Talk:Right-wing politics

life, liberty, and property

In the original usage, the right to property was a liberal ideal. Liberalism objected to the idea that a King could seize property without due process. During the American Revolution, this was applied in particular to the seizure and confiscation, by ships flying the flag of King George III, of American shipping on the high seas.

In my reading, I have not seen any use of "right-wing" to mean private property rights in books or articles written before the 20th Century, and even then the usage is rare. When the press uses the phrase "right-wing" it is usually in the context of "right-wing death squads" or "right-wing religious extremists".

A claim was made that the use of "right-wing" to mean "private property rights" goes back as far as the 19th Century. If so, it should be in that section of the article and be referenced.

Finally, will the person who keeps deleting the quote by Pierson please explain why they want the reference without the context.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"In the original usage, the right to property was a liberal ideal. Liberalism objected to the idea that a King could seize property without due process."

If by liberalism you mean the classic liberal ideals that opposed the power of the state in favor of respect for private property, liberty and the end of royal monopolies you are right.

Liberalism under that context was a right-wing philosophy.

I couldnt tell you about "right-wing death squads" or "right-wing religious extremists", frankly such characterizations make me laugh. Agrofelipe (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"In my reading, I have not seen any use of "right-wing" to mean private property rights in books or articles written before the 20th Century, and even then the usage is rare. When the press uses the phrase "right-wing" it is usually in the context of "right-wing death squads" or "right-wing religious extremists"."

Right-wing death squads... hmm. So that means left-wing death squads should be referenced in the press as an all-encompassing element of left-wing philosophy as well? Let me put it this way, Rick, simple logic: the aristocracy during the French Revolution stood for a modern version of today's upper class and private property supporters, while the revolutionaries that stormed Bastille stood for the proclamation of a democratic republic and a more communitarian form of private property (i.e. social liberalism). Which one of those two reflects today's right-wingers? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by steadily debating established historical theories concerning the left and the right, and I'm not going to push it because I've pushed it in the past with no avail, but I just wanted to make a slight amendment to this discussion. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises from exactly how valid is a comparison between the french aristocracy, that was based on class privileges, and the entrepreneurs and capital investors of today, that acquire their property on the base of savings and merits.

Also it would be good to specify how "communitarian" was the ideal of the french republicans, because equality under the law is very different from equality of property. Agrofelipe (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

'Left Wing Death Squads', I like it, I must ensure that the liberal media in my country apply that term as widely as they like to apply similar terms to 'right wing' nastiness.82.8.176.38 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Its such a pitty that the term liberal was stolen from the classic liberals, now true liberals in other countries have to play with a number of denominations just to make clear it what they defend. Agrofelipe (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Whats exactly is s reactionary?

It seems to me that any member of an established political power would be a reactionary under the condition defined here, a marxist could be a reactionary to free markets and individual liberty. Agrofelipe (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats exactly is a conservative? It seems to me that any member of an established political power would be a conservative under the condition defined here, a marxist could be a conservative against free markets and individual liberty. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Reactionary" and conservative ideals are rooted in the feudalistic middle ages, specifically the monarchists, aristocrats and factions that supported those social classes - because, well, back then the only political way of running a state was through a king or some kind of leader originating from an elitist family. That was until the English Civil War and other conflicts in Europe gave rise to progressivist ideals like democratic parliamentarism and more extreme forms of progressivism later on, like Marxism. I guess the only common thread that unites modern conservatives, after all the changes that have been taking place, is the opposition to progressivism they've been advocating since the 17th century. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please dont get me started on "progressivism", you would have to be really cynical to use the term marxism and progress in the same sentence.

Classical liberalism and in a broader sense libertarianism, are not enemies of progress, in fact they have been fighting against socialist reactionaries since the XVIII century. Agrofelipe (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also historical continuity between the conservatives and the Right of today (especially in the UK and France) and those of the past. The Tories originally supported absolute monarchy. Over time their party became home to liberal aristocrats and capitalists so that by the time of Margaret Thatcher they had become almost entirely liberal in ideology. This process is explained in the article sinistrisme and was written about by Herbert Spencer in "The New Toryism" and Friedrich Hayek in "Why I am not a conservative". As UNSC Trooper noted "the only common thread...is the opposition to progressivism". The Four Deuces (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Conservatism" comes from classical liberalism (moderate Whig) in the first place, but its rather a more cautious liberalism which looked at the French Revolution and was horrified. Conservatism is very different from the original principles of Toryism. The term reactionary is a tough one, because it hasn't been reclaimed entirely yet and is mostly used as a term of abuse by utopianist collectivist radicals, its a political heresy to come out and say "I am an unrepentant reactionary". The term traditionalist tends to be the prefered term, which of course is Medievalist and in its most potent form Thomist. Carlism could be a good example of authentic reactionary I suppose. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that is all very interesting but during the 19th century classical liberals belonged to the Liberal Party. It was not called the "classical liberal party" of course. "Conservatism is very different from the original principles of Toryism." Then why is the "Conservative Party of the UK" and Canada's Progressive Conservative parties called "Tories"? And how does "moderate Whig" equate to "classical liberal"? By the way, I love reading these theories and ask that you provide some source for them. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Whigs became Hanoverian Tories. Understand now, how they play both sides of the fence? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing's comment

Moving the discussion to the bottom of the page:

I agree that the article needs a lot of work. It seems to me that the lede should begin by saying what the Right has in common -- why one movement is called Right-wing and another isn't. Then it should move to differences within the Right. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree but judging from my previous experience with that is not an easy thing to do. -- Vision Thing -- 12:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

It seems to me that if a person disputes the factual accuracy of a statement they should be able to show in what way the statement is factually inaccurate, or at the very least how the statement is not supported by the sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You can find presentation of such disputes here and here. -- Vision Thing -- 08:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that The Four Deuces and I had responded substantively to each of the objections you raised. In addition, I've posted comments to the WP:OR page. In any case, if there is general agreement that the whole table is a bad idea, that question becomes moot, though the fact, supported by numerous sources, that the Right generally opposes science remains. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

But it has been demonstrated above that the "fact" is not supported by those sources, and that the broader statement is entirely questionable. It's probably a better idea to remove the section altogether - it's clearly a partisan swipe as demonstrated by your statement on the matter ("The right generally opposes science"), and the single sentence does nothing to expand or demonstratate such a "fact." Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What you claim has been demonstrated has not in fact been demonstrated. On the contrary, the support of the sources for the statement is explicit and clear. Here is just one example. "At its most basic level, the modern Right's tension with science springs from conservatism, a political philosophy that places a strong value upon preserving traditional social structures and institutions. ... From Galileo to Darwin and beyond, this conflict has played out repeatedly over history." The Republican War on Science, page 5. Do you seriously claim that this source does not support the statement in question? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not. For one, the source is extremely partisan. For another, it makes a non-established link between "conservatism" and opposition without explaining how those with "tension" are actually conservative. Furthermore, it assumes a political philosophy that is based on a definition that even many on the right would not agree with, as the first paragraph of this very article even demonstrates. It's confirmation bias at its worst. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes it difficult to discuss this when you change your position. Your first claim was that the source did not support the statement. Now, you shift to attacking the source. Here is what Scientific American said in its review of the book, "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists". Do you have a similarly authoritative source to back up your claims about the book in question? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's both. The source does not support the statement because of points two and three I made, and the source's partisan nature is another knock against it. Whether Scientific American, which, of course, has its own agenda, praises the book as it supports the same agenda isn't relevant - the source is still partisan and cannot be considered neutral by any definition of the word. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you don't number your points, and have made several posts, I have no idea what "points two and three" refer to.

In your opinion, the book is biased. In your opinion, Scientific American is biased. But so far you have offered nothing to support that but your opinion. This is the point I was raising. Does a dispute over "factual accuracy" mean: "In my unsupported opinion I disagree with standard sources." Or should it, rather, mean "I offer standard sources to support my disagreement." So far, you have only offered your unsupported opinion. I could, of course, offer sources as to the value of Scientific American as a source, but clearly that would lead to infinite regress. Any source that you personally disagree with is biased. Any source supporting a source you personally disagree with is biased. And so on, ad infinitum. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My second and third points are clearly recognizable by my previous responses in this section, starting with "For one." As for the book's biases, take a look at Chris Mooney and tell me where he lands ideologically. I have not stated that Scientific American is biased, but I have noted that it has its own agenda. A dispute over "factual accuracy" is a dispute over the alleged facts being presented. You have yet to explain how the link between science and conservatism is reached, what definition of conservatism is being used and how it is applied contextually to the section, or much of any actual neutral source to prove your assertions. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the paragraph that your statement "points two and three" refers to. Here is your point two, which you say shows that the source does not reflect the statement. "it makes a non-established link between "conservatism" and opposition without explaining how those with "tension" are actually conservative." You do not say, as you claim, that the source does not reflect the statement. You say that the source does not explain itself well. But the source does explain: the tensions are conservative because science tends to disagree with tradition. Your point two says that "it assumes a political philosophy that is based on a definition that even many on the right would not agree with, as the first paragraph of this very article even demonstrates." Again, you are not saying the source does not reflect the statement, you say that the source is using the wrong definition of conservatism. But the source is using the dictionary definition of conservatism. So, you claim the source is wrong because it relies on dictionaries, which are wrong.

Then you go on to say that Chris Mooney has an idiology, and therefore is biased. Is everyone who has an idiology biased? Or are only people who share Chris Mooney's idiology biased?

Then you claim that there is a difference between Scientific American being "biased" and the magazine having an "agenda". As far as I can see, the agenda of Scientific American is to publish information about science. So, if "agenda" doesn't mean bias, it is beside the point, and why did you bring it up.

All of which speaks to my original point. You offer no evidence for what you say. You just say it. Is it correct for Wikipeida to give equal weight to your unrefernced opinion and to Scientific American? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The source does not provide anything of the sort, actually. But that's beside the point - as I've stated, I'm in favor of removing the section outright, not" give equal weight to my unreferenced opinion." As it has no real basis in fact or verifibility, it should be removed outright. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem relates to the definition of "right-wing" in the article. Conservative liberals (like the Liberal Party of Australia) or liberal conservatives (like the Conservative Party (UK) do not consider themselves right-wing and are not anti-science. But radical conservatives (like America's Christian Right) are anti-science and they form a large part of many conservative parties (and even liberal and socialist parties). The Four Deuces (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed Wood's Wig: You still offer nothing to support your view except your unreferenced opinion.

The Four Deuces: Sadly, some conservative liberals have jumped on the anti-science bandwaggon. The global warming deniers are the most active among these. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The map below shows countries where conservative governments denied global warming in red. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where dark green indicates countries that have signed and ratified the treaty, yellow is signed, but not yet ratified, grey is not yet decided and red is no intention of ratifying.

I love the map, but I've got an Australian conservative friend who reports that Australian conservatives are convinced that global warming is a liberal lie, so even if the government of a country is convinced, there may be a large number of conservatives who are not. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Kyoto ratification has nothing to do with the ideology of a government or global warming denial. Back on topic, Rick, do you have any actual justification for keeping the section in, or can we agree that it would be best to remove it entirely? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, acceptance of Kyoto implies support for the science of global warming. In the only country that refused to sign the treaty, the liberal party supported the science while the conservative party denied it. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet both sides in Congress overwhemlingly, and with a majority, ruled against ratification. So, clearly, it had nothing to do with ideology. But we're digressing. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. Conservative parties throughout the world accepted the science, otherwise they would not have ratified the treaty. While the US refused to ratify the treaty on economic grounds, the Republican position is that the scientists are wrong. They also believe that the universe was created over a 6 day period 6,000 years ago, that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and that major events are caused by supernatural forces. In other words they are anti-science and also anti-reason. However since this article does not distinguish between the radical right and mainstream conservatism it is difficult to find a commonality other than support for existing social structures and traditions. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're missing my point - ratification of the treaty has nothing to do with "accepting the science," as opposition to the treaty comes from more than just scientific issues. That the article is somewhat poorly focused is a bigger issue, but by no means continues to support the assertion that you're making, either. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your point seems to be that for example that it is wrong to conclude that Jacques Chirac ratified the treaty because he accepted the science, even though he said he accepted the science. Perhaps you could tell me where I could read more about this. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Kyoto is a policy decision, not a science one. One can agree with the science behind it while disagreeing with the way to deal with it, as many in the US did and do. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

However, one cannot disagree with the science behind it while agreeing with the way to deal with it, as conservatives outside the US did. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

One does not necessarily have to agree with the global warming science in order to see value in reducing CO2, however. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If CO2 does not cause climate change then there is no value in reducing CO2. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake to assume that people who disagree with you don't understand what you are saying. We understand what you are saying.

I do agree that we digress.

The sentence in question is in the article because it is true, it is on topic, and it is supported by references. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that it isn't the first and third of those things, which makes the second part otherwise suspect. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

Do any of them matter? Are any of them relevant? I think they should all be removed. 93.173.65.204 (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed. 93.173.65.204 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

None appear relevant.--Cathar11 (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)