanded. The far right is about supremacy of individuals or groups deemed to be innately "superior" over others deemed to be innately "inferior". Are we supposed to believe that the far right advocates supremacism of people based on their social class, their religion, or their race out of "realism"? Also how would the Catholic religious right, that was a component of the original right in France, be able to fit into realism when Christianity is the pursuit of ideals and rules of God?--R-41 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

R-41 try to focus on what people say (obviously you find listening/reading quite hard) rather than simply offering your own crass version. I did not say "left-wing people with a clear agenda or bias" [this may or may not be true] I said that some Leftists are drawing upon their left-wing assumptions in order to make sense of the assumptions being made by the Right, and the result is a failure to provide an adequate account of what is is to be on the Right.

The first source [Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies} assert that "contemporary sociologists" conceptualize Right-Wing as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' I have no problem with this as a sociological description (what is missing of course is any philosophical explanation of why there is difference and why it is possible to be on the Right and believe in social change) but the gloss that follows it - right-wing politics is the attempt to defend privilege within social hierarchy - is Leftist crap. It is unclear if that gloss is a quotation from the book. To see privilege within a social hierarchy look at any Communist State you care to mention.

The second source [Peace and prosperity in an age of incivility] asserts that Right-Wing "collectivism" is different from Left-Wing "collectivism" on the grounds that the first "collectivism" is justified via an appeal to "egalitarianism" and the second is justified by an appeal to "hierarchism". Of course this definition does not (and as far as I am aware it is not intended to) encompass any version of the Right that seeks to uphold individual rather than collective rights. I must have missed the political speech by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher or Davd Cameron or President Regan or Bush (senior or junior) that asserted that they went into politics to uphold hierarchy. Inequality as a consequence of liberty is rather different (as I am sure you will agree) from a feudal vision of society as consisting of hierarchical rights.

You do not understand the eating pork example. It is a consequence of having certain views (refusal to eat meat) that X does not eat pork. But what it is it be a vegetarian is not defined by the refusal to eat pork, rather the refusal to eat pork is a consequence of the refusal to eat meat. Of course Edmund Burke (the opponent of egalitarianism) rejects egalitarianism. He rejects egalitarianism because he views it as at odds with the nature of the universe. But it is crass to seek to reduce that vision of the universe to the single issue of equality. You keep on making the same mistake, which rather confirms my claim that Leftists such as yourself struggle to comprehend what the Right are assuming.

It is not the "Far Right" who claim that some people are superior over others (or to put it another way some people are inferior) I am pretty sure that you (who see yourself as on the Left) also view some people as superior/inferior to others, because only somebody deranged by egalitarianism could claim otherwise. You find it incredible that there could be some "realist" grounds which justifies somebody being richer than somebody else, or having a better religion, or being part of a superior race. Well it depends on the reasons why you are richer, on what you believe to be the truth about different religious claims, and if you think there is such a thing as race, and if there is such a thing whether or not there are relevant racial differences.

To be on the Right is to assert that the universe is a certain way, that it has a certain order, that we are not "unconstrained", and as a consequence there are better and worse ways of doing things. Opposition to radical equality is just one consequence of this realist assumption, but to assert that opposition to egalitarianism is what DEFINES the Right is to comprehend the Right in terms derived from the Left.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is all OR discussing primary sources. Although Burke became a hero to Conservatives in the 20th century and Cold Warriors in the late 20th century, he did not call himself right-wing or even conservative and did not publish articles in modern academic and peer-reviewed literature. TFD (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, could you please provide a source that Sowell calls himself right-wing, or strike it out as a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The far right is not simply evaluating people as "superior in a quality" to another person. I may be superior in knowledge at an academic level of left-right politics to someone who does not have such knowledge, but a car mechanic is superior to me in knowledge of mechanics. But the far right is not evaluating qualities of people it is evaluating people as a whole as being superior or inferior. The far right advocates supremacy of people deemed being innately superior people (be it on social class or race, etc). The reactionaries believed that you were born of noble birth - you were automatically superior to someone of non-noble birth. The racist far-right believes that if you are of an ideal racial group - you are automatically superior to someone of a non-ideal racial group.

In response to your (Eridu's) statement on the Soviet Union, Marxist-Leninist communism and hierarchy: Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere faced the problems of all revolutionaries: how to put ideals into practice given the people in charge of the revolution, in a given society with given traits and issues. People like Lenin and Trotsky truly believed that they were going to eventually establish a communist society - they devoted much time to writing their theories and were very committed to their goals, but they were ruthless in their ambition to achieve it. People like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are another case altogether - they were completely Machiavellian, and Stalin was a sociopath. The main problem with communism in practice is the paranoia of counter-revolution, in the beginning of the Bolshevik rule this was a very real issue because Russia was in civil war between the Red Army versus the White Army. Plus if political theorist Robert Michels' famous theory of the iron law of oligarchy is correct, where he claims that even egalitarian-aiming organizations become inevitably hierarchical out of tactical necessities, then this best describes the Soviet case in the early years. In the latter years the Soviet Union and other communist governments had devolved into institutions with hollow ideology - almost no one took Marxism-Leninism as an ideology seriously by the 1970s and 1980s in Eastern Europe, and claims that today's People's Republic of China is still communist only deserve a response of laughter at such naivety.--R-41 (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued on Next Rock

New Section, just because the old section got too long to edit easily.

Collect: You quote me: "As far as I can see, in every case the Right supports government that increases the wealth and power of those who have the most wealth and power, and most, but not all, standard reference works agree. The Right, like all other major political groups in the modern West, pay lip service to freedom and equality of oportunity, but since everyone does that, that does not distinguish the Right from any other group." and then go on to say "rather strongly implies that you do not favour such a position as you impute to the 'right'."

There is a difference between disliking the people who have wealth and power, which you accused me of saying, and which is not the case, and not wanting the government to act to increase their wealth and power. In any case, I base my edits on cited sources, so my opinion on the subject is beside the point.

ERIDU-DREAMING complains that he is tired of repeating himself. In that case, I suggest he stop. We understand perfectly well what he means by "the Right" and we understand perfectly well the various justifications that people of similar beliefs offer for those beliefs. Whether those justifications are correct is not a subject to be debated here. The subject under discussion here is whether his usage of the phrase "the Right" has any currency outside of very recent American politics and popular media. Please, provide citations to that effect, or move on to another topic.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please emend how your post is worded -- new editors here might not recognize the entire first part of what I said was a direct quote of your own post. Also note that all governments end up "increasing wealth and power" of someone - the Soviets were, in fact, quite notorious for it. That did not, AFAICT, make Stalin a "right winger." My point has been, and remains, that there is no "one size fits all for all places and all times" definition of "right wing" at all. And no one has provided any sources to contradict that position at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect: Not all governments increase wealth and power. For example, Castro's Cuban government greatly decreased wealth and power of all the Cuban people. Other examples abound. In any case, the point here is not what a government does, but rather why writers use the phrase "right-wing" to describe some governments and not others. Historically they applied the phrase "right-wing" to political groups that served entrenched power structures. The word has, over time, had many meanings. I think the article does a fairly good job of listing some of those meanings. But because the meaning changes with context (as the article properly points out) does not mean that "right-wing" has no meaning at all. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Except for those in power! Yes Castro destroyed the Cuban economy utterly - but the ones who were in power suffered much less than the average Cubans did. Special groups can purchase at "luxury stores" of various types. Egalitarianism which is non-egalitarian is not "right wing" at all. And I suggest "serving entrenched power structures" has absolutely no meaning as to "left" or "right" whatever. By such a claim, Stalin was one of the most "right wing" people ever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased Rick Norwood that "We" (is that a Royal "We"?) "understand perfectly well what he [Eridu Dreaming] means by 'the Right'...The subject under discussion here is whether his usage...has any currency outside of very recent American politics and popular media" so it should be no problem therefore for you supply the definition of "Right-Wing" to which you object. This will enable me (assuming I recognise and support the definition you supply) to give you evidence which supports its validity.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

How is it possible to misunderstand a simple statement that this article is about how the phrase "right-wing" is used? The phrase is not used to describe Stalin. It is used to describe Franco. You have yet to answer my question: why is it used to describe Franco?

ERIDU-DREAMING: By "we" I mean myself, TFD, and all the other editors who are trying to get you to cite sources that describe your beliefs as a primary meaning of the phrase "right-wing", instead of endless arguing in favor of those beliefs.

You ask what I think your beliefs are. I think you're a Libertarian, but if I'm wrong, please correct me. You've said right-wing was used (by her enemies) to describe Maggie Thatcher. I think by that they meant that Maggie Thatcher was a friend to the upper-class and an enemy of the people. Whether they were right or wrong is moot -- that is how I understand their use of the word. Why do you think they called her right-wing? You said that right-wing is used to describe people who have beliefs based on fact. Please cite some source, someone who has actually used the phrase right-wing with that meaning.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "right wing"

William F. Buckley in Rumbles left and right: a book about troublesome people and ideas and also in his Collected Speeches specifically self-identifies with the "right wing" and states to Norman Mailer: "The true meaning of the American right wing, Mr. Mailer, is commitment, a commitment on the basis of which it becomes possible to take measurements. That is true whether in respect of domestic policy or foreign policy."

Lots of other indications that the definition of "right wing" is fully dependent on place and time, and is not a "fixed star" by any means at all. Collect (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I keep saying that I agree that the meaning of right-wing depends on context. As far as I can tell, nobody disagrees. The article says so. Why keep bringing it up?

Nice Buckley quote.

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to restate in response to a rebuke by ERIDU DREAMING, which I want her/him to be aware of. The far right is not simply evaluating people as "superior in a quality" to another person. I may be superior in knowledge at an academic level of left-right politics to someone who does not have such knowledge, but a car mechanic is superior to me in knowledge of mechanics. But the far right is not evaluating qualities of people it is evaluating people as a whole as being superior or inferior. The far right advocates supremacy of people deemed being innately superior people (be it on social class or race, etc). The reactionaries believed that you were born of noble birth - you were automatically superior to someone of non-noble birth. The racist far-right believes that if you are of an ideal racial group - you are automatically superior to someone of a non-ideal racial group.

In response to your ERIDU DREAMING's statement on the Soviet Union, Marxist-Leninist communism and hierarchy: Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere faced the problems of all revolutionaries: how to put ideals into practice given the people in charge of the revolution, in a given society with given traits and issues. People like Lenin and Trotsky truly believed that they were going to eventually establish a communist society - they devoted much time to writing their theories and were very committed to their goals, but they were ruthless in their ambition to achieve it. People like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are another case altogether - they were completely Machiavellian, and Stalin and Pol Pot were sociopaths. The main problem with communism in practice is the paranoia of counter-revolution that leads to a police state being created, in the beginning of the Bolshevik rule this was a very real issue because Russia was in civil war between the Red Army versus the White Army. Plus if political theorist Robert Michels' famous theory of the iron law of oligarchy is correct, where he claims that even egalitarian-aiming organizations become inevitably hierarchical out of tactical necessities, then this best describes the Soviet case in the early years. In the latter years the Soviet Union and other communist governments had devolved into institutions with hollow ideology - almost no one took Marxism-Leninism as an ideology seriously by the 1970s and 1980s in Eastern Europe, and claims that today's People's Republic of China is still committed to communism only deserve a response of laughter at such naivety.--R-41 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a wonderful passage in Barry Lyndon in which a character says something like, "We are the best people. We are not the richest people, or the smartest people, or the nobelest people, or the nicest people -- we are simply the best people." Rick Norwood (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a good find, Collect. Here is a link to Buckley's opening speech where he says he speaks for the American Right. We need a secondary source that analyses the speech because it raises several questions. Was Buckley claiming that he was right-wing or only on the right in the United States? The Communist Party of the Soviet Union for example also had a "right-wing", the Right Opposition. Also, Buckley appears to exclude mainstream Republican leaders from the Right. TFD (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a very good point you have addressed here TFD. I didn't think of it, but it's true - there was in fact a Right Opposition in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Perhaps this gives more merit to the argument that while the left and right may have general principles, they vary based on political culture of different societies. In the Soviet Union a person could be deemed right-wing or a reactionary if they did not support radical agendas and were more conservative in their approach to their agenda - it was considered the right-leaning element within the Communist society that is far left by global perspective of various left-right movements. In Prussia and Germany until the First World War, the right was predominantly dominated by reactionary militarist aristocracy that were very hesitant on the very idea of democracy. In the United States, the Constitution is based upon classical liberalism, thus the right in the United States is culturally bound to the notions that "all men are created equal" (equal opportunity, equality before the law), democracy, and liberty, though opposing equality of outcome and being socially conservative in its support of traditions such as the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman - this is centre-right by global perspective of various left-right movements.--R-41 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The main thing wrong with communism is the fear of counter revolution? What about the total erosion of economic freedom, making economic coordination through markets impossible and leading to an inefficient use of resources and underproduction of goods and services? Or, in other words: communism results in widespread poverty and starvation. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. I never said that Marxism-Leninism works. It was an abject failure and a tyranny in practice. You have misquoted what I said, what I said was that communism becomes a police state in power because of its paranoia of counter-revolution. The Soviet police state was the WORST thing developed from Lenin - the Cheka, NKVD, and KGB were the leading executioners of people the Soviet state opposed - and I would add to your list that the Machiavellians and sociopaths Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed millions of people because of their paranoid anti-social behaviour - and how did they do it, through a police state.--R-41 (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am calm. My point was that it's not just communism's abuses of civil rights and its police state aspect that make it unworkable. It is economically unworkable. Economics is an actual science, and the conclusion that markets are the best way to coordinate productive activity is nearly undisputed within the field of economics. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As best I remember, everyone here agrees that commies are bad, bad, bad. Stop flogging a dead horse. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Communism is a side issue. No serious sources divide the world into communists and right-wingers. There is a wide range of opinion that stands between these two extremes. TFD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Right versus Left

I notice this definition on Answers.Com

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Left_wing_vs_right_wing

The difference between the Right and Left is:

The right believes in greater personal responsibility with the belief that this freedom will lead to individual success that will open up opportunities for those who are less fortunate. This means that a citizen is responsible for his own life. He must work to earn money. With this money, he can buy food, healthcare, education and consumer items, etc. The government will take a comparatively smaller proportion of this money and with this tax, will use it to pay for key services - law and order, defence, infrastructure etc. The government will interfere as little as possible in the economy, as only the economy can run the economy, and business knows better than politicians.

The left believes in greater State responsibility for the benefit of all citizens, with the goal of a more "equal" society. This means that a citizen will work to earn money, and the government will take a comparatively larger proportion of this. With this tax, the government will pay for more services - law and order, defence, health, education etc. The government takes on a greater responsibility in controlling the economy and in governing people's lives, as the politicians do not allow businesses free reign, and the government sets certain basic standards for all of society.

DOWNSIDES FOR A SOCIETY THAT IS TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT-

- A grass-roots right wing policy is often known as free-market capitalism. This is effectively unhindered capitalism. This has many fatal flaws. The idea of this system is that the rich create jobs and this helps the poor to better themselves. However, this is impractical, as poverty is very hard to break out of, due to all the health provisions that would be required. What you would get is the poor earning money, but in a free market society, they would have to spend all the money on food, healthcare and education. This would mean only the lucky few would break out of poverty.

- With less money to spend, only the government only provides the basic need for society. Things such as health care and education become accessible only to those who have money. Ultimately, this creates a situation in which only the people with adequate financial security can lead healthy lives and meet their full potential.

- Allowing a purely free economy to guide a society means a lot of faith is placed on the people who have the most money, influence and power. With human nature, greed can play a huge role in people's motivations and decisions are often made by the rich that will only benefit themselves at the expense of the poor. This type of greed had, for example, led to the corruption by powerful executives on Wall Street which ultimately played a huge part in the failure of the global economy in late 2008-2009.

- Social equality is diminished in favour of individual rights and freedoms. In a society where everyone is equal with equal power, this would not pose a problem. However, no society has successfully achieved such equality. As a result, survival of the fittest plays a big part and a selfish attitude can begin to thrive.

DOWNSIDES FOR A SOCIETY THAT IS TOO FAR TO THE LEFT-

- Personal responsibility is diminished in favour of social equality. This essentially means taxing the rich and giving to the poor. This can be detrimental as some poorer segments of society may start to feel that society owes them something rather than taking charge of their own lives to improve their situations.

- The left-wing philosophy gives the government more money to spend and, with more money, there's more opportunities to spend irresponsibly. An extreme example currently happening in some European countries is that governments spend larger amounts on social benefits and citizens take advantage or start to develop a sense of entitlement.

- More government control of the private sector means more bureaucracies and more "hoops to jump through", which can increase costs for doing business and thus negatively impact growth.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).

This is pointless, Wikipedia cannot self-reference another part of Wikipedia - it is against Wikipedia protocol - that being said if there are references there that can be used, then that is useful. I have moved the issue of the relation between realism and right-wing politics to the bottom, so that users don't forget this topic is still open. Please find referenced, reliable sources, and return to the serious topic of discussion in the topic on whether right-wing means realism.--R-41 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Answers.Com is not Wikipedia. It is an anonymous attempt (better than your effort I would say) to describe the contemporary usage of "Right-Wing" in the sort of language a 10 year old could understand. It uses Right-Wing in the sense in which most people in the Anglosphere encounter it i.e. the belief that there should be lower taxes, less government inteference in our everyday lives, and that people should be encouraged to take greater responsibility for their actions. Note that the entry makes no mention of "hierarchy" only a reference to people who have more money - called "the rich" - and people with less money - called "the poor".

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You could have written that for all we know. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had written it I would have said so. Reptile. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks. Also, some anonymous person is not reliable. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Does right-wing mean realism?

The strongest point thus far that ERIDU-DREAMING has posted is that right-wing means realism and that it is opposed to the left-wing that is based upon idealism and utopianism. So this is where discussion should focus now. Does right-wing mean realism? And what sources are available that say that right-wing means realism?--R-41 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with ERIDU-DREAMING that right-wing means realism. Realism assumes rationalism, not all right-wing movements were based on rationalist principles. For instance, how does realism apply to the Catholic and Protestant religious right that promote Christian ideals and claims there is a utopia in the afterlife? How does realism apply to the original right's defense of aristocracy that believed that people of noble birth were automatically superior to people of non-noble birth? These two major examples present on the original right-wing do not appear to to be based on realism at all. If they are please explain how they are based on realism.--R-41 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to see sources, preferrably ones that explain what is meant by reality. TFD (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong R-41 to assume that realism implies rationalism. On the Right rationalism is generally viewed a form of utopianism. See Michael Oakeshott "Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays". To cite the example of Edmund Burke (who, contrary to the claims of The Four Deuces, is a - indeed some argue that he is the greatest - thinker on the Right) his lexicon of abuse includes "metaphysics" "theory" "abstract" to which he opposes "habit" "tradition" and "prejudice". He asserts that there are limits to the extent to which abstractions can relevantly be brought to bear on politics. This is why the Right are generally sceptical of ideology - on the grounds that it oversimplifies (or is a substitute for) reality.

A typical Right-Wing approach is not "ideological", it seeks to return us back to common experience i.e. to our shared experience of what is the case. The Right of course makes use of theories - such as economic theories - but they are wary of extending them beyond a very specific domain of application. The Right accept that things do not stay the same, but they oppose the assumption that humans are a blank sheet. They assume that politics (for example) is and ought to be a practical business of seeking the good while paying attention to the realities of human nature.

One of these realities is our fallibility. Many of the Right defend a free society (as opposed to a society in which the State seeks to direct everything) on the grounds that (for example) freedom of speech helps us to discover truths. But those on the Right who advocate freedom do not view it as an end in itself. They support freedom because they believe that it contributes to the pursuit of human excellences. Their realism about what it is to be a human being carries with it the implication that not all choices are good. Freedom has therefore has to be accompanied by personal (and institutional) responsibility.

With regard to religion. R -41 you are making assumptions about the non-reality of religious claims. The claim that rewards for making the right choices may not come in this life is a claim about life after death. Some on the Right ground that which is (morally) right and wrong in religious beliefs. These beliefs are claims about the universe. It is sometimes claimed (for example by Eric Vogelin) that religious beliefs which are denied any reality by "scientism" do not disappear, but reappear in a secular guise. For example he claims that Marxism is a gnostic heresy, but this is going off topic.

As for the concept of an aristocracy. You would struggle to find anybody on the Right these days who would seek to defend the concept of an aristocracy (in the strict feudal meaning of the word) and so I am not going to waste my time examining the issue. All I would say is that if you are on the Left you may find the very concept of anybody being superior to you offensive. As a solution to this Leftists have created some of the most unequal societies on Earth, but again, that is another topic.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).

This discussion is quite pointless. It would be difficult to find an ideology that didn't claim it was the realist one, and that all other ideologies are utopian or unrealisable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find plenty of "ideologies" in the modern period which reject "moral realism" and indeed realism itself in the case of the extreme Left. As for "utopianism" you will find many in the modern period who believe that humans can (and should) strive to create a utopia on Earth. One of the features which defines the Right politically is their scepticism about such adventures. It is the conclusions we come to when seeking to balance our conservatism/radicalism which determine our politics. Such judgements only make sense however within a specific context.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed not what defines "the right" at all. You will find ideologies that strives to "to create a utopia on Earth" on both sides of the political spectrum, and besides your personal opinion which is obviously quite biased is quite worthless in connection to improving the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is fun, but totally off topic. I doubt that anyone ever listed to a speaker, decided he was a realist, and as a result called him "right-wing". Let's stick to sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, your essay is original research and therefore has no value to the conversation. You need to provide a source for your claims. You appear to be confusing conservatism with the Right. If can provide a source that they are the same thing then your approach should be to merge the article with conservatism. See what it says at the top of the page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I suggest all editors follow that advice. TFD (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

TFD is correct ERIDU DREAMING. You need sources. As for your claim that rationalism is not connected with realism, here is a book called Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method that puts all three together, see here: [13]. Here is another source that places realism (in the context of international relations) as being inbetween constructivism and rationalism, it rejects what it deems as liberalism's narrow rationalist views. [14]. Then there is such a thing as "realist-rationalism". [15]. Then there is this book that speaks of a realist/rationalist divide.[16]. Then there is another book called Realistic Rationalism that acknowledges a divide, but fuses them. [17]. There is appears to be no clear division between realism and rationalism, only that there appear to be realists who reject rationalism in favour of constructivism, and other realists who accept rationalism. Nevertheless, realism seems very scientific and rationally-based (maybe not "rationalist" by itself), and that does not relate to the spiritual appeals of the Catholic and Protestant religious right. Plus in criminology there is a political analysis from the left of crime that is called left realism.--R-41 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Burke "Reflections on the Revolution in France". A Critical Edition Edited by J.C.D. Clarke (Stanford University Press, 2001).

(It is not my edition but mine is out of print)

Michael Oakeshott "Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays". Methuen (Expanded edition - 1991, by Liberty Fund) .

(I believe I mentioned these references already)

By the way I was talking about the anti-theoretic bias of the Right.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).

Clarke's edition says nothing about right-wing politics. I do not have a copy of Oakshott's book, but I do not believe he wrote about the Right either, although some of his opponents accused him of being right-wing. Can you provide any page references? TFD (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate THE FOUR DEUCES that you believe that Edmund Burke is not a Right-Wing political philosopher, but back in the real world the later writings of Edmund Burke (at least in the English speaking world) are generally viewed as THE paradigm example of a Right-Wing political philosophy. You seem to think that because he died before the epithet "Right-Wing" gained generally currency in England he cannot be Right-Wing. By the same logic he cannot be a conservative political philosopher either, because that description also post-dates Edmund Burke. Michael Oakeshott is slightly more complex. His defence of practice/tradition accords with the anti-theoretical views defended by Burke, and for that reason he is generally regarded as a right-wing political philosopher. But his defence of liberty also means that he is also included in the Classical Liberal tradition. But insofar as the political Right in the English speaking world (notwithstanding the fact that you believe that only a few people in the mountains of Montana call themselves Right-Wing) generally includes a defence of free markets as one of its key components, he is generally described as a Right-Wing political philosopher. As for page references, the anti-theoretic position is one of the central themes themes of both books, which is why I mentioned them, and so it would be as absurd to seek to provide a single page reference for this argument as it would be to ask for the page number in the King James Bible where God says if you do what I say and I shall reward ye!

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Oakeshott on religion, aesthetics, and politics says, "Readers who see him [Oakeshott] as merely a polemicist or right-wing apologist missed something essential in his work." (p. 216) "The New York times labled him a 'right-wing guru". Still others went so far as to imply that Oakeshott was a crypto-fascist." (p. 2)[18] The political philosophy of Michael Oakeshott says, "Careful study of this work serves as a necessary corrective to the view of Oakeshott - based primarily on an exclusive reading of the essays in Rationalism in Politics - as a "Burkean conservative" or a right-wing ideologue". (p. 3)[19] It may be that in your imagination there is an ideology called right-wing and you have assembled various writers that you believe support your belief system. But that is all original research and you are wasting everyone's time. If you want to present your reality, choose another forum. TFD (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words my above summary is correct. Michael Oakeshott on the basis of his "Rationalism in Politics" collection of essays is viewed as a "Burkean conservative", but, with reference to his other writings, some argue that despite his claim that theories are simply abridgements of practices and traditions, he is more accurately situated within the Classical Liberal tradition. As for the declaration that lack of knowledge of the topic under consideration means that "you are wasting everyone's time. If you want to present your reality, choose another forum." You took the words out of my mouth.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

Your essays are unhelpful to improving the article. Articles are not based on original theories presented by editors but on reliable sources. Nothing you have presented is of any relevance to the article and could you please stop this talk page disruption. TFD (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "realism" is a dangerous term to use without extreme caution. Even if it is supported in a very specific sense of the term (and I am not saying that it is) the average reader could easily read it in its more general sense and get the impression that if right wing is endorsed as "realism" then left-wing means "away with the faeries". Furthermore, I worry that one could just as easily make the same argument in reverse. I think that all political cliques like to think that they alone have their fingers on the pulse of raw, untainted reality while their opponents are hopelessly deluded blind men stuck in the proverbial ditch. Rhetoric of that type, even if referenced, does nothing to explain actual differences in ideology and I can't see any value in that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I was skeptical that realism is only a phenomenon of the right, so I just looked up different possible examples of left-wing realism on Google Books, among them, "Marxist realism" brings up a total of 49 pages of results of books and articles on Google Books search. So realism is not clearly a phenomenon exclusive to the right.--R-41 (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Marx is a REALIST is very controversial [Lukacs, Kolakowski, and numerous "Critical Marxist" interpretors take him to be an IDEALIST] and to describe him as a MORAL REALIST (my claim if you remember about the Right) is even more controversial (I think than Norman Geras defends this view) but putting this issue to one side, you declare that some on the Left (regardless of whether or not they are correct) describe themselves as "Realists" and so this undermines the value of using ANTI-UTOPIANISM as some sort of identifier of what it is to be on the Right.

Of course I am identifying what the Right claims about itself, I am not making a claim about the truth or falsity of that claim. People on the Left say they are concerned with EQUALITY and so this is fine for a Wikipedia definition, but their opponents would argue that the Left seek to increase their wealth (and of course their power) by confiscating and controlling wealth generated by others (whom they envy) even if this has the consequence of decreasing the chances that poor people will escape from poverty. Now it may be accurate, but it would be absurd to offer this as a Wikipedia definition of the Left.

To anybody who understands the RIGHT its moral realism and anti-utopianism are far more important than its anti-egalitarianism (indeed the latter is a consequence of the former) but of course only Rick Norwood knows what words mean.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I am identifying what the Right claims about itself." Would it be possible to provide any sources for this. TFD (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I will try if I get time (Wikipedia has to be a low priority) to read some "Right Wing" philosophers (Burke and De Maistre for example) who will supply some examples of the moral realism plus anti-utopianism approach, plus I will try to look at some of the more recent philosophers of the Right. Of course there is a paradoxical element in attempting to locate articulations of the assumption that what is real transcends articulation. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)).

You would spend your time better reading reliable secondary sources that possibly support this generalisation of yours. Primary sources are not exactly the best way to support such an outlandish claim as "right-wing means realism and that it is opposed to the left-wing that is based upon idealism and utopianism". You will need secondary sources for this. Providing only primary sources would obviously be WP:SYNTH. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I will read the primary sources. How do you know what is "reliable" until you know what is being talked about - no wonder the Right-Wing politics entry is such a poor effort. It is like discussing a work of literature with somebody and gradually realising that all they have seen the movie. I guess if people are egalitarians they feel excused from the requirement to know about the topic before they contribute to it. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC))

I am quite aware of what is being talked about. And I do still insist that you resort to reliable secondary sources for such a claim in Wikipedia. Synthesis or original research is kindly referred to peer reviewed publications. If you succeed with your theories there we may just consider adding the information to the Wikipedia article. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, only Rick Norwood owns a dictionary. As for whether or not the Right claims that realism is its defining characteristic, that doesn't matter, because that doesn't distinguish the Right from all the other groups who claim realism is their defining characteristic. I would imagine that scientologists claim realism is their defining characteristic. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is value realism (plus the situated thus fallible nature of the knower) that is the key, and although I know nothing about Scientology, I am guessing that they are not going to be anti-utopian. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)).

As Gauchet's article explains, the terms "left" and "right" did not exist in the 18th century. Find a modern source that backs up your views. Even the website that formed your opinion would be helpful becaue we could trace where it found its views. (For example, Glenn Beck has professors on his show who write books sourcing their views.) TFD (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the Right "to some extent" a response to the Left?

I reverted Spylab's edit. Here's why. The lead says that the Right is to some extent a response to the Left. Therefore the body of the article should expand on that. Either the both the statement in the lead and the subsection should be removed, nor both should be retained. Discussion? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What we are left with is that Big-Endiand do not exist without Little-Endians. As noted before, since there is no universally applicable definition for what the "political spectrum" represents, we are engaging in counting angels on the heads of pins at best. The best we can hope for is some groups of definitions applicable to specific countries at specific times. Collect (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

When Swift wrote that, he was comparing the 18th centrury Whigs and Tories. While there may have been no differences between their policies, historically they were different and radicalism, socialism, and communism would provide major challenges to them. Incidentally in America, the revolutionary "Whigs" presented a challenge to the the "Tories". Do you think that the dispute was over trivial issues? TFD (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The "revolutionaries" (not "Whigs") in the US sought to continue the existing self-government here - while the "loyalists" sought to have the locals pay for their own defense against the French, and when the locals demurred, sought to remove their self-government so that the big government could rule them. In a way, the Tories were the "left" and the patriots were the "right" at the time. And you make no sense whatsover in asserting that "right" and "left" have any continuing meaning acrosss erras and nations at all. The American Revolution was, in many ways, a profoundly conservative revolution based on over a century of substantial self-rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The "patriots" called themselves Whigs. The U.K. Whigs later became called the Liberal Party while the Tories became the Conservatives. The loyalists organized a political party in Canada called the "Family Compact" which is now called the Conservative Party. Canadian supporters of the American Revolution organized parties which would later be called the Liberal Party. Royalism is not considered to be a left-wing ideology. TFD (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The patriots became Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The use of "Whig" by some patriots was due to the Whigs in the UK favouring different colonial policies from those of the King. It did not make them "Whigs" except in that sense, and decidedly had no relation to other UK-Whig policies of the time, only sympathy to the "opposition party" at the time of the revolution. The UK-Whigs were, in fact, known as "anti-Catholic" - something not noted in the Patriot groups, including in Maryland. Gross over-simplification of American history does not help define "right" v. "left" in any way whatsoever, but it is nice to note that those who believe in gross over-siimplification exist. Cheers. See The politics of liberty in England and revolutionary America Collect (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

When one reverses the meanings of words, whether liberal and conservative or left and right, then one may conclude that they are meaningless. TFD (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Quod Erat Demonstrandum - the words do not have fixed meanings. Cheers - glad to see you recognize the inherent problems in making any universal statements about the flawed "politica; spectrum." Collect (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the section again because it solely consisted of one economist's opinion and a title "Problems with the term" slapped on top of it. That is undue weight. The section is also misleading because it includes the phrase "Stanford University economist Thomas Sowell and others say", but does not offer any proof that "others" say anything at all. Previously, I merged Sowell's ideas and refererence into an appropriate paragraph in the lead section. At some point, someone reverted that reasonable solution without explanation, and the section that is only about one quote keeps getting re-added without explananation. Regardless of all the discussion above, the bottom line is that one economist's quote does not deserve its own section. Either move the content somewhere else or expand the section with other people's ideas.Spylab (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spylab. We do not know how notable Sowell's view is. Also it is preferrable to use academic sources rather than popular writing. TFD (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)