Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

What is wrong with this article

Since there seems to be a great deal of pride of authorship in the current version, and little receptivity for making a fresh start of it, let me very specifically point out what is wrong with the article this has evolved into.

Misleading introduction. The fundamental problem is that the very term "right wing" does not have a definitive and unambiguous meaning. You will rarely see Christian democrats, conservatives, or libertarians refer to themselves as the "right wing," though they may from time to time concede that they are to the "right" of their "left wing" adversaries. Add to that the obvious point that, for example, religious conservatives in Israel hardly are "Christian democrats." The fundamental decision we have to make (and read this carefully) is whether the article should describe the euphemistic meaning of "right wing" (in which case, we can throw in fascism, etc., as part of the continuum), or whether it should be a meaningful, neutral article that relates to all the articles about political parties that link to it. My vote is for the latter, but if we go for the euphemistic meaning, then the links from the Norwegian Conservative Party, Likud, German Christian Democrats, etc., will be absolutely meaningless.

Jumbled structure. Any article of this kind must move from the general to the specific, to the extent that one follows from the other. Here it doesn't. The term is introduced, defined vaguely, given a brief historical background, and then we move straight into the war on terrorism. It would be much more meaningful to introduce the term, explain the different meanings it might have, outline those characteristics that make the right wing distinct from the left wing, and then - if facts support it - discuss specific issues briefly with links to other articles.

False associations. If people feel justified in using the term "Christian Democrat" and " fascist" in the same context, the burden has to be on them to explain why there are key similarities between the two. The argument that "a lot of people think so" can not be presented as more than that, and if there is no further basis, then that should be clarified as well.

Random issues. We've got the war on terror, the Arab-Israeli conflict, fascism all messed up together, without any logical structure or thematic stream. There are lots of other issues related to "right wing" such as abortion, gun laws, protectionism, separation of church an state, etc. --Leifern 22:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

In the UK the right wing oppose the seperation of church and state. They do not support it in anyway. Only the extreme right like the BNP or NF support such measures. The slightly right through to the very moderate right wing do not support the measure. I just thought this was worth noting, and I support your section's argument generally. SKC 21:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there is too much in this article about random issues, especially the war on terror and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The relation of fascism to other right-wing politics must be at least touched on here, though it may be that the main discussion should be at fascism and ideology, if people are willing to treat that seriously instead of making it a battle zone.

Abortion? In the U.S. today this is something of a left-right issue, but in Europe abortion is almost universally accepted as part of reproductive rights, the only significant dissent being on a religious basis, not a left-right basis. Gun laws? Again, something of a left-right issue in the U.S., but is there any other country where that is the case? Protectionism? I can't even say which side of that is supposed to be "left" or "right": to point to the U.S., this is an issue where Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader are on one side and Bill Clinton and both Bushes on the other. That's not left vs. right, that's both ends against the middle. Separation of church and state? I suppose that support for established religion would almost always come from the right, but opposition to it can come from anywhere. Again, to pick a U.S. example: Barry Goldwater was on the same side of this issue as Ted Kennedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're kind of making my point here. It is, indeed, hard to find specific issues that separate right from left across the board. This is why it makes more sense about the general principles that seem to characterize "right" most places around the world. This is not simple to do in an unbiased way - it's my observation that the opposite of Conservative (note the uppercase) is in fact progressive (note the lowercase). I am all for a section discussing radical movements that are considered right-wing, but this needs to be a pretty clearly articulated section. --Leifern 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not "making your point". I'm saying that single issues don't illustrate the matter at hand, especially when handled as a snapshot of a moment rather than in historical perspective, and in terms of the stance ultimately arrived at rather than the nature of the arguments supporting that stance.

What I'm about to say next is my own view, and much of it may not belong in the article, certainly not without citation from someone a lot more authoritative than me.

The original meaning of the term related to defense of the ancien régime. Over time, the interests that had been concentrated in the ancien régime became less entangled, and the matter became more complex, to the extent that someone could easily hold rightist views in one matter and not in another. I would consider the key strands to include support for elite economic interests and for the rights of property (vs. egalitarianism or workerism); nationalism, especially ethnically-based nationalism (vs. internationalism); economic individualism (vs. economic collectivism and social solidarity); traditional (usually religiously based) morality (vs. an emphasis on ethics and individual choice), this last generally including traditionalist views about gender roles and family structure.

These values are sometimes in conflict with one another (as are their opposites on the left), so it would be hard to find an example of a "pure right-wing" politics. In particular, economic individualism can often come into conflict either with nationalism or with traditional morality. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree there are members of the christian left too, the current opening is very POV and how come in the first sentgence there are no comments about general economic policy?! Social issues like the church and nationalism are not the historical reasoning behind right-wing politics. Many left-wing parties also support these. Basically what I'm saying is too POV take out social issue and put economic ones in that actually define right-wing politics in the opening paragraph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.44.71 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism

Nationalism should be moved to Left-wing. This is from the Nationalism page:"Nationalism refers to both a political doctrine[3] and any collective action[4] by political and social movements on behalf of specific nations" Nationalism supports the collective not the individual, therefor it is left-wing. Peoplez1k 01:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this canard that "right-wing" means "individualist" and "left-wing" means "collectivist". Where do people get this odd idea? "Individualist" and "collectivist" are perfectly good words; they are an entirely different dimension than left/right. This is writing history backwards from certain aspects of present-day U.S. politics.

I would say that nationalism is not inherently on the right: Puerto Rican nationalism, for example, is rather strongly identified with the socialist left. But certainly in Europe, strong nationalism has often allied with the right, the most obvious examples being virtually every fascist party in the interwar period, and the likes of Le Pen, Vadim Tudor, and Jörg Haider today. In the U.S., those with a nationalist conception of the country have nearly always been on the right: think of the Know-Nothings in the 19th century, or the English-only movement today. There have sometimes been nationalist tendencies within the U.S. labor movement that have been at least politically allied with the left (e.g. anti-Chinese activity in the last 40 years of the 19th century); even then, though, there was a large part of the left that vigorously rejected this. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But Facism is Leftwing (by the modern meaning of Left/Right terms), not right wing. Orginally, in the French Parliment Left was individualist/anti-authorian/believers in limited government (to rid society of ills) and Right was collectivist/authoritarian/believers in strong government.

In modern times, there came to be idealists who believed collectivist/authoritarian/believers in the power of the state would rid society of ills and bring liberty to all collectively. They (collectivists) then usurped the word 'Liberal' that was tied to the classic left wing label of the individualist/anti-authorian/believers in limited government, because they believed that the collectivist/authoritarian/strong government was the best way to liberate society of all ills, as long as the state was in the right hands.

At this point, the individualist/anti-authorian/believers in limited government became the Right and the collectivist/authoritarian/believers in strong government became the Left. Well, Facism beliefs in the power of the state/collectivism to be the proper tool to run society.

Nationalism/Fascism are fundamentally right-wing; to turn a strict, socially conservative anti-equality doctrine around to the left is beyond absurd. Stay in school. And Fascism is spelled F-A-S-C-I-S-M. I love the educated right-wing. Tim010987 (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

French, British, American, Japanese nationalism - all right-wing.

Irish, Basque, Corsican, Arab, Latin American nationalism - all left-wing.

I'm a leftie myself, but how can you claim that it's "fundamentally" right-wing? 147.9.177.84 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Again, this canard that "right-wing" means "individualist" and "left-wing" means "collectivist". Where do people get this odd idea?"

Mainly because of socialist ideology, the French revolution was a revolution of classic liberals against the tyrany of the state and the absolute power over society by the european monarchies, a "bourgeois revolution" as Marx called it, then scientific socialism or marxism advocated for a society runned solely by the state, no freedom, no property, no market and no individual rights, in essence a reversal to the tyrannical monarchies of the XVIII century. So you see from that political compass right wing means freedom, private property and individual rights and socialism represented mainly a society controlled by the state under force collectivization. I hope you understood. Agrofelipe (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Individual priorities?

Does the article propose that the right-wing politicians are out for themselves (which is obviously not an appropriate judgement to make here) or they have individualist policies? Whatever the answer I think the wording here is out of line with the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.202.150 (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

As I understand the "right wing" politicians believe in the individual freedom and rights and they opposed the control of the state.Agrofelipe (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Republicans not ideological?

The sentence "Although the United States does not have ideological parties, most Republicans since the administration of Ronald Reagan have identified themselves as "conservatives."" is fairly obviously self-contradictory. The problem is that although the US party system was non-ideological and characterized by bipartisanship until the Reagan Administration, it is now both highly partisan and, on the Republican side at least, consciously ideological (see RINO for example). I attempted a fix, but it was reverted without explanation.JQ (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the Republicans have been at times liberal and at other times conservative, and the same is true of the Democrats. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Usage

I'm thinking of removing this for lack of notability; it's one person's opinion. "Roger Griffin claims that fascist movements have become more monolithically right-wing, and fascism has become intertwined with the radical right.[30][31]" Thoughts? Tech408 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is "Roger Griffin"? Unless he is a noted scholar, then delete it. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick, this is Roger Griffin. He's published a few books on fascism with notable presses, so I think he counts as an authority. Innocent76 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "Contemporary usage" heading, and broke the remaining text into two sections, on economic liberals and relationship to fascism. While there's a theoretical perspective that puts the two together as one subject, that theory isn't explained or defended in this article, making the linkage needlessly tendentious. Also, the adjective "right-wing" is applied to social conservatives and foreign policy hawks as well as free-market advocates. Consequently, the article as it was written gave a misleading picture of the way we use the term in practice. The new headings are more accurate descriptions of what the sections in question actually discuss. Innocent76 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I had never run across Griffin. Seems notable.

I'm not going to try to change anything in the recent edit by Innocent76, but I do think there needs to be some sort of explanation of how Libertarians came to be on "the Right". I don't recall seeing that usage before about 1970.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I could not find one. Libertarians were part of Buckley's New Right, but I don't know when that term was adopted. I don't think the term "right" was used in English very often before then, and Websters says the "right-wing" came into English circa 1905, while "left-wing" arrived circa 1884, and centrist in 1872. We should ask the Heritage Foundation. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In the 1950s, "right-wing" usually meant "anti-communist". Joe Macarthy was often called right-wing. In the 1940s, "right-wing" indicated opposition to FDR. I wasn't around for the 1930s, but my reading suggests that then "right-wing" usually meant support for segregation and opposition to labor unions.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party of the US was not formed until 1971, and origins of the movement go back to the New Right. I don't think Libertarians outside the US call themelves right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nikai's edit

Good edit, Nikai, both here and in Left-wing. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

better word than reactionary?

I think tradionalist being in the place of reactionary works because:

1. Traditionalist and conservatism are not totality the some thing. Conservatism can also mean support for capitalism, markets ect, not just support for traditions.

2. Reactionary is a largely negative term and shouldn't be in the first sentence to rescribe right-wing politics.

69.179.60.252 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "right wing" has only recently and locally come to include support for free markets. In any case, traditionalist and conservative both mean support for a free market only where there is a tradition of support for a free market. Nobody would call Deng Xiaoping, who brought a free market to China, "right wing".

The sources use the word, and reactionary is not necessarily a negative term, though it is taken to be negative by progressives. For example, a call for a return to a simpler, more agrarian lifestyle is reactionary without being negative.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The word reactionary doesn't belong in the introduction like that. It's a negative POV and if it's included at all it needs to be done in appropriate context and with explanation. Throwing around loaded words like that isn't encyclopedic. Traditionalist and conservative are not the same thing. That erm is more appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "right-wing" originally meant reactionary and is still used in that sense. Websters defines "reaction" as a "tendency toward a former and usu. outmoded political or social order or policy" while "conservatism" is "a disposition in politics to preserve what is established", so they are two different things but reactionary is definitely right-wing. The term "right-wing" itself is often a negative term outside the US. For example the Liberal leader in the UK said the Conservatives are still "right wing and unpleasant". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4908978.stm

The term reactionary is used in academic writings about European politics especially during turbulent terms when words like "traditional" would not fit, e.g., people who wish to re-establish absolute monarchy, abolish universal suffrage, or re-establish the church.

Also, while the term "conservative" may be used in the US to "describe groups who favor laissez-faire capitalism and free markets", the term is actually more broadly used. The only groups who could be described that way are American libertarians. In practice, people described as conservatives generally accept regulation of markets, government spending on health, welfare and education, barriers to the movement of labor, sanctions against "rogue regimes", etc.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, right-wing originally meant support of the current class structure, not reactionary. The class structure supported by the right wing was firmly in place at the time.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If they were not reactionary in 1789, they certainly were following the Revolution, and they were called "the Right".

But many historians consider them to be have been reactionaries in 1789, because of their rigid rejection of change and opposition to the Enlightenment and even the limited rights that the French people had enjoyed. Conservatives (e.g., Robert Peel) favor gradual change, reforming rather than overthrowing existing institutions, not rigid defense of the status quo.

In any case the term reactionary is used and not considered POV. It is often used of course as an epithet, but including it as part of the right is not the same thing as saying that the right is reactionary. Incidentally, the left-wing politics article includes the extreme left and no one seems to consider that POV.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-communism

I'm inclined to delete the new section on Anti-communism, because it lacks references and may be original research. Would the author care to supply references? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I just copied it from the Anti-communism article. Delete it if you wish. 69.179.60.252 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if a section is copied from another article it should be referenced.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed Wood's Wig flag

I removed Ed Wood's Wig's flag on the statement that right-wing was most often used to describe groups who are conservative, fundamentalist, or nationalist. The statement is referenced. And here are the top google hits for right wing (after this page):

www.rightwingnews.com/"Right Wing News is the best source on the net for conservative news, views, & interviews."

Right Wing Nut House rightwingnuthouse.com/

In fact, Christian Newswire, the distribution source of choice for right-wing groups, has not one press release up from anyone at all regarding the Vermont ... www.rightwingwatch.org/

Right Wing NationRight Wing Nation: That Masterpiece; Right Wing Nation: The “Common Good” Rears Its Ugly Head; Right Wing Nation: Pardon My Skepticism; Central Pennsylvania ... rightwingnation.com/

So, there you have conservatism, fundamentalism, and nationalism as the three most common uses of the phrase "right-wing". I know nothing about rightwingnuthouse, I just included it because it came up on goggle.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And these are reasonable sources because... Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

They are examples of how the phrase is, in fact, used, which was the subject under discussion. If the subject were what the phrase means, then a dictionary would be the preferred source. For example, the word "literally" is often used to mean "figuratively", as in the phrase "I am literally worked to death", but in fact that is not its dictionary meaning. In this case, however, my guess is that the meaning given in the Concise Britannica is close to the common usage. I have not checked the reference. Someone should. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

recent edit

The recent edit has removed almost all of the material about nations other than the US, England, Australia, and Israel. I'm not familiar enough with this material to restore it, but I wonder why it was removed, and hope someone more knowledgable will decide which parts should be restored. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I reorganized it. I think it is better to devote sections to the prositions of the right instead of the right in different countries. They all have those common themes anyway. Any more positions you think need a subsection? Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles in Wikipedia are often accused of being too American, so I would hesitate to remove examples from other countries.Rick Norwood (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors suggesting exclusivity on the term's meaning and application in select nations doesn't seem like a balanced way to cover the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What do yo mean? You are still free to put what RW politics is like in other countries. If there's a position in other countries that RW movements take and it is not mentioned, then give it it's own sub-section. Why is this organization fine for the left-wing politics article but not this one? I ask this since Rick Norwood and the rest are editing that article too. I don't mean to violate Wiki:OSE. 69.179.60.252 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There were several problems with listing right-wing politics by country. The list, other than including the US and UK, seemed random, and would require constant updating as party standings changed in the various countries. Very few historic right-wing or even conservative parties remain today, very few parties identify themselves as right-wing, so we would really need a source for a list of right-wing parties throughout the world. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sporadic examples at the end of the article. Will create a list by country. eageristic —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

I deleted "the State of Israel under David Ben-Gurion" in the list of anti-communist conservative regimes. The State of Israel under David Ben-Gurion was far from conservative or anti-communist right-wing regime. It was a socialist-pragmatic regime and as such received more support from the Soviet Union than from the USA. Berolan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beroland (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This article should be about the dictionary definition of "Right-wing", not about current American politics.

I've removed from the article a number of comments that are more about modern American politics than about the right wing/left wing divide. I've also discovered and corrected a large number of typographical errors. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I came across an article by former Thatcher minister John Redwood, who complains about the use of the term "right wing...adopted from a different century and a different country". (http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/02/01/dont-be-right/) I don't think the term has the same respectability in other English-speaking countries. If you use British, Canadian or Australian search engines, outside references to US sites or sports, most of the usage is derogatory or refers to extremists. However the American usage is becoming more accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My hunch is that the alliance between the Old Right, whose main interest is anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, and pro-school prayer, and the Classical Liberals, whose main interest is low taxes and small government, is at an end. I don't think the Old Right wants to be tarred with "There is no need for the government to regulate the banks, the banks can be trusted to regulate themselves." Rick Norwood (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't economic liberalism also an element of the right, at least in European thought? I'd like to add that to the definition, but I'm a bit skeptic. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The right/left divide has largely degenerated into name-calling. Newspaper reporters use it as shorthand -- in the US they use it to keep from repeating "Democrat" and "Republican", just as comic book writers use "the Dark Knight" and "the Man of Steel" to avoid repeating "Batman" and "Superman" too often. To that extent, the words have become meaningless buzzwords. Left and right just mean "my side" and "your side", while "far left" and "far right" mean "bad side".

Are things better in Europe? I don't know. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need a disambiguation page that links to an article "Use of 'right-wing' in the US between 1980 and 2010".

Free markets are a liberal idea. After the American revolution, John Adams tried to promote free markets in England and France. They weren't having any. Only liberal Holland believed in free markets in those days.

The use of "right-wing" to mean "free markets" reflects a purely political alliance, limited as far as I can tell to the modern United States, between people who oppose abortion and people who favor free markets. These groups have nothing that I can see in common except that neither is powerful enough to win an election without allies. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? Limited to the modern US? Classical liberalism and free markets have always been a part of modern right-wing politics, at least in Europe. Have you ever heard of liberal parties in Europe? Most of them describe themselves as center-right, right, and non-interventionist. And I don't see how establishing alliances between conservatives and liberals are categorized as "purely a political alliance." If we were to follow that train of thought, then all political parties would have to ally themselves with opposing ideological parties. Of course they establish alliances. That's not a good enough argument to rule this issue out. We shouldn't approach this subject simply from an American perspective. Other places in the world clearly have liberalism on the right and other interventionist elements on the left, such as social democracy. And I noticed you've been reverting edits that include liberalism in the lead. I'll keep adding it, and I'll try to find a source. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you find a source first, then add the information. I think you will discover that all uses of "right-wing" to mean "free markets" are 1) from the last ten years, 2) American, and 3) from a popular rather than an academic source. But, if I'm wrong, and Europeans really do use "right-wing" to mean "free markets", you should easily find a scholarly source that states that, at which point I'll withdraw my objection. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I found two sources, but I'm still searching for more concrete ones. Just to make myself clear, though: Right-wing and "liberal" always meant - and always will mean - free markets. It implies limited government control over the economy and the means of production, and individualist competition. When you say that liberalism isn't right-wing, what exactly are you suggesting it is? Social liberalism which belongs to the American left-wing? Classical and social liberalism are two different things: the first means non-interventionism, and the latter means providing social welfare through economic intervention and moderate socialization of the economy, which is placed at the center-left. The reason most academic sources on the interwebs suggest liberalism isn't right-wing is because most websites are American and as a result their perception is that liberalism = social liberalism. Encyclopedia Britannica explains what the two terms mean pretty well, as well as a number of online dictionaries.

I'd suggest that people look things up in the future before reverting or deleting a completely valid entry in an article, and not act upon their gut instinct. There's a world outside of America, you know. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your first reference doesn't even use the phrase "right-wing". I couldn't get your second reference to work -- in any case it is not a major reference work. The Oxford English Dictionary is a major reference work, and here is what it has to say about "right-wing":

"That section of a political party, assembly, or other body most tending to hold conservative or reactionary views." As an example of usage, they offer "It seems likely that Catholics have an intrinsically right-wing attitude." Now, let's apply your assertion that "Right-wing and "liberal" always meant - and always will mean - free markets." So, the quote is saying, "It seems likely that Catholics have an intrinsically free-market attitude." Really? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My first source doesn't use "right-wing"? Really? Have you even read it?

You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?

This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology - deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism. In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together. Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?

The Political Compass places liberalism on the right, and they explained why right there. But I'm afraid the meaning of the source isn't the only thing you're missing. You're also missing common sense. What's the right-wing? The right supports a laissez-faire (free, capitalist, classical liberal) economy. I'm not denying the fact that conservatism and religion are key components of the right-wing. Laissez-faire Liberalism (classical liberalism) is understood as right-wing as well, because of the aforementioned reasons which represent the very basis on which the right stands: economic freedom, which is what liberalism supports. You're still holding onto the American conception that liberalism is left, which is an extremely invalid statement if you don't mention what type of liberalism you're talking about: social or classical? And the entry in the Oxford Dictionary only mentions the social attitudes of the right-wing: reactionism (a movement that counters government control of the economy advocated by the left), and conservative (which, funnily enough, has the same meaning: preservation of free, laissez-faire markets in the face of reformist leftist agendas). I'm getting the feeling you lack the basic notion of what right-wing means. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The liberal parties of Europe are generally not considered to be the right because the larger conservative and Christian Democratic parties are considered to be the right. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick check on Liberal Party brings up several European parties that are centrist and center-right, and some of which are also social liberals. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

When they are center-right, there is usually a larger party that is considered "right" and other parties that are considered part of the center. These parties are generally members of the Liberal International, while the historic right-wing parties belong to the Centrist Democrat International or the International Democrat Union, although I don't know how they came up with these names. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

UNSC Trooper: Yes, I read your first reference. It does not use the phrase "right-wing". No, the OED is not American. Noting that individuals sometimes hold a variety of views and do not fit a steriotype has nothing to do with the discussion. If "funnily" left-wing and right-wing mean the same thing, the words are useless. Yes, the current US political alliance between the Christian right and the Libertarians has caused some American sources, mostly blogs, to call free-trade "right-wing", but that is rare, uninformed, and not the dictionary meaning of the phrase. I've asked you to come up with a scholarly source that uses the phrase that way. You just repeat your unsourced assertion. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Now you're just playing with words. I didn't bring up the issues you've mentioned, like the OED being American or the left-wing and right-wing meaning the same thing. I approached the meaning of the terms "reactionary" and "conservative." I've shown you a scholarly source, the Political Compass, which places liberalism and free-trade on the right, and it explains why it's right. Right-wing_politics#Economics says free trade is right-wing. It's a known fact that free-trade is right-wing. I'll say it again: what do you think the right-wing is? I'd like to see whether or not you're aware of the economic definition of "right-wing." I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you, especially since you're just making up issues to keep the discussion flowing in your direction, you're not backing up your statements half the time, and it also seems you're not aware of the economic meaning of "right-wing." --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be problematic to rely on the Political Compass, because it may not reflect a universal viewpoint. The free trade that the right in Europe believes in includes tariffs, non-tariff barriers, government subsidies and regulation of trade that Libertarians oppose. The Compass compares the liberal Free Democrats with the US Libertarian Party. Now look what happens when they apply the Political Compass to Germany: [[1]]. The liberals are to the right of the conservative CDU, and historically they would always have been on the right of the Compass. But In Europe they are considered centrist or center-right, while the conservatives are considered to be on the right. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just sticking my two cents in, a good reason to focus on America for Free Market economic thought is listed here: [2]. It's in the preface. Soxwon (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My other question, what about Thatcher? Soxwon (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

UNSC Trooper: Why didn't you say you were basing your argument on the thinking of my old buddy Jerry Pournelle. He and I were in LASFS together, and share an enthusiasm for Schtroumpfs. Much as I love Jerry (Dan Alderson and I once kept him from being named Fugghead of the Year by LASFS) his political views are not mainstream, nor is the Political Compass.

I have the impression that you have conducted most of your political conversations with like minded individuals, and have heard their jargon so often that it is shocking to you to discover that it is not standard in the wider world. But it is not, and I've offered you several standard reference works to show that it is not. If you want to say, somewhere low down in the article, that in Libertarian jargon the phrase "right-wing" has the opposite meaning from the standard use of the phrase, I have no objection. What I object to, here and in other articles, is inserting Libertarian jargon into the lead. Libertarian views are minority, not majority, views. And most people who are not Libertarians themselves do not understand words to mean what Libertarians say they mean. Now, I used some jargon from science fiction fandom in the paragraph above this one, but I would never dream of using it in the lede of a Wikipedia article. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I find your comparison completely irrelevant to our discussion. I'm a Starship Troopers fan. Heinlein was, back in his days, considered a Nazi sympathizer and a fascist because of his public statements and because of his portrayal of the Terran Federation. Oh! That must mean all of his works are fascist!

Oh, don't worry about that jargon thing. I only started participating in discussions on Wikipedia a few days ago, and most of the debates I've seen are, actually, much more fluent and generally comprehensible than this one. I suppose that, logically, there must be something wrong with our discussion... Hmm... I wonder what (or who) it is. What you don't seem to get, and so pointlessly attempt to emphasize, is that what you called "not a standard view in the wider world" is simply an American conception and not a world-wide one. That's what I'm shocked about. I've directed you to a few sources that specifically explain that, but you continue to advocate the view of Libertarians, which don't have much to do with the "right-wing" because libertarianism is simply a social attitude, not a political/economic attitude.

If you want to say, somewhere low down in the article, that in Libertarian jargon the phrase "right-wing" has the opposite meaning from the standard use of the phrase, I have no objection.

That little phrase pretty much proves how much you know about the right-wing. Stating that the right-wing is actually opposite to the view Libertarians implies that, in your view, the right-wing is regulatory and restricts free trade, which is absurd. This unnerves me, since you're one of the people regularly contributing to this article, and other articles on WP. People with flawed and biased definitions of ideologies massively contributing to WP articles - not good. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's incorrect, Free Market is usually synonymous with the Right Wing in the US and Canada, and as the source I quoted above points out America's influence on the Free Market and also embodiement of it on the world stage perhaps warrants more mention then "way down in the article." Soxwon (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And it would seem that there is some ambiguity (big surprise): on both the left and and on the right. Soxwon (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the connection is accidental, rather than essential, as the MIT article would appear to say. Conservatives may support "free markets" if it makes sense. As I mentioned however the "free markets" of right-wing governments are not really free. Neoliberalism is not classical liberalism. Anyway the term "right-wing" is French and has been incorporated into the US and English-speaking countries where no real right wing existed so it is not surprising that its usage is confusing. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New section on the discussion of whether using "right wing" to mean "free markets" is standard.

This discussion, if it is to be of any value to anyone, needs to focus on examples, not on personalities. I have quoted several examples of major works that say that "right wing" is most commonly used to mean "authoritarian". The use peculiar to the US is that many popular (but not academic) sources use "right wing" to mean "the Republican party". In Europe, the phrase "right wing" also means "authoritarian" but has a secondary meaning of "nationalist", "racist", and "anti-immigration".

Here is one example. It took me about three seconds to find it, since it is the first hit on Google for "Europe right wing".

"Right-Wing Extremism in the Twenty-First Century. Peter H. Merkl and Leonard Weinberg, editors. Frank Cass. [pounds sterling]45.00. xv + 311 pages. ISBN 0-7146-8188-1.

"Right-wing extremism in Europe has been on the rise since the 1980s. In several European countries, parties of a new radical right have been relatively successful in national and local elections. To the outside world, their extreme positions may seem to resemble those of the fascist and national-socialist movements of the 1930s and '40s. In February this year, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Mr Rockwell Schnabel, even went as far as to speak of a rise in anti-Semitism in Europe to levels last seen in the Nazi era. The spokesman for the European Commission, Reijo Kemppinen, responded to this assertion that 'there are a lot of xenophobic phenomena in Europe', but 'whether they are on the increase or not is more difficult to say'."

Now google is not an academic source -- not as good a source as the OED. But I've already quoted the OED, and Google does show how phrases are actually used. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good source as it points to right wing extremism. You could make those exact same statements about the US.

I think there is a misunderstanding, it's that Free Market is more synonymous with Right-wing then left wing in the United States. And as the source I provide shows, the United States has been the greatest influence on Free Market for the past 60 years and beyond. Soxwon (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lots of things were more synonymous with the right in the US, but were not essential elements, like isolationism. But I do not understand the implication that because of US influence on the Free Market, a US definition of right-wing becomes more important. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I was going for there, was a little tired. Sorry Soxwon (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion originally began with a discussion on how to treat the American use of the term "right-wing" in the US from 1980-2010. I think it's used in several ways and the meanings are usually clear in the context used. But I would rather see the use of the term from its introduction into the language which according to Webster's was 1905. Unfortunately I cannot find any secondary source that trace the development of the word.

I looked at the Political Compass for the UK. I shows that the Conservatives, Liberals and Labour are all right-wing but the British National Party is on the left. Labour is more right-wing than the Liberals.[3]. Only for Canada does the model accurately reflect the relative position of political parties across the left-right axis.[4]. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A good source for how the meaning of "right wing" has changed over time is "A Suppliment to the Oxford English Dictionary", published by the Oxford University Press and available in most libraries. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The nearest library to me that has a copy is pretty far away. But if you have access to the Supplement it would be helpful. Expect a lot of controversy however. I'd be interested in knowing the use of the term "left-wing", which could help that article as well. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have a copy of the Compact Edition. Sadly, these old eye are finding that harder and harder to read, even with a magnifying glass. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I will look for it at the reference library when I go shopping downtown. My understanding is that the term "right-wing" was only used in reference to European and Latin American politics, but its application to American politics was introduced by communists following the 6th congress. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If only America had its own version of the OED for the evolution of American English. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this could help? Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But what does it have to do with the meaning of right wing? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several detailed sections on the use of Free Market, it's meaning and the changes over time, and with the political affiliations. I thought it most relevant for this section. Soxwon (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But the book doesn't use the phrase 'right wing'! Nobody doubts that there are people who support free trade. There is an article on that subject. This isn't it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This book however does, and does a good job trying to classify what's what when it comes to Right-Wing ideology and also lists the key components like Free Markets: [5]. I"m not sure how helpful this could be as several key pages are not viewable: [6]

European Integration shows that there is an inexact relationship today in Europe between position on the left/right political spectrum and the degree of support for neoliberalism. As they point out: "Political actors have an incentive to interpret new issues in the light of existing cleavages such as the left/right ideological dimension" (p. 4), of which neoliberalism is merely one of the latest. Roads to Dominion states "Libertarianism, anticommunist militarism, and traditionalism have been the three pillars of the U.S. right. But these are tendencies, not absolutes." (p. 7) Also one must not generalize from attributes of the American right to a global definition.

Incidentally where would you put slavery, feudalism and mercantilism on the left/right axis?

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

new picture

I don't mind the picture but I think it needs some changes. The US has both a center-left and center-right ruling party same with Britian, Canada and Sweden so they should be yellow. 66.112.105.138 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The map makes no sense. Delete - OR. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It goes as the current ruling party... as in the Party that is running the country right now. A map that shows both the ruling and opposition parties would be pointless, as only a few nations wouldn't be yellow.-- OsirisV (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And the Democrats have control so the US should be red. 66.112.105.138 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahem...According to my copyright, it is free to update. So if you think a nation is the wrong colour, then you fix it.-- OsirisV (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you just admitted to WP:OR and are now encouraging others to do the same...Soxwon (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No....well...If me making an image from Wikipedias information is Original Research, and then saying that it needs updating is bad....then why is Wikipedia trusted as a constantly and correctly-updating community?-- OsirisV (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are creating the image and violating WP:RS (as well as WP:OR as ruling is a very POV term as you have no definition as to what constitutes ruling and thus it becomes your opinion). Soxwon (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think OsirisV is acting in good faith, but does not understand the policy. OsirisV, if you were to make a map of the world showing, for example, religion, you would need to cite a source for your information, for example The World Almanac. What your map lacks is a standard source for the information. You cannot cite Wikipedia for information used in Wikipedia, that would be selfreferential. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What if I were to provide links to biographies on each world leader? Logically, they would include what political party they represent.-- OsirisV (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but then you run into the problem of what dictates a country's political leanings? Would the US have been liberal or conservative during Bush's last two years? By whose standards do you judge? What is liberal to one country may be conservative to another. I still don't think it's feasible. Soxwon (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that there is no objective way of determining which governments are right-wing or left-wing. Very few if any governing parties self-identify as right-wing. John Redwood for example rejects the term.[7] Identifying left-wing parties is also problematic since in many countries most parties claim to be left-wing regardless of their policies. Your map identifies Colombia as ruled by a left-wing government but President Álvaro Uribe is not normally considered left-wing although his Liberal Party of Colombia is part of the Socialist International. There are several political maps in WP however. The articles International Democrat Union and Socialist International for example have lists and maps showing where their members are in power, but the articles for the Centrist Democrat International and the Liberal International do not. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A friendly note to Soxwon and Bobisbob2.

Please discuss your differences. I've made a minor edit (replaced "the the" with "the") in hopes it will cause people to think before simply reverting. And, Bobisbob2, shouting doesn't help. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording because the Islamic Builders should be mentioned in the same sentence as the Combat Clergy. I also added a new source. Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article is heavily slanted from a leftist point of view throughout its entirety. I put a pov template at the top of the page. Please don't remove. Discuss. Elodoth (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you find slanted. Care to elaborate? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's the sections on social hierarchy and social order. 207.118.251.124 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But that is the original meaning of the phrase right-wing, and it is still what most right-wing groups support. This nonsense about right-wing groups supporting small government is pure spin. Right-wing groups support small government when they are out of power, big government when they are in power. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick, in case you're not aware (and apparently you're not) everything you just said is POV. It is not fact. It is opinion. It is, if I might add, a decidedly left-wing opinion. Further, everything you just said concerning the right supporting small government when they're not in power can be reversed and applied to the left. And not all right-wing groups do this, just as not all left-wing groups do this.

"I'm guessing it's the sections on social hierarchy and social order."

You are correct but it's a lot more than that. I need to go over the article again and then I'll comment further here. Elodoth (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The historical meaning of "right-wing" is referenced, not POV. The rest of what I said is POV, and I would never dream of trying to put it into a Wikipedia article. I agree that left-wing politicians are as guilty as right-wing politicians in supporting small government only when it isn't their government. That seems to be the nature of the political animal. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick, I wrote the following down before I read your comment just now. And I agree with what you said concerning the political animal. However, the article is brimming with just this bias. Elodoth (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The article states: "Since then the term right-wing has come to be associated with preserving the status quo in the form of institutions and traditions."

By whom?

All comments below indented like this one inserted by Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

By the Oxford English Dictionary

"Modern Western conservatism and right-wing politics were influenced by the works of figures like Edmund Burke whose political principles were rooted in moral natural law. He believed in prescriptive rights and what he referred to as "ordered liberty", as well as a strong belief in transcendent values that found support in such institutions as the church, the family, and the state."

This describes Christian conservatism... and that's it! That's all it describes. We then go on with 3 more huge paragraphs about Burke, his philosophies, and who he influenced.

No, it also describes support for "the family, and the state". Burke is generally considered a major influence on the Right.

"The terms far right and radical right have been used by different scholars in conflicting ways.[13] The term far right is most often used to describe nationalist, religious extremist and reactionary groups as well as fascism and Nazism.[14][15][16][17] The BBC has called politician Pim Fortuyn's politics (Fortuynism) far right because of his policies on immigration and Muslims.[18] The term far right has been used by some, such as National Public Radio, to describe the rule of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.[19][20] Left-wing publication New Left Review called Ronald Reagan's policies "radical right".[21] The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.[22]"

This is just outrageous. I don't know how else to categorize it. I mean first -- read it. If it doesn't sink in then read it again.

Is your objection to the word "scholars"? If so, I agree. I'll replace "scholars" with "people".

There are many different groups who are considered right-wing and they're just not included in this article.

Social hierarchy

"Right-wing politics involves the creation or promotion of a social hierarchy.[39] Right-wing politics views social and economic hierarchies as either natural or normal and rejects attempts to remove such hierarchies."

This is just ridiculous. Some Right-wing politics involves the creation or promotion of a social hierarchy. And some left-wing politics involves the creation (if not promotion) of a social hierarchy. Does Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong ring a bell? These dictators are easily as authoritarian as any right-wing dictator ever was, thereby rendering this entire section irrelevant.

You seem to confuse "social hierarchy" with "dictatorship". The former refers to the class structure of a society, the latter to the government.

Here's a paragraph that isn't bad. "The Right advocates equality of opportunities instead of equality of outcome. The Right generally regards most social inequality as the result of ineradicable natural inequalities, and sees attempts to enforce social equality as Utopian or authoritarian."

Authority and social order

"Right-wing politics involves support of the preservation of authority.[46] In right-wing politics, legal and moral authority is sought to be protected by authority figures against those who challenge such authority. Many right-wing ideologies and movements support social order."

Please give me a break. Especially after reading this:

"The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

The Department of Homeland Security also defines right-wing extremists as those who support third party candidates, those who mention the Constitution, disgruntled veterans, those who oppose a one-world government, those who supported Ron Paul, anti-government conspiracy theorists, those who oppose Obama on immigration issues, and on and on and on. See: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf and www.infowarscom/images/scan0023.jpg ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} among of many others. And yes this was verified by Missouri's attorney general Peter Kinder here: http://www.news-leader.com/article/20090330/OPINIONS/903300316/1006/OPINIONS

Of course, the first is what the DHS actually says, and it was written long before the name "Obama" was well known. I checked your references. You are making a common mistake in logic, interpreting "Some A are B." as meaning "All B are A." For example, what the document says is that some right-wing extremists claim that the Constitution will be overturned. You interpret this to means that everyone who says that the Constitution will be overturned is a right-wing extremist. (Then you replace "overturned" with "mention" -- really, that is beneath you.)

All comments above thus indented by Rick Norwood (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Latin Conservatism, founded by Joseph de Maistre, is uncompromising in its belief in the need for order. Burkean Conservatism, which originated around the same time, supported constitutionalism and some degree of democracy. In contrast, Maistre, like Thomas Hobbes before him, though with a more religious tone, supported absolutism as the only means of avoiding violent disorder. Maistre, who fled the French Revolution, became convinced that ultra-liberal ideas, particularly Rousseau's theory of a "general will", had led to the horrors of the French Revolution and the bloodshed of the Napoleonic Wars. Maistre also objected to the quasi-secularism and self-indulgence of some late 18th century monarchies, and believed that state and church must remain inseparable.

The principles of Maistre's Latin Conservatism were fully instituted in Spain under Francisco Franco. It also has some influence in the United States, mainly on paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and members of the Constitution Party."

More of the same. That's nice but where's the rest of the story?

Economics

Most contemporary right-wing ideologies and movements support capitalism. Right-wing libertarianism (sometimes known as libertarian conservatism or conservative libertarianism) supports a decentralized economy based on economic freedom, and advocates policies such as property rights, free markets and free trade. Rafael Di Tella (Harvard Business School) and Robert MacCulloch (Imperial College London) claim that economic freedom correlates with right-leaning governments.[47]. Ronald Reagan said in an interview: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."[48]

This is just mixed up and misleading. First, where do you get that right-wing libertarianism = conservative libertarianism? Right-wing libertarianism also advocates individual liberty, an adherence to our entire Bill of Rights, the non-aggression axiom. , and a non-interventionist non-aggressive stance for our military. It is anti-war. And Ronald Reagan who did espouse libertarian ideals in his pre-pres days also went and turned into just another oppressive and authoritarian regime. He was not libertarian. But then, guess what? So is president Obama authoritarian, war-mongering, spies on US citizens, among a slew of other assaults on our liberty. Who (I think we can agree) is left-wing. Are you starting to get my drift?

This article needs an entire over-haul. I'm sorry.

That's all I'll cover right now. I have a lot of other things to do and I think I gave you enough to keep you busy. Elodoth (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Some points:

From the beginning, the right has supported preserving traditional institutions like royalty, aristocracy and the church. Support for monarchy and aristocracy has continued into the 20th century and there are some groups who still support them. (Like Canadian conservatives being tied to the British monarchy).

Pretty much all right-wing movement support some form of hierarchy and believe that a complete egalitarian distribution of wealth is harmful. Regardless of Stalin and Mao the fact is that the heart of Marxist, socialist and communist philosophy is common ownership. The fact that some leaders did not achieve that does not change it.

Reducing Burke’s philosophy to merely “Christian conservatism” is not valid. His influence goes beyond that. He’s not called the father of conservatism for nothing.

207.118.251.124 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Point 1

"From the beginning, the right has supported preserving traditional institutions like royalty, aristocracy and the church. Support for monarchy and aristocracy has continued into the 20th century and there are some groups who still support them. (Like Canadian conservatives being tied to the British monarchy)."

Wrong. Early in the 20th century when communism and progressivism was gaining ground and modern liberalism was starting to form the traditions that the conservatives wanted to preserve were things like limited government and preservation of the Constitution. Libertarians of today certainly do not support royalty or aristocracy. You're kidding, right? Libertarians are about individual liberty and a government that has very little power. That is exactly what the classical liberals were about in the founding of America. Funny isn't it how that went. Note classical liberals. Elodoth (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Point 2

"Pretty much all right-wing movement support some form of hierarchy and believe that a complete egalitarian distribution of wealth is harmful. Regardless of Stalin and Mao the fact is that the heart of Marxist, socialist and communist philosophy is common ownership. The fact that some leaders did not achieve that does not change it."

Wrong again. Libertarians and old-time conservatives do not support any form of hierarchy. What they are against is coercion. Which is what is required to spread wealth around. In order to evenly spread wealth around you need to hold people at gun point (or threat of prison for not paying taxes). Ironically, leftists and most rightists do support hierarchy in the form of big government when they support our various oppressive presidents. E.G. George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama. As far as the 'regardless of Stalin and Mao' statement goes I may as well say regardless of what Republicans do they represent a republican form of government so it doesn't matter what they do.

Also, I would like to know the specific leaders who did achieve it. What Marxist leaders achieved egalitarianism and did not dictate an oppressive, hierarchical, authoritarian regime?

And last but not least why was not one point I made above not responded to? Notice, I answered your points. No one has answered mine. Elodoth (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a little cleanup of everybody's spelling above, including my own. I hope nobody minds.

I also inserted some comments, with triple indents.

But this is what seems to be going on. I'm guessing that Elodoth is a Libertarian. I am a liberal. That means we have a lot in common. There are some views that Elodoth wishes were not held by people on his side. God knows, there are plenty of liberals I would love to kick out. But it doesn't work that way. You can't define words in order to include the views you like and exclude the views you dislike.

Please, Elodoth, check some dictionaries, read some history, you'll discover that when writers use the phrase "right-wing" they almost never mean Libertarian. The most common use is to describe dictatorships that support the upper class, such as Pinochet. The second most common use is to describe state religions. The two often go together, as with Franco in Spain.

In recent years, some US Libertarians cast their lot with the Republican Party, and since in the US "right-wing" has come to mean "Republican" (but this is a new meaning of the phrase) some people have started to use "right-wing" for Libertarian. But this is confusing, because Libertarians oppose almost everything the Right stands for. It is like the modern use of "literally" to mean "figuratively". It renders the word meaningless. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Elodoth is describing the evolution of the term "right-wing" rather than what it means with respect to today's political spectrum. I'd also point out that he did provide some historical comments in his statements. Telling him to go "read some dictionaries and some history" is inappropriate since he wrote quite an extensive analysis of the article's blurry sections. Perhaps commenting on his opinions would be a better option than commenting on his knowledge? Anyways, the term "libertarian" or "liberal" concerning the right is used by writers - in an economic context. And you say the term "right-wing" usually describes religious and conservative dictatorships? I think you're mixing the right with the far right. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I read a lot of old books. (Right now, I'm reading books written in 1933 and 1961.) I also read many current periodicals. The change in usage of the phrase "right-wing" is dramatic. The phrase "right-wing" has been around for more than 200 years, and I challenge you to find even one use of "right-wing" to describe economic policy before, say, 1965. I may be wrong -- I've been wrong before -- but I'm 66 years old, and I've watched the meaning of that phrase (and many other phrases) change out of all recognition.

The best way to settle this is using reference books. I've assigned myself several research projects over the next few days. Most of my edits in Wikipedia are based on my belief that words have meaning, and that the proper way to discuss great ideas is to use words to communicate thoughts, rather than to distort the meaning of words to provide a desired spin.

I apologize for implying that Eldorath doesn't already know a lot of history. Few people do, but I should not have assumed Eldorath is one of them. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Elodoth is describing the evolution of the term "right-wing" rather than what it means with respect to today's political spectrum.

And right-wing politics evolved from monarchist, aristocratic and clerical roots in the French Revolution. Thats what I have been saying. The right was linked with conseravtism, reactionism and tradition from the begining and continues to this day. 207.118.251.124 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Same Discussion -- New Thread

Thanks, UNSC Trooper, for your support and accurate understanding of the things I posted.

Rick, I am libertarian and libertarians do have some things in common with modern liberals and some things in common with conservatives. Libertarians are basically social left and economic right. (Aside from that they're really neither.)

The article

207.118.251.124 and Rick Norwood, both of you keep bringing up the fact that originally right-wing meant and stood for support of the aristocracy. No one's contesting that. The fact is, however, that the slant of the entire article is geared in this direction. It asserts over and over again that the right-wing still represents support for authority. This just isn't so any more than the left-wing represents support for authority.

There are factions in either wing that support and profess allegiance to authority thereby rendering this assertion irrelevant.

The over-done Edmund Burke thing

Edmund Burke was a reactionary of his time who did support the ruling class, from what I'm gathering. I guarantee that the old-time-conservative was much more like the classical liberal than modern liberals are. Our classical liberals decidedly did support the French Revolution, for instance, while Burke did not. Most of our revolutionaries were the liberals of their day while some, particularly Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, too, were more radical. Jefferson (and Paine) are still considered classical liberals. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism

The point I'm driving at here is this: The article's assertion is that Burke had a powerful effect on today's right-wing, while my assertion is that the right was considerably more influenced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and many other of our original patriots. These are our liberals -- at least our original ones.

What the conservatives of the 30s and 40s were trying to conserve was not just the traditions of family, church, etc., what they were trying to conserve was our Constitution and our Republic and many of today's old-time conservatives want to do the same thing. Ron Paul comes to mind.

You can't just include selected tidbits of information, repeat certain assertions over and over again and then expect to have a factual unbiased article. Elodoth (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that this is an encyclopedic article not a dictionary article and it would be greatly improved if it concentrated on European and Latin American politics and ignore English-speaking countries. In Europe "right-wing" has a clear meaning and history and the term is not contentious. But it is highly contentious and ambiguous in the English-speaking world. As John Redwood said, the term is "adopted from a different century and a different country".[8] The UK Conservative leader recently said he was not a right-winger.[9] Very few if any political parties in English-speaking countries outside the US self-identify as right-wing and the term usually means reactionary or fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces is correct. I've just spent the morning researching this in the library, and all of the major reference works that mention "right-wing" at all (the Encyclopedia Britannica and Modern American Usage omit the term entirely) define the Right as supporting tradition and authoritarian government. The use of "right-wing" in the sense Elodoth advocates is not even mentioned in any of the reference works I consulted. I suspect it is an artifact of the alliance of convenience between religious fundamentalists, who are clearly right-wing, on the one hand and advocates of small government, who are liberal or libertarian, on the other. The two groups not only have nothing in common -- their goals are antithetical. The Republican party is now trying to make up its mind which group to follow, the religious fundamentalists or the small-government libertarians. But advocates of small government would do well to call themselves Libertarian, rather than either "conservative" or "right-wing" which leads to confusion and misunderstanding. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree as I'm both (they're compatible for most things) and really I think that what I've mentioned before: [10]. Also, what of radical "right-wing" populism springing up in Europe (example: [11])? Soxwon (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As it says in Roads of Dominion (p. 5) sociologists in the United States (who were influenced by writers like Adorno, who wrote about The Authoritarian Personality), first used the term "radical right" in the 1950s because they saw extremist American groups as anti-democratic and authoritarian. Lipset in fact was the first scholar to use the term "right-wing extremism" to describe American groups. (See: S. M. Lipset, "The Radical Right," British Journal of Sociology, I (June 1955).)[12] The right-wing emphasis on libertarianism was considered a common attribute in the U.S. but not a defining attribute. The right-wing populists in Europe are in fact mostly neo-fascists, e.g., British National Party, National Front (France), the National Democratic Party of Germany. The authors of this book include the American Christian Right, led by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Tradition and authoritarianism are the uniting features of all these groups, according to the authors. My suggestion was that the article should be about the European and Latin American Right, with a definition section showing that the term is sometimes applied to Anglo-Saxon politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

===================================================

Almost nothing I've said has sunk in so I'll say it again

PLEASE LISTEN.

===================================================

The article's assertion is that Burke had a powerful effect on today's right-wing, while my assertion is that the right was considerably more influenced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and many other of our original patriots.

THESE ARE OUR CONSERVATIVES. THIS IS OUR RIGHT-WING.

THE RIGHT IS MORE THIS THAN NEOCON BUSH-ITE TYPES.

===================================================

DID YOU HEAR IT THAT TIME?

Thank you. Elodoth (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

===================================================

What makes you think that Burke was a Necon or that his influence is restricted only to them? Plaeocons have tooked up to Burke like here Buchanan even called Joseph de Maistre a "great conservative" in his book. Bobisbob2 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Elodoth: shouting is rude, and does not help make your point.

Bobisbob2: I reverted your edit, not because I necessarily disagree with it, but because you did too much too fast. There seem to be two parts to your edit, one to delete an entire section, the other to move stuff around. These are separate issues and should be discussed and done separately -- first one, then the other. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to Elodoth: You evidently have been influenced by people who misuse the phrase "right-wing", because when people use the phrase in the standard sense, you shout. But there is a good reason to slow (we can never stop) changes in the meanings of words and phrases. (I'm being conservative, here.) Traditional word-usage facilitates honest communication.

Here is what Webster's Third New International Dictionary says "right-wing" means: "Individuals or groups sometimes expressing views characterized by opposition to change in the established political, social, and economic order, and favoring the preservation of traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the establishment of an authoritarian political order by revolution or other forceful means."

Are you opposed to change? Do you favor the establishment of an authoritarian political order? If not, then you have been misled about the meaning of the phrase "right-wing". You need to find some other phrase that better describes your beliefs. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood: I'm wondering whether the works you so often keep "citing" have been updated or reprinted throughout their lifetimes. You keep referencing dictionaries and no other scholarly works. Dictionaries, by definition, are concise, short works serving as guidance on a certain subject to a reader, therefore, usually not taking into account other developments on the political spectrum. The Webster Dictionary says the right establishes an authoritarian regime through revolution - you think the left-wing isn't authoritarian once it rises to power, more so considering the left is revolutionary by definition? I'd suggest you refer to modern works that approach a larger perspective of the political spectrum and stop using these "dictionaries" in discussions like these. I'm getting quite sick of it. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get overly hostile, what I think we need is a balance between the more "contemporary" version and historical context. I'll start looking for more sources (TO THE GOOGLE SCHOLAR, TALLY-HO). Soxwon (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: THESE ARE OUR CONSERVATIVES. THIS IS OUR RIGHT-WING. This article is about the right-wing, not about OUR right-wing. There are plenty of articles that cover American politics. Having said that, the American right is so-called because both they and their critics saw a similarity between them and the European right and also a similarity with UK Conservatism. You should read Lee Edwards' articles on the history of the American Right at the Heritage Foundation [13] or Sara Diamond's Roads of Dominion[14]. Libertarianism is considered part of the right-wing in the United States because libertarianism is part of American tradition, not because right-wing means libertarian. In fact, the libertarian nature is one of the reasons that it is questionable that they are really right-wing. These are both good sources and I suggest that we read them before challenging the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Elodoth: shouting is rude, and does not help make your point." Rick, I didn't want to have to shout, but please tell me what does help make my point? I'm trying everything I can think of and all of my work of going over the article bit by bit has still not been addressed.

Am I opposed to change? I'm opposed to radical change in America like reform similar to Hugo Chavez or Mao Zedong. Do I favor the establishment of an authoritarian political order? No, that is what I fight against. Believe me, if we turn into The United Socialist States of America it will be authoritarian. It already is. The people who label me a terrorist are left-wing and authoritarian as you can get. I'm not just a libertarian, btw, I'm a patriot who wants to keep our American Constitutional Republic safe and sound.

Thank you UNSC Trooper and The Four Deuces. I did read much of the book excerpt you pointed us to [15] -- not bad. And your comments are sound and reasonable. And I suggest you all (Rick) read Lew Rockwell (conservative libertarian) [16], (conservative/libertarian leaning) Ron Paul [17], the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Paine's Common Sense, some American history that hasn't been written by leftists (particularly communists)and familiarize yourself with the modern patriot movement, which by the way has been labeled "violent ant-govt. hate groups" by the CIA and Napolitano's Homeland Security. Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment[18]Domestic Extremism Lexicon[19]

So who's being authoritarian and oppressive here? The left? Or the patriotic, Constitutionalist, third party supporting, etc. "right-wing extremist"?

I really would like an answer to this question. Please no tap dancing around it with words or skooting to an irrelevant different topic.

Q: Who is being authoritarian and oppressive with the Homeland Security Docs? Rightwing Extremism: [20] Domestic Extremism Lexicon[21] The left (Napolitano and Obama's administration of the CIA and Homeland Security), or the patriotic, Constitutionalist "right-wing extremist"? Elodoth (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(EDIT: Added doc name) Elodoth (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How are the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine going to give us insight in RWP when they aren't even right-wingers? What makes Paine, a man who not only was no social conservative but promoted an equalitarian society with free public education, a rightist? And you do know that there was also a report file on left-wing extremism too. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I answered those (Paine & Jefferson) questions already. Can you just answer the question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elodoth (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A reply to the comments above.

The old section was getting long, so I'm starting a new one.

USNC Trooper. Yes, dictionaries and encyclopedias are updated every few years.

Elodoth writes: "Rick, I didn't want to have to shout, but please tell me what does help make my point? I'm trying everything I can think of and all of my work of going over the article bit by bit has still not been addressed."

The best way to make your point is briefly. Everything I write in Wikipedia, including comments in Talk, I reread several times and shorten each time. People are much more apt to read short posts. I also take out anything heated or personal.

Elodoth writes: "Am I opposed to change? I'm opposed to radical change in America like reform similar to Hugo Chavez or Mao Zedong. Do I favor the establishment of an authoritarian political order? No, that is what I fight against. Believe me, if we turn into The United Socialist States of America it will be authoritarian. It already is. The people who label me a terrorist are left-wing and authoritarian as you can get. I'm not just a libertarian, btw, I'm a patriot who wants to keep our American Constitutional Republic safe and sound."

I also consider myself a patriot, but that is beside the point. This is not the place to debate which method of governance is best. The discussion is about word usage.

Elodoth writes "I really would like an answer to this question. Please no tap dancing around it with words or skooting to an irrelevant different topic.

Q: Who is being authoritarian and oppressive with the Homeland Security Docs? Rightwing Extremism: [22] Domestic Extremism Lexicon[23] The left (Napolitano and Obama's administration of the CIA and Homeland Security), or the patriotic, Constitutionalist "right-wing extremist"?"

As I said, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but since you request an answer, I'll give one. According to the Homeland Security Documents you provide links to, the people who are being authoritarian and oppressive are those radical groups who, for example, kill policemen and bomb Jewish Community Centers. Patriots who support the US Constitution don't do things like that. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the DHS docs relate to this subject, and there are other articles that are relevant to them. There is a long history of governments in the US and other Western countries using the police to repress legitimate dissent. I know too little about this case to comment on it. But US police interest in right-wing extremism did not begin this year - it has been a priority at least since 1985 with "Operation Clean Sweep".[24] BTW I do read Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul and find some of their writing insightful. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine they became very interested after 9/11. However, extremism aside aren't both right and left wing mainly used as pejoratives nowadays? Soxwon (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE "As I said, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but since you request an answer, I'll give one. According to the Homeland Security Documents you provide links to, the people who are being authoritarian and oppressive are those radical groups who, for example, kill policemen and bomb Jewish Community Centers. Patriots who support the US Constitution don't do things like that." -- Rick Norwood

This has everything to do with the subject at hand as the article claims that the right is authoritarian, and claims it throughout. And actually the Homeland Security docs I point to say things like this:

patriot movement A term used by rightwing extremists to link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens.(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,Constitutionist)[25]

I know what the patriot movement is. I'm a part of it.

It is not primarily comprised of violent groups. It is primarily comprised of people who supported Ron Paul, libertarians (big and small l), Constitutionalists, patriotic progressives and socialists, Christians against Bush and authoritarianism, right-wingers who can be described as old-time conservative, and many liberty-minded Americans who are scared of losing our Constitutional republic. And I don't how to break it to you all, but liberty-minded people, Constitutionalists and people who despise big government are ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN.

Not to be rude, but Hello, is anyone at home here?

One of the most odious assertions that the other doc [26] makes is this:

Disgruntled Military Veterans assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

In light of the fact that our vets are being vilely targeted as terrorists [27] and Obama wanted our vets to apply for private medical insurance[28] this is particularly disturbing. Even our left Congress went against this. And the Homeland Security panel is pushing Congress to investigate the Homeland Security docs, btw.

Another outrageous assertion

Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.

Fear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories characterizing the U.S. Government’s role as either complicit in a foreign invasion or acquiescing as part of a “One World Government” plan inspired extremist members of the militia movement to target government and military facilities in past years.

Damned right we fear communist regimes and Sharia Law, rather like we fear the Marxist/neoconservative butcher-supporting [29] authoritarian Obama.

My point is that the left is every bit as authoritarian as the right. Get it OUT of the article.

Please, while we're at it, name the communist regime that is or was not authoritarian?

Address the questions and don't make stuff up, Rick Norwood. I copied what the docs said and all you did was give some kind of mixed up interpretation of what the docs said.

Kindly stop shifting the goal post. Elodoth (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If your point is that the left is every bit as authoritarian as the right, you'll get no arguement from me. Stalin, one of the worst authoritarians of modern time, was on the left, as was Mao.

The documents in question have nothing to do with the discussion of what the phrase "right-wing" means. The government doesn't get to define words. Dictionaries define words. I answered your comment only because you asked me to. You've gotten replies now from me, from The Four Deuces, and from Soxwon, so your request has been answered. If the article quoted the documents in its definiton of "right-wing", then you would have a point. But it doesn't.

As Soxwon points out, "right-wing" and "left-wing" are usually used in a pejorative sense. That being the case, why do you want that label applied to a movement you are part of? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: pejorative. While I agree that the term right-wing is usually pejorative the term is non-contentious in France and still used today. Consider Category:Right-wing parties in France[30] or Politics of France. It is also valid in other European countries, particularly in the 19th and early 20th century where the political spectrum developed in a parallel manner. It is especially useful in countries with multiple political parties that are continually appearing, merging and forming alliances. But it is misleading to apply the term right-wing to Anglo-Saxon politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So why not get rid of the section on authority if that's what's causing trouble, Rick? Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not get rid of the section on authority? Because the references say that that is one major way the term "right-wing" is used. In my reading, it is the most common usage. For example, one figure from recent history often called "right-wing" is Franco, and he is called that because of his authoritarian rule. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead change

Whats wrong with this lead? I feel it is more specific:

In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms applied to positions that focus on returning to or upholding traditional values and/or authorities be it custom, heirarchy,^[1] faith, family values or order. Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The previous version was:

In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms applied to positions that focus on adherence and obedience to traditional values and authorities and creating or promoting a form of social hierarchy.

I note that the one source given is from Fundamentalisms observed, apparently paraphrasing the following sentence:

Reactionary right-wing themes emphasizing authority, social hierarchy, and obedience, as well as condemnations of liberalism, the democratic ethos, the "rights of man" associated with the legacy of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and the political and cultural ethos of modern liberal democracy are especially prominent in the writings and public statements of Archbishop Lefebvre.[31]

I do not think that either version accurately reflects the material in the source. Also, I think a dictionary would be a better source than a book about religion.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Why not get rid of the section on authority? Because the references say that that is one major way the term "right-wing" is used. In my reading, it is the most common usage. For example, one figure from recent history often called "right-wing" is Franco, and he is called that because of his authoritarian rule." Rick Norwood

No, you can't have it both ways, Rick. For instance, one figure from recent history often called "left-wing" is Mao Zedong. Why isn't he called "right-wing" if being authoritarian is the major criteria for being called "right-wing"?

Please answer the question. Thank you. Elodoth (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mao is left-wing because he overthrew the traditional (Confucian) Chinese way of life, and replaced it by a non-traditional (communist) way of life. As I've pointed out before, to say that some right-wingers are authoritarian is not logically equivalent to saying that all authoritarians are right-wing. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes your previous argument kind of moot, then, don't it? You said Franco was considered authoritarian because he was right-wing, then Elodoth pointed out that Mao is authoritarian and left-wing. That automatically renders your claim invalid. Or are you suggesting conservatism = authoritarianism, I wonder? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

^ Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby, American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Fundamentalisms observed. University of Chicago Press, 1994. P. 91. ISBN 0226508781, ISBN 9780226508788.

[1] Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby, American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Fundamentalisms observed. University of Chicago Press, 1994. P. 91. ISBN 0226508781, ISBN 9780226508788.

[1]