Talk:Right-wing politics

Populism

Why are Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh being called "populists?" Populism is left wing conservatism (social right wing, economic left wing.) The best example of a populist we have would be the Catholic Church, or Ross Perot. Coulter and Limbaugh are highly in favor of lazziez faire capitalism, they preach endlessly about tax cuts, that's hardly populist! No, the sources of these claims need to be checked, any source that would call them populist is highly suspect. ReignMan (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand that view. Surely proposing tax cuts would have to be one of the most populist political strategies around these days. HiLo48 (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Populism is an appeal to the people which may be either left or right-wing, or neither. The Catholic Church is not a populist organization although it may make populist appeals. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Populism is a specific political philosophy that pretty much always entails being economically left wing. The common usage of populism refers to those who are socially conservative, but economically liberal. The Democratic party was generally considered populist during the late 1800s and early 20th century, especially William Jennings Bryan, who fit all of these things perfectly. Coulter and Limbaugh are neo-conservative, they are pro capitalist, socially right wing. 07:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReignMan (talk • contribs)

Here's what the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics has to say: "Populism 1. a movement in the United States that gave expression to the grievances and disillusionment of the (largely Western) farmers. 2. A democratic and collectivist movement in late nineteenth-century Russia. 3. More generally, support for the preferences of ordinary people. (Note that I've only given the beginning of each entry.) It seems that ReignMan may be thinking of definition 2, while The Four Deuces (and the article) is using definition 3. When someone claims to speak for "ordinary people" and against the "intellectual elete", they're populist. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think, atleast in the US, left-wing populism tends to direct anger against big corporations and such while right-wing populism tend to tends to direct anger against lower class people who they feel are "leeching" off the hard work and money of the middle class and against the government for their redistribution of it. Bobisbob2 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But right-wing populism uses some of the same concepts, the people against the elites. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Penguin Dictionary of Politics notes that populism has no precise or logically consistent ideology, and can contain strands of both left- and right-wing thought. The only defining characteristic is that it is typically designed to appeal to alienated members of a mass society. According to Brewer's Politics populism can simply mean any political movement appealing to people's visceral feelings, but the term has a special meaning in the US. Pondle (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

With such an ambiguous definition, nearly anyone could be called populist. I think it's almost insane though, to classify people who are seen as hate spewers, that target a very small portion of the population as being "populist." I really feel it should be removed, especially due to the nature of the term in the United States. If you want to label some groups populist, people Ross Perot fit the mold so much better. Every single American group that has called itself "populist" has been economically left wing. ReignMan (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That last sentence is quite absolute. Got a reference for it? From afar, I would describe Sarah Palin as populist, and right wing. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing populism in America goes at least as far back as Andrew Jackson. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Populists support economic policies that supposedly help the middle class. This may include laissez-faire or state control. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Economic populism is only one form of populism. Just looking at America, there have been anti-Catholic populists, anti-immigration populists, and states-rights populists, just to mention a few. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia officially has a different definition of right wing then what you and I would think of it as. Wikipidia labels right-wing as a reactionary political view more so then economic views. I looked into it and it originates from a communist by the name of Richard Hofstadter that stated the populism is a right-wing reactionary movement. It would seem whatever he said is written in stone as far as Wikipieda is concerned. In other words wikipidia takes the same philosophy as hofstadter with regards to the right/conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders. I wish I was joking but i have looked into this very carefully. This should go without saying but it doesn't, reactionary views take no political views it can be right or left. Wikipida has officially taken "ONLY that group is..." philosophy using Hofstadter as a refrence.

--OxAO (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point. Hofstadter and others applied the term "right" to U. S. politics. However, the American New Right, most of whom were "ex-Communists", chose to apply the term to themselves. Why do they call themselves "right wing"? What do they mean by the term? Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek opposed the terms because of their hatred of conservatism, and even Murray Rothbard said that laissez-faire types were left-wing. They kept the Communist terminology invented the U. S. conservative movement. TFD (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point: We know words have different meanings to different people. The left thinks of the right wing as reactionary group which is not logical to me. Those that call themselves right wing have a totally different meaning. I mean really who would they call themselves a 'reactionary political' party? of course that is not what they think of themselves as.

--OxAO (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I presume that you call yourself "right-wing". What do you mean by the term? I presume you know the origins of the term. In what way are you similar to the "right wing" of the French revolution? Do you think it is illogical to call the legitimists reactionary? TFD (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Originally right wing was the party that was pro-monarchies. The point is reactionary politics of hundreds of years ago is long dead. Let it rest in peace.

I seen the definitions of the "new right" but that is a very condescending term. "Neo anything".

If people are coming here to find what "right wing" means today these definition are from centuries ago.

--OxAO (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think it means, and please provide a source? TFD (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

you ask 100 conservatives what it means and you will get 100 answers. But all of them will say it has nothing to do with Monarchies. I don't think I need a source for that. The definition you have here is way out of date.

--OxAO (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that is clearly wrong. Conservative parties always support monarchy. However conservative parties do not exist in most countries, and instead the "right-wing" party is usually conservative liberal (as in the U.S., Japan, or Australia) or Christian Democratic (as in Germany). TFD (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Conservative parties always support monarchy." even today? is this really how the left thinks? come on this has got to be a joke?

The rest of your statement is a has some merit because "liberal" in the US means just the opposite in most other countries.

--OxAO (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by "left" or what they think. Both the Conservative Party (UK) and the Conservative Party of Canada support the monarchy. Ian Gilmour named support of monarchy one of the main principles of the party. Liberal does not necessarily mean the opposite, but often includes both. See the Liberal International website that shows pictures of Hayek, Mises and Rand, but also Hobhouse, Roepke and Rawls.[1] TFD (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD said: "Both the Conservative Party (UK) and the Conservative Party of Canada support the monarchy."

That is true today as long as queen Elizabeth is queen and if Prince William takes the thrown from his idiot father. There is no way any conservative party will back the idiot Prince Charles. and this backing the monarchy is an Issue i never fully understood why conservatives in those countries back the crown like they do.

--OxAO (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism is difficult to pin down because conservatives have usually opposed abstract, ideological thinking. The main characteristic they share is belief in tradition and scepticism about change. But conservatives in different societies and in different eras have sought to 'conserve' different things. Brewer's Politics says that in the USA, the term doesn't necessarily denote a party affiliation, whereas it is synonymous with the party of the same name in the UK.--Pondle (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pondle wrote: “they share is belief in tradition and scepticism about change.”

That is absolutely incorrect, wrong and is insulting.

Milton Friedman’s economics (right wing/ conservative (liberal out side the US)) is for progress and change.

Keynesian economics (left wing/ socialist) creates stagflation which is exactly what it sounds like slow progress and change.

--OxAO (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Frank Vanderlip said that a conservative is "a man who thinks nothing new should be adopted for some time". Mort Sahl's definition was "someone who believes in reform, but not now". William F. Buckley said that a conservative is "a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'stop'". Look in any political dictionary and it will generally define a conservative as a traditionalist.--Pondle (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pondle: all those statements are true related to more government controlled economics. The invisible hand of Milton Freedman economics is what creates progress not government. Keynesian economics is not progress it is feudalistic economics made into a science. you are confusing progress with progressivism they are two different things.

--OxAO (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) That's a view that was popularized by Michael Oakeshott, but its failure is that it does not recognize conservatives as a separate ideology and party type. Would an Eastern European conservative be a post-communist, a monarchist or a libertarian? Would a Labourite or Liberal Democrat be a conservative if they clung to their own nineteenth century traditions? Buckley & others came up with the argument that they were conserving libertarianism, which was their tradition. But is that really why people are libertarians, or is it because they believe that it is the most rational and ethical choice? BTW here's a link to a listing of parties by type, which provides a mainstream view. TFD (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can say without any question that all conservatives agree on Milton freedman’s invisible hand of economics rather than Keynesian economics then we can go from there.
--OxAO (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Milton Friedman's monetarist policies were adopted by the US Democratic, UK Labour, Canadian Liberal and Chinese Communist parties in the 1970s, none of whom considered themselves "conservative". The country that most embraced these policies was New Zealand, where the policies were implimented by the socialist Labour Party and called Rogernomics. These policies were resisted by traditional conservatives, who called them "liberalism" or "neo-liberalism". The most prominent opponent of liberalism was Ian Gilmour, who ran the Conservative Research Department. Other prominent conservative opponents of liberalism included Julian Critchley, Anthony Meyer, Edward Heath and Ken Clarke. In Canada, both Sinclair Stevens and Joe Clark quit the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, while conservatives David Macdonald and Flora MacDonald both joined the socialist party, seeing both versions of liberalism as dehumanizing. In the UK, the new leader calls himself a "progressive conservative", trying to connect himself with the traditional conservatism that supported Keynes and the welfare state. Friedman was a liberal, not a conservative. The invisible hand btw was from the liberal economist Adam Smith. TFD (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second the Act Party of New Zealand is for a flat tax, lower taxes, against the global warming scam, pushed Rogernomics and the list goes on. I hope you are not saying they are leftist? In the US the GOP is headed by leftist even McCain was nominated by the GOP. I do not know who you are calling "traditional conservatives" in New Zealand... but I doubt they were conservatives if they opposed these ideas.

I recognize some of those names they would be considered Rothschild republicans here or what I call limousine socialists.

Milton Friedman was not a socialists: Yes, he was for legalizing drugs and prostitution but so are many conservatives including me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

--OxAO (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand does not have a conservative party. Rogernomics, which included cutting agricultural subsidies and trade barriers, privatising public assets and the control of inflation through measures rooted in monetarism was carried out under the socialist New Zealand Labour Party after 1984. After the socialists tired of these liberal policies, their author, Roger Douglas, left to set up ACT New Zealand. ACT considers itself "liberal" and they are critical of the "conservatives" in the New Zealand National Party which they call "statist" and "not a safe home for liberalism".[2] It would be an insult to call them conservatives. TFD (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another clip from M. Friedman: "I never characterize myself as a conservative economist. As I understand the English language a conservative means conserving, keeping things as they are. I don't want to keep things as they are True conservatives today are the people who are in favor of ever bigger government."[3] TFD (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

in other words ACT Party is very much what the Tea Party is attempting to do but with in the Republican party.

I agree with what M. Friedman said in 1977. Conservatives at that time were the Rockefeller republicans or what we call RINO's today. They piss me off.

--OxAO (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a good analogy. TFD (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

tradition

The section on tradition seems to focus more on the "traditionalist conservativism" of 20th century America than historical traditionalism of Europe. So I think the recentism tag is justified. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Recentism. It applies to current events. In any case you need to explain what is wrong with the section. Please provide a source for the explanation of "traditionalist conservativism" you wish to see. And the section is not mostly about the U. S. in the 20th century. TFD (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Source questionable

Hi, I downloaded one of the sources given under the right-wing page.
It's #28 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics#Notes

I believe this PDF is a forgery. Isn't too hard to do:

1) These federal documents are typically published in PDF format. This document appears typed up first in Word and pasted in the HTML. 2) Banner at the top is incorrect font. Symbols have been copied. 3) They don't do conjecture, just facts. Also, if this was a real report, this would be classified information and not available to the public. And so on.

Would someone please inspect this? Thank you. --Westcoastkitty77 (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The document is real and was originally leaked on Wikileaks. You can read about the controversy in Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC). The source used for this article is WorldNetDaily's website, but you can read the report at the Federation of American Scientists' website[4] and other places as well. TFD (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Protestant work ethic

It seems religious people (at least Christians) with right-wing political views interpet their religion though the Protestant work ethic much like religious left-wingers tend to endorse liberation theology. Is there any validity to this and should the PWE be included in the section on religion? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, all Americans, religious or not, Right or Left, endorse the Protestant work ethic. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Secular right

There is also notably a minority of secular right movement(s) as well - the most radical one is perhaps libertarist philosophy à la Ayn Rand. It should be added to the Religion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.208.248 (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Very Poor Entry

A lot of this entry seems to be written by people who have a very poor (and partisan) grasp of the topic. Preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies is true of some on the Right (just as it is true of some on the Left) but it hardly DEFINES the Right. The free market Right believes in precisely the opposite. Nationalism is as much a feature of the Left as it is of the Right. Bonapartists were not on the Right. The statement "left, right, and center representing the working, upper, and middle classes" is manifestly incorrect. Nor is conservatism an "ideology". The claim that "the Right has advocated preserving the wealth and power of aristocrats and nobles" is misleading. In the United Kingdom aristocrats were more likely to be "Whig" than "Tory". "Tories" supported the power of the King because he or she could hold the power of the aristocracy in check. Talk about "workers" is just Marxist boilerplate and should be identified as such. The idea that religious conservatives QUA religious conservatives are against global warning is manifestly untrue. The attack on (and support for) "science" comes just as much from the Left as the Right (although over different issues). The idea that "conservatism" in the USA was "monarchical" before the Cold War is frankly laughable. I deleted the Right = Fascism claim for obvious reasons - obvious that is to anybody who knows anything about the history of Fascism. The entry is very poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.71.151 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would rather see the article explain how the term "right-wing" is used rather than attempt to define it. Various unrelated ideologies have become part of the right, and they are all explained in separate articles. I question some of your statements though. The Rockingham Whigs (Burke's faction) joined with the Tories to form the Conservative Party and the rest of the aristocracy (the Liberal Unionists) joined later. Fascists were seated on the far right of legislatures (and still are). TFD (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Unsigned discuss what the article actually says, instead of what he says the article says. Nowhere does the article say that the right equals fascism. It says that fascist governments are and have been described as Right-Wing, which is indisputably true. The use of Right-wing for Classical liberalism is relatively new, and reflects a political alliance between the religious right and the libertarians, not the standard meaning of the term. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Even then they are not called right-wing because they support free markets, rather the observation is that the Right now supports free markets. The evidence is that conservatives are now the strongest proponents of neoliberalism, while the radical right now usually adopts free market polices in addition to xenophobia, natinalism, etc. But tradtional liberal parties that support free markets are still considered centrist. You can see this in the seating arrangement of the EU parliament. The liberals (free market and reform) sit in the center (yellow), the conservatives sit on the right (dark blue), and the radical right and fascists sit on the far right (brown and gray). In regard to the seating plan, the only source of confusion is whete the dividing line between left and right should be drawn, and whether the parties in the center can be said to belong to either group. TFD (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"I would rather see the article explain how the term "right-wing" is used rather than attempt to define it."

A laughable defence. Some people think that conservatives are wife beaters. I think the article should include their opinion.

"Various unrelated ideologies have become part of the right"

It seems that "Right" means anything you want it to mean. (See above).

"The Rockingham Whigs (Burke's faction) joined with the Tories to form the Conservative Party and the rest of the aristocracy (the Liberal Unionists) joined later."

I appreciate that "right-wing" means anybody to the Right of you, but try reading what I wrote and come back when you understand it.

"Fascists were seated on the far right of legislatures (and still are).

Do you know anything at all about Fascism? I mean anything?

"Nowhere does the article say that the right equals fascism. It says that fascist governments are and have been described as Right-Wing, which is indisputably true."

It is also indisputably true that scholars describe Fascists as being on the Left. Just see how long Rick Norwood would let that claim stand on the "Left-Wing" page however!

"they are not called right-wing because they support free markets, rather the observation is that the Right now supports free markets"

Have you read ANY Edmund Burke?

"the radical right now usually adopts free market polices in addition to xenophobia, nationalism, etc."

By the "radical right" I take it you mean Libertarians i.e. people who seek to decrease the power of the State. The "xenophobia" and "nationalism" you mention is at least a much a feature of the Left as the Right. Of course you already know this, or at least if you do not know it you are unfit to contribute to this article.

"The liberals (free market and reform) sit in the center (yellow)"

"Modern" Liberals are not the same as "Classical" Liberals. The latter are now generally seen as on the "radical Right" (See above). Modern Liberalism on the other hand is generally viewed as being on the soft Left.

"In regard to the seating plan, the only source of confusion is whete the dividing line between left and right should be drawn"

Well you certainly seem to be confused. Left and Right are not geometrical or arithmetical concepts in this context. I really think that you two are unfit to contribute to this article. You combine lack of knowledge with laughable bigotry, and yet set yourself up as gatekeepers of what is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.0.39 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not reasoned arguments. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have failed to address a single argument, which rather proves my point!

Also, your observations are incorrect. WP uses reliable sources - if you have any that you think could contribute to the article, please include them. TFD (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have failed to address a single argument, which rather proves my point!

Hint - Nationalism (for example as in Fascism and National Socialism and Pan-Arabism) is historically much more closely linked to the Left than the Right (Your failure to understand this explains why you think that Bonapartism was on the Right). If you think that being on the Right politically is reducible to Nationalism you are simply ignorant.

As René Rémond explained, bonapartism is one of the three strands of the French Right. The left-right divide in late 19th century France was over republicanism, and with the death of the bonapartist pretender, the distinction between them and the rest of the Right disappeared. Here is a source that the bonapartists voted with the legitimists and orleanists. As you can see from the seating arrangement of the EU parliament, nationalists form a large contingent on the far right. But again, WP relies on sources, and you have failed to provide any. TFD (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

‘Bonapartism’ and ‘Fascism’ in Europe Lesson 101

In the Nineteenth century the term ‘dictator’ was applied to military leaders of national revolutions. Simon Bolivar in South America for example proclaimed himself dictator in 1813, and in 1860 Giuseppe Garibaldi assumed the power of dictator in Italy. The biggest influence on the contemporary intepretation of the term were the regimes founded in Europe by Napoleon Bonaparte (1799-1814) and his grandson Luigi Bonaparte, who became Napoleon III (1851-70). Their dictatorship originated in a coup d’etat, which sought to legitimize itself on the grounds of an appeal to the principles of the French Revolution. The term ‘Bonapartism’ was applied to dictatorships imposed by a coup d’etat, which claimed legitimacy on the grounds that they were the incarnation of the democratic national will. Moving onto the Twentieth Century Mussolini (the original Fascist) did not oppose socialism.

"Whatever happens you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. Socialism is in my blood...You think you can turn me out, but you will find I shall come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change. They are bred into my very bones!"

He was forced out of the Socialist Party because he wanted Italy to enter the First World War and his party disagreed. He argued that Nationalism advances the cause of a Socialist revolution. He rejected the Internationalism of the Bolsheviks in favour of a Nationalist intepretation (like Stalin et al did later) of Socialism. He spent his last days implementing the constitution written by Nicola Bombacci, a friend of Lenin.