Talk:Right-wing politics

Typically biased article

Because the article was written by left wingers, it describes the right-wing :) doctrine pejoratively, using a negative definition: 'they are against social equality'.

First of all, only a left winger would talk about 'social equality'. The concept itself is vague, it lacks substance and is not used by common people.

Furthermore, a right winger would not describe himself with the terms of the Left. For example, a libertarian would say that he supports freeing the individual from state meddling and state theft.

Or if he is a nationalist, he may say that he supports a strong national military and a carefully restricted immigration.

But to say that all right wingers accept or support 'social inequality' is silly. Even the Wiki entry about Social Equality recognises that this vague concept should include the equality before the law, which right wingers do support.

If social equality is defined as equality before the law and equality of opportunity, and if (as I think) most right wingers believe in these, then it makes no sense to define 'right wing' as an outlook that supports social inequality.

Finally, it does not seem to me that the main attribute of the left-wing doctrine is support for 'social equality'. For example, on the whole left wingers support an extreme level of inequality between leaders and members of the proletariat.

Support for wealth redistribution and state intervention in the lives of citizens are probably better defining attributes, as well as being clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWorld88 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have any sources that define the Right, then it would be helpful if you would provide them.

No I don't have sources but I don't think it matters. The thing is, if you take a left-wing book you will find a pejorative definition of the Right. And if you take a right-wing book you will find a pejorative definition of the Left. If I had to write the entries about Left and Right I would just use a bullet list of their main ideas. I wouldn't try to summarize them in a way that suggests that people from the Right love to oppress their fellow men. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWorld88 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No I don't have sources but I don't think it matters.

See WP:V. If you don't have sources, you don't have an argument. — goethean 16:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course he has, he is pointing to the fact that only left-wing books and articles are used as sources here. Equality is an stupid, ethereal concept that will never be solid in any society. There are thousands and thousands of academic sources pointing to that that will never be accepted here because of the cynical partisan bias that reigns here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.99.56.96 (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That is circular reasoning. You think the article is left-wing therefore the sources must be left-wing. If you have any reliable sources that contradict what is in the article, please provide them. TFD (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

let's not mix us "social equality" and legal equality" as Goethean does. The statement by Goethean that "on the whole left wingers support an extreme level of inequality between leaders and members of the proletariat." is false. On the whole they do not approve of that. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here is someone who can be unbiased and has either unbiased sources or can properly use opposing sources needs to reword this article. As it is, the article is written more to accuse and demonize the right wing than to write an unbiased article. It doesn't have to be positive, but it needs to not be aggressive. SteveTheSteeeve (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

One often hears supporters of the Right say that those who disagree with them are "biased". Here are the references to just the lead of this article. Are all of these references biased?

1.Jump up ^ Bobbio, Norberto and Allan Cameron,Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 51, 62. ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4 2.^ Jump up to: a b J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1. 3.Jump up ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. p.693, 721. ISBN 1-4129-0409-9 4.^ Jump up to: a b c T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy." 5.^ Jump up to: a b Left and right: the significance of a political distinction, Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, p. 37, University of Chicago Press, 1997. 6.^ Jump up to: a b Seymour Martin Lipset, cited in Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. 1990. The left-right schema. pp. 203–34 in Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, ed.M.Jennings et al. Berlin:de Gruyter 7.^ Jump up to: a b c Lukes, Steven. 'Epilogue: The Grand Dichotomy of the Twentieth Century': concluding chapter to T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. pp.610–612 8.^ Jump up to: a b Clark, William. Capitalism, not Globalism. University of Michigan Press, 2003. ISBN 0-472-11293-7, ISBN 978-0-472-11293-7 9.Jump up ^ Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' ' 10.Jump up ^ Scruton, Roger “A Dictionary of Political Thought” "Defined by contrast to (or perhaps more accurately conflict with) the left the term right does not even have the respectability of a history. As now used it denotes several connected and also conflicting ideas (including) 1)conservative, and perhaps authoritarian, doctrines concerning the nature of civil society, with emphasis on custom, tradition, and allegiance as social bonds ... 8) belief in free enterprise free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom and suited to the temporary nature of human aspirations ..." pp. 281-2, Macmillian, 1996 11.Jump up ^ J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. "There are ... those who accept inequality as natural, normal, and even desirable. Two main lines of thought converge on the Right or conservative side...the truly Conservative view is that there is a natural hierarchy of skills and talents in which some people are born leaders, whether by heredity or family tradition. ... now ... the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one." p. 156. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1. 12.Jump up ^ Ferrie Pot. Employment Relations and National Culture: Continuity and Change in the Age of Globalization. P135-136. 13.Jump up ^ Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age, 1740-1958. Paulist Press, 2003. P132 14.^ Jump up to: a b Goodsell, Charles T., "The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture", British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (July , 1988) pp. 287–302 15.Jump up ^ Linski, Gerhard, Current Issues and Research In Macrosociology (Brill Archive, 1984) p. 59 16.Jump up ^ Clark, Barry Political Economy: A Comparative Approach (Praeger Paperback, 1998) pp. 33–34 17.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright (2006). The Government and Politics of France. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35732-6. 18.Jump up ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005, p. 693. ISBN 1-4129-0409-9 19.Jump up ^ Gauchet, Marcel, "Right and Left" in Nora, Pierre, ed., Realms of Memory: Conflicts and Divisions (1996) pp. 247-8 20.Jump up ^ "The English Ideology: Studies in the Language of Victorian Politics" George Watson Allen Lane: London 1973 p.94 21.Jump up ^ Alan S. Kahan. Mind Vs. Money: The War Between Intellectuals and Capitalism. New Brunsiwck, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2010. p. 88. 22.Jump up ^ Ian Adams. Political Ideology Today. Manchester, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Manchester University Press, 2001. p. 57.

I think many people who honestly support the Right do not know the history of the Right, and think that "right-wing" means only what one subgroup of the Right have decided it should mean, starting with the Tea Party movement in 1999. But the original right-wing supported absolute monarchy. Wikipedia must not only report on current events, but also answer the questions of students who read things written before the twenty-first century. It might be easier to change the name of the movement than to rewrite two hundred years of history. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The article itself reflects the sources. If Wikipedia policy said that each individual was free to accept any source he or she agreed with, and dismiss any source he or she disagreed with, Wikipedia would be a useless hodge-podge. "lol" is not a logical argument. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first source "Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction" is from a socialist not surprisingly. [1] The second seemingly comes from a person with similar views since he praises liberal/socialist thinkers such as Hobbes and Marx. [2] So can someone remind me how the first statement in the article isn't from a biased source again? Like the OP said: the article was written by liberals. Incidentally, the left-ring article seems bursting with positive statements whilst the right and center ones are clearly written by biased individuals. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies for talk pages

There are many links at the top of this page explaining Wikipedia's policies for talk pages. Article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to articles. They are not forums to discuss the topic in general. They are not pulpits to rant from, and they are not spaces to post personal attacks against other editors. Comments that violate Wikipedia policies can be deleted at any time. The comments I deleted violated these policies and were not made in good faith.Spylab (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

People have repeatedly attempted to engage in the debate about problems with the one sided approach to this article and by discussing those problems, how improvements could be made. You have persisted in edit warring and deleting these comments. I will allow your deletions to stand, not because I don't believe you are attempting to control and censor the discussion, but because your insistence on deleting this material proves my point that the article suffers from a lack of viewpoints and a one sided control of the presentation of the topic which is grossly POV. Your actions prove the point more than the deleted statements did. No doubt you will attempt to censor this as well...If you do, I will not fight with you. You are more powerful than I am in the hierarchy that is Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.108.235 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think it is one-sided then you need to show that there is a significant view that has been omitted. You need to establish its significance through sources. TFD (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mrdthree's edit

Please explain what it is about the introduction to which you object. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States and right wing politics are different than in Europe where this analysis mainly focuses. Conservatism in the United States has as a starting point a European Liberal pov, and lacks the baggage of aristocracy, except in how one chooses to interpret slavery (which was ended by the Republican party). Mrdthree (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing Liberal/Conservative with party identity. The Republicans of the 1860's were the liberal factions of the old Whig party, with new northern anti-slavery democrats. There was a re-alignment of the political spectrum, several in fact. Dave Dial (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Whig Party (United States) died out over the question of hierarchy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs)

I don't know what that(even if partially true) has to do with the price of tea in China? It's common knowledge that abolitionists and anti-slavery Whigs helped form the Republican party, and there were several political spectrum realignments from 1860-1980. In other words, in 1860, "conservative" didn't equal Republican, and Right-Wing certainly did not. Dave Dial (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The article acknowledges that there are different ideologies that are considered right-wing, and that it has varied over time. Incidentally slavery was never a left-right issue. Conservatives, liberals and socialists were all divided over it. Can you point to any statement in the article that is inaccurate? TFD (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence: 'Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social hierarchy or social inequality'. A true definition must hold for all instances of the topic or it needs to be qualified. In the United States this statement only holds true for the Social Conservatism movement. How does it account for Libertarianism in the United States or Fiscal Conservatism? In the United States there is a large faction of the right wing that does not believe in social hierarchy. The extinct Federalist Party is more akin to Conservatism of the type that exists in Europe. As the page on Conservatism in the United States explains, all major parties in the US grow out of a classical liberal republican ideology. Mrdthree (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If I read the first sentence in the most broad way possible i.e. Right wing politics believe social inequality happens naturally in any system and find its acceptable.... I am ok with it. But if I read it so broadly I cant imagine there are any Left Wingers who would disagree with it either. Mrdthree (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. The problem is that as society has changed, conservatives have been increasingly replaced on the Right by liberals, and in some cases even socialists, their traditional opponents. We seem to be saying that the liberals accept hierarchy when they are part of the Right but not when they are part of the center even though they have not changed. It is just that political center shifted with the emergence of more radical parties.

For example, in Venezuela the Right used to be conservatives and they were opposed by liberals, Christian democrats and social democrats. But with the emergence of Chavez, all these groups came together as the "right-wing" opposition to Chavez.

TFD (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds true. I think what the first sentence needs is a qualifier that acknowledges there is a continuum of views or a temporal component to the definition; Its not about social order its about more or less social order (or if you are right wing, this or that social order). Besides no one really believes in absolute social equality there is always the social consequences of the gregarious and shy. Two possible ways to acknowledge that the temporal variability and continuum of views: Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that generally seek to preserve a historical or current social order and accept or support social hierarchy or social inequality. or Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that generally seek or support relatively more social hierarchy or social inequality. Mrdthree (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My other thought is that if this were a Value debate, right wingers would have already lost. The editors have already framed both right and left wings in terms of their orientations towards the value 'equality', and I think left-wing ideologies are in fact primarily oriented towards engineering 'equality'. As the opening sentence indicates, right wingers arent primarily oriented towards engineering equality. Mentioning only one value to differentiate these ideologies makes the left motivated by equality for equality's sake (arguably pro-social) and the right motivated by inequality for inequality's sake (arguably antisocial). I dont think right-wingers are motivated by inequality for inequality's sake. I think they justify inequality because they believe another value supercedes equality. I think its likely a ledger-like notion of justice where there is a universal set of rules that metes out rewards and punishments that accrue to different parties. Having rules reinforces social order which is different value than social inequality. Mrdthree (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead says "Manifestations of right-wing politics are affected by cultural norms of societies. In the United States, the political language of the Right includes: anti-statism involving a general mistrust of government, individualism, support of equality of opportunity while rejecting equality of outcome, and populism." which sounds about right to me. Libertarianism has never been right-wing, and the people who call themselves right-libertarian have allied themselves with social conservatives, but are only right-wing to the extent that they have rejected libertarian views and adopted conservative views. As Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. This article cannot possibly explain every viewpoint that anyone who has ever called themselves right-wing has ever expressed. The phrase would become even more meaningless than it already is. We might as well replace the article by a statement "Right-wing doesn't mean anything. Go away." Rick Norwood (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but I still think it misses the point to define right wing politics as being the antithesis of what left wing politics values most (equality).Mrdthree (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Its even more preferable to say right-wing politics are generally conservative and interested in preserving existing social order. Nor is it too far to imagine someone saying right wing politics are primarily concerned wiht social order, morality and justice. Mrdthree (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that right-wing is more than just the rejection of left-wing. But to suggest that right-wing believes in truth, justice, and the American way is equally specious. The Right supports God, king, and country. Have they changed since the French Revolution? Not that much. God is still the touchstone of the Right, they wouldn't exist without the religious Right. In America they don't have a king to support, but they support the aristocracy, the upper class, the rich, white, Christian male. And they are desperately ambivalent, like the guy in the news this week who, with a few hundred members of his militia, stood off the American police, saying that he did not recognize the United States of America as existing, while posing in front of an American flag. They hate America and they hate anyone who doesn't love America. How do you define a group that has no trouble in believing in two contradictory things at the same time? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats pretty funny. Yeah, thats the red meat of right wing radio so maybe those sociology books have thought about that and the answer is hidden somewhere on page 2. Mrdthree (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone put an edit in that drops inequality. I reverted it because Im curious about the reasoning. Maybe the thing to do is to reread the article and try and make a summary statement about the article content. I tend to think an appeal to conservativism copuld provides an affirmative statement about right-wing politics : to preserve an ideal or current social order. Even better the existing sentence in the body: The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism Mrdthree (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is already plenty of material in the notes to the first sentence. In particular, ref name="T. Alexander Smith 2003. p. 30" T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy." Mrdthree (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WHy not just paraphrase the quote? Right wing politics are social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values. Put it in front an leave all the subsequent contrasting points and elaborating points where they are? Mrdthree (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Also back in 2005 it was interestingly claimed that the right wing is defined by negation-- it is the forces opposed to the left wing. In politics, right-wing, the political right, or simply the right, are terms which refer, with no particular precision, to the segment of the political spectrum in opposition to left-wing politics.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=14650956&oldid=14641489 Mrdthree (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have heard the arguments in favor of the Right being nothing more than opposition to the Left, but I don't buy them, and I don't think that definition is standard. The definition you cite from Smith and Tatalovich seems much more accurate. The current "social hierarchy" and "social inequality" seem to fit this definition. I would like to see quotes from the many other books cited. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The quote is from Clarence Y. H. Lo's "Countermovements and Conservative Movements in the Contemporary U.S.," Annual Review of Sociology 8 (1982): 111-12. He was writing about the extreme right, as were Smith and Tatalovich. They are of course part of the Right, but the comments about them do not necessarily extend to everyone on the Right. TFD (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with that as the definition so long as the thesis is that the Right WIng is defined as opposition to the left (its the Boolean category not left). I will admit if you were a liberal it is a great essentialization of everything about the right wing that would be disagreeable to you. On the other hand if it represents the politics I understand it to represent, then it has the properties you pointed out before and that content is fairly (though imperfectly) transmitted in the statement: 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' Mrdthree (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

How do you describe liberals who happen to be party of the Right? TFD (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont like the definition that Smith and Tatolovich give. I just think its an attempt to be balanced since it recognizes a motivation for right wing politics beyond inequality. From the history given in the article it does appear that the meaning of right and left has to do with traditionalists vs. egalitarian ideology.. As for liberals, I wonder if the problems of defining 'Right-wing' go away when a 2D political spectrum is used rather than a 1D political spectrum? I think people resist using 2D political spectrums but I think they are designed to try and answer the problem of liberals (Nolan chart, Political compass). But do they make all the other problems about defining Right wing also go away? Mrdthree (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a fineal critique is the current definition is over-reliant on Norberto Bobbio, alternative framings exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics#Relevance_of_the_terms_today. Mrdthree (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Smith and Tatolovich were not defining the Right, they were defining the extreme right, that is, political movements seen as being to the right of the traditional right-wing parties (conservatives, liberals and Christian democrats). In other words, they meant nativists, klansmen and the Tea Party, not the Republican Party mainstream, or parties such as the UK Conservatives, the German Christian Democrats or even traditional European conservatism. The limited value of the 2D spectrum is that actual legislatures tend to divide into two opposing groups, not four, and that is true both in the U.S. with two parties and France with many. TFD (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that, until quite recently, both "right-wing" and "left-wing" were always used pejoratively. You called someone right-wing meaning they were racist or fascist, you called someone left-wing meaning they were communist. The big change in how these words were used came out of conservative "think tanks", who began to use "left wing" to mean liberal and to imply liberals were all socialists, socialists were all communists, and since communism had failed, that "proved" that liberalism had failed. But if they were going to call liberals left-wing, they were stuck with the label right-wing, which meant that they needed to rebrand right-wing to mean something entirely other than what it originally meant. One definition they attempted (which echoes Mrdthree's claim that right-wing means "social order, morality and justice") was to assert that right-wing means "good", so all conservatives are good, and left-wing means "bad", so all liberals are bad. That has only worked with the less well-informed conservatives. Mrdthree obviously knows better. So the next attempt was to rebrand right-wing to mean small government. That attempt has been more successful, except that they actually support big government: big military, big government to deport Hispanics, big government to imprison law-breakers, big government to restrict voter registration, big government to restrict abortion. So the claim that the new meaning of right-wing is small government doesn't really hold water. It is propaganda, not descriptive of what the Right actually says and votes for. Which is the problem with following Mrdthree's suggestion that we just report what the Right says they believe in. If the Left says they believe in God, motherhood, and apple pie, should that be the definition Wikipedia uses? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Alas -- we can not use what any editor "knows" about the history of the terms - we have to rely on what actual reliable sources state. And they appear to state that the terms are not well-defined as such, and that the meanings ascribed to them vary from place to place, time to time, and context to context. So far as calling any usage "propaganda" - that sort of claim would have to be made by a reliable source, and not by any editor. And since there is no single thing which the "entire Right Wing believes in", clearly that is rather a Straw Man argument in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The history of the use of the term "right" is described in the introduction to the 3rd edition to The Radical Right, and in numerous other books. After WW2, sociologists applied the term "radical right" or simply "right-wing" to "conservative" movements in the U.S. - nativism, klansmen, McCarthyites, Birchers and now the Tea Party. That is the group that Lo is defining - the pitchforks and torches brigade. TFD (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Collect. I was not proposing an edit -- when I do that I cite sources. I was explaining why we don't just report what a group or person says about themselves, and instead require scholarly sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it a American vs. British English thing? Are both you guys from the UK? Mrdthree (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not just me. I typed "right-wing" and google and spat back the definition i thought it meant! the conservative or reactionary side of political party or system. I am no expert in sociology but if sociology is the only field that defines right-wing as pro-inequality then preface the first sentence with Sociologists define 'right-wing' .... Mrdthree (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservatism is opposed to equality and reaction is really opposed to it. And you do not need to be an expert in sociology to know that academic disciplines do not operate in isolation. TFD (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You could be right and I could be wrong. I will do research. I will check the top 3 dictionaries, political science text books, Economic textbooks, and sociology textbooks. (or their substitutes on google books). Journalism textbook? Mrdthree (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

DICTIONARIESpretty much standard definition of right as conservative and absolutely no mention of hierarchy or equality in these dictionaries: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20wing,http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right-wing?s=t, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/right-wing. I even like the Wiktionary definition better too. Although it wass rewritten from the standard dictionary form by User:Robin Lionheart in 2010, its better because it at least acknowledges traditionalism over the straw man philosophies of inequalitism and hierarchicalism. Mrdthree (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

POLITICAL SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS ON GOOGLE: Search "political science, an introduction" on google books. Then "left right" (found this to be most useful as leftwing, rightwing usually lead to discussion without definition. nothing about hierarchicalism or inequalitism yet. One book defines by traditionalist morality http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=LZKSMxXKQ6EC&pg=PR23&dq=political+science+an+introduction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pBZeU7c6jd3wBe7WgYgO&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=left%20right&f=false. Mrdthree (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Still searching but I still like this gem of a definition from this page on 2011 because it acknowledges a motive other than inequalitarianism. In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies, although, since at least Edmund Burke, the political Right has also been linked with advocacy of free market capitalism. The second part isnt necessary since not all people advocating capitalist reforms are 'right' wing (e.g. Iranian liberals, NOrth Korean liberals). Mrdthree (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Another Bizarre point. There is a link to Anti-statist philosophies on the right wing page, but not on the left wing page. Anti-statist Right wingers are an extreme minority, most are for limited government which is not 'no government'. Meanwhile the loaded term 'anti-statist' never makes an appearance on the left wing page which drones on and on about anarchists and socialist libertarians. Mrdthree (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit, Mrdthree, was reverted. I hope you understand why it was reverted. It was reverted because the words you used are too extreme, and only apply to what is called the extreme Right. The more moderate right do not want to openly enforce social stratification, but consider that social stratification is the natural order of things. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No prob they were both minor changes. I guess I should ask what to do about point we agree on. You say:I agree that right-wing is more than just the rejection of left-wing. In what way? You did suggest one answer: God is still the touchstone of the Right, they wouldn't exist without the religious Right. Or do you mean in some other way as well?Mrdthree (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I read a lot, including a lot of old books, and the disconnect between the way older books use Right and Left and the way modern media use the words is striking. In older books, I find right-wing used to describe the Ku Klux Klan, Joe McCarthy, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, and Fascist Italy. Right-wing meant authoritarian, far Right meant racist. No old book I have read has ever used right-wing to describe small government. (The religious Right was a horse of a different color. They believed that the Holy Bible, especially the King James Version, was inerrant truth. They were mostly Southerners, and so, at the time, mostly Democrats. Many were racist, and offered biblical justification for racism.)

At that time, left-wing was a synonym for communist. It didn't have any other meaning that I'm aware of.

The phrase "Right-wing" was rehabilitated, at least in the US, earlier than left-wing, thanks largely to the efforts of William F. Buckley, Jr. It was he more than anyone else who used right-wing to mean small government. He also, at first, opposed integration, on the basis of state's rights, as did Milton Friedman and other libertarians, but not on explicitly racist grounds. Why Buckley chose to call his movement "right-wing" I cannot guess. At first, he was affiliated with the John Birch Society, which was right-wing in the older sense.

The Religious Right and the Republican Right came together over opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Because Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, led the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Solid South switched almost overnight from 100% Democrat to 100% Republican, and I cannot understand that in any way other than racism. The mainstream Republicans try to avoid racism, but they need racist votes to win elections, so the old Far Right is a part of the New Right.

It wasn't until the 1980s that I first heard anyone use left-wing to mean liberal, and that was a deliberate political strategy by Republicans, to tar Democrats with the communist brush. Remember Willie Horton? At first the liberals resisted the label, but today they have accepted it. Again, I cannot guess why.

So, this Wikipedia article needs to explain what right-wing means in books, for people who read books, and also what it means in the media. It needs to explain the difference between the religious right and the libertarian right. And it needs to explain what right-wing means in the US, and what it means in the rest of the world. I think it does a pretty good job of that, but it can always be improved.

Aside to Collect: I'm answering a question from Mrdthree, not saying that the above should be in the article. Some of it already is, with footnotes. If I add anything to the article, I supply references. I hope I can express myself a little more freely on the Talk page, as long as I stay on topic. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So its a word with shifting meaning. I dont understand the confederacy/states rights issue of Southern Republicans or know how the switch happens. Its pretty rare to meet a politician who stands alone on states rights without other baggage. Maybe BUckley "reclaimed" the word or something. Its pretty clear to me that its not an epithet and it is used in some political science textbooks as a scale for coloring political views in a way that agrees with internet definitions of left wing and right wing. For purpose of the article here it would involve a mention of 'tradition' as a reason beyond hierarchy and inequality. Mrdthree (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lipset wrote about the use of the terms in Political man: the social bases of politics (1960), and quotes Robert M. MacIver on p. 222: "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes.... The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity...." (The Web of Government (1947)). The term "left" was used to refer to socialists, communists and anarchists.[3] The difference is that socialists called themselves left-wing, while conservatives and right-wing liberals did not usually call themselves right-wing, until Buckley rescued the term. TFD (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How does your analysis explain things like the position of conservatives on gay marriage? Suppose gays are wealthier on average (http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/06/pf/gay-money/). I guess the claim is marriage is a right belonging to a class (straight people) by birth, as in theory most gays are born gay? But what then to do with the traditionalism rationale of conservatives? What if not everyone finds the economic and class analysis of a political position to be the defining way of looking at things? Mrdthree (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned above the alliance between the Religious Right and the Political Right. According to Marx, religion is the opiate of the masses, and by appealing to the popular prejudice against gays, the rich can convince the poor to vote against their own best interest. Another famous saying is that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Thus the Right simultaneously (or almost so) criticize Obama for not wearing an American flag on his lapel and then support people who say that they don't recognize the existence of the American government. Political movements, like individuals, are full of contradictions. Tax cuts for the rich seem common to most conservative movements in the US, as do anti-Hispanic sentiments, a love of guns, and a belief in that Old Time Religion. What brings these disparate groups together? Since the Right started as a movement supporting the upper class and the Roman Catholic Church, and since American conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr. supported the upper class and the Roman Catholic church, that sounds like a place to start. Since distrust of people who are "different" is common to both the American and European Right, that is an important commonality. Then we have the Libertarian strain, which is considered right-wing in America and liberal in Europe. I don't have all the answers. Politics makes strange bedfellows. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must reflect the views of those who have though along and hard about commonalities as well as contradictions in political movements.Rick Norwood (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservatives instinctively resist social change because of fear that the social hierarchy will weaken. But intelligent conservatives accept change and sometimes drive it, when they realize it is inevitable and poses no threat to social order. Pitt supported emancipation, Peel supported free trade, Disraeli supported universal suffrage, Churchill supported the welfare state and Cameron supports same sex marriage. But the torches and pitchfork brigade are not conservatives, Roosevelt called them that as an epithet and they adopted the term. TFD (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I dont know anymore. I started reading the other political spectrum pages and I get better what it means to say these articles are arranged by degree in the spectrum. E.g. there are 7 pages arranged by degree far left, left wing, centerleft,center, centerright, right wing, far right. Is this correct? Mrdthree (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If so how does this page alert the reader that this is the context in which this article is written? The context is dissonant since as Norwood points out there is a growing conventional simplifying use of the terms left wing and right wing. Mrdthree (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The terms are used in both a relative and an absolute sense. As for the other articles, they are really dictionary terms. Only far right has a specific meaning. Generally, writers use more specific terms such as liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. TFD (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

well I think in the absolute sense the definition on top is imbalanced by its failure to reference a what most sources agree is a defining trait of the right wing: a support of traditional societal views. Does the current definition actually rests on a singular source by excluding tradition? On a relative scale most of what I would expect is in centre right article but it sort of raises an original research claim as to how editors dovide issues and positions Mrdthree (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tradition is essential to conservatism. The right-wing is similar, but not identical, being much more inclined to racism, anti-immigration, and support of the dominant class and religion. For example, a libertarian may support the American tradition of free enterprise and individualism, while not expressing the hatred of Blacks and Hispanics that is better described as right-wing. In Europe, a person who supports racial purity would be called right-wing, while a person who supports free enterprise would be called a liberal. As far as I know, these terms only overlap in America, and only because of the way the Republican Party has chosen to construct their political propaganda. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary societies have generally moved from more stratified to less. So its hard to imagine a case where a racist, anti-immigrant, aristocrat or whatever couldnt be described as motivated by tradition. Mrdthree (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but we need to focus on suggestions for improving the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See Steven Lukes' "Epilogue" to the Cambridge History of Twentieth Century Political Thought, pp. 30-33.[4] Eatwell and O'Sullivan's definition of the Right as a reaction to the Left is generally accepted. The other definitions provided relate to either part of the Right, such as conservatism, or to the left-right continuum. While absolute equality/inequality may represent the most extreme of left and right positions, they do not describe the vast majority of positions in between. Also, the dividing line of the Right has moved to the left. Ideologies that are considered right-wing today would not have been considered right-wing two hundred years ago. TFD (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

well I say put it to a sources vote. If the majority of sources use the word 'traditional' or a derivative then put it in the lede. If the majority of sources say inequality only then fine. I just dont like the dual purpose of this page-- describing political positions on a continuum and absolutely. Mrdthree (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The page has to describe how the word is actually used, and it is used sometimes to describe an absolute worldview, traditional, and sometimes used to describe a position on a continuum, conservative vs. liberal. The real-world use of language is complicated, and we need to reflect that.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I read some of the first reference. It is available here http://cnqzu.com/library/Politics/Bobbio-Norberto-Left-and-Right-Significance-Political-Distinction.pdf. The central thesis of the book, the inequality/equaltiy distinction is discussed and it is described as controversial in the introduction, page x--Having defended the distinction, Bobhio then moves on to argue that the left tends towards equality and the right tends towards inequality. This theory has caused consider­able debate in the Italian press, and the alternative propo­sals are discussed in detail in Bobhio's ' Reply to the Critics' at the end of the book. The remainder of the book details how the hitherto conventional view of the right is one of traditionalism. At least thats my skim. Citation 4 seems to support the inclusion of tradition (see footnotes on 4), and a skim of Encyclopedia of politics: The left and the right / Rodney P. Carlisle (available here http://cnqzu.com/library/To%20Organize/Books/%5BRodney_P._Carlisle%5D_Encyclopedia_of_Politics._The%20Right.pdf) reinforces this conventional definition The terms left and right are derived from the political divisions of the French Constituent Assembly....The terms left and right stuck, with the left usually representing the radicals of politics and the right representing the conservatives.... He then documents borderline cases (fascists (right), internationalists (left), protectionists (right/left)). It doesnt seem like he undertakes an attempt at a broad definition. Mrdthree (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up definition and description. We could for example compare the views of Democratic and Republican congressmen and find where their typical differences lie. But the definition of a Republican is not what he supports or opposes, but what party he belongs to. Carlyle provides a definition, i.e., what groups are part of the right, while Bobbio provides a description of how views vary along the left-right continuum. But I do not think that there is much opposition to Bobbio's view on equality as the main distinction. Conservative scholars for example clearly state that they oppose equality. TFD (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, complicated. And we can't write a book, so we must summarize many sources. I think this article does a fair job of that now, but it can always be improved.Rick Norwood (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

left wing politics carries this sentence at end of paragraph one, which is a fair way to account for both the absolute and relative meanings of the term which is an issue otherwise not explicitly addressed-- In two party systems, the terms "left" and "right" are now sometimes used as labels for the two parties, with one party designated as the "left" and the other "right", even when neither party is "left-wing" in the original sense of being opposed to the ruling class. Mrdthree (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. One more change, eliminating the redundancy. I like it alot now which can only mean :( bad things for discussion . But I think it is a true statement. But if you dont like it I may call it a day and hibernate again. Mrdthree (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that is correct. The U.S. is AFAIK the only country with a two party system and the only one where the term "left" is applied to a non-socialist party. Although even in the U.S., a search of Google books for "American Left" mostly returns books about U.S. socialists,[5] TFD (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I get a bunch of books about the american left by David Horowitz when I hit your link, so I think we need to link through a proxy. Mrdthree (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

His four books probably hit the top because he is a popular writer and his last book just came out. But there are 142,000 hits and you can look at the first few pages. And Horowitz is writing about U.S. socialists too. TFD (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it may be a minority usage among books but I dont know thats true. I guess theres fertile ground in there to find books to recraft the statement so that it better reflects the relative usage of the term. Mrdthree (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you name any country (other than the U.S.) where the term "left" is used to refer to a non-socialist party? TFD (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

American Right sentence in lead

• In the United States, the political language of the Right includes: anti-statism involving a general mistrust of government, individualism, support of equality of opportunity while rejecting equality of outcome, and populism.

Why does this sentence have to be in the article? It is only relevant to the U.S., and thus does not belong in the lead. Are we having a sentence in the lead which describes right-wing politics in each individual country? The right is not anti-statist in the U.S. or mistrusting of government as a whole: that is a position limited to the Libertarian Party which does not even have any national representation (0 seats in the congress, etc...). Additionally, certain right-wing parties do not support equality of opportunity, anti-statism, etc... Populism is more associated with left-wing politics. The left can also be just as anti-statist, mistrusting of government, or supporting equality of opportunity; so this is not a defining feature of right-wing politics, and thus should not even be mentioned in the article. Many (smaller than the Democratic Party and Republican Party, obviously) left-wing parties in the U.S. itself are also anti-statist, etc. Zozs (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a misrepresentation of the source which says that this is the "American creed", and "Both left- and right-wing politicians in the United States profess mistrust of government and stress the virtues of free market competition." (pp. 135-136)[6] I note too that the source did not refer to equality of opportunity or of outcome, just "egalitarianism." TFD (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a relative/absolute problem to me. The relative left in the US and the relative right are Dems and Reps. Mrdthree (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the US usage is important enough to be mentioned. Note that this is not about what the Right "is" but rather is about the language that the Right commonly uses. Examples of this rhetoric abound. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You need a source that explains how it differs from usage elsewhere. I do not think it does. TFD (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Inequality

On what planet is "right wing" determined to be a belief in inequality being a cool idea? That is just complete nonsense, to be honest. Let's clean up the introduction to the page to accurately reflect reality, rather than the smears of George Soros :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.254.41 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You can follow the links to the sources and see where they were published. If you have reliable sources presenting a different view, then please provide them. I do not think they believe inequality is "cool", just that people are not equal and cab bever be equal and ignoring that fact is unrealistic. TFD (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume your comment was made in good faith, and, like TFD, suggest you read some of the sources. You have been misinformed about what the phrase "right-wing" means. As a typical example, from the book I happen to be reading today, "The Age of Napoleon" by Will and Ariel Durant, page 34, "Despite such democratic trimmings, the election sent to the Legislative Assembly a substantial minority dedicated to preserving the monarchy. These 264 "Feuillants" occupied the right section of the hall, and thereby gave a name to conservatives everywhere." Any other book picked at random, except those explicitly supporting Right-wing causes, will use the word in that way: support for the upper class. America does not have a king, but it does have an upper class, who collectively have most of the wealth and power. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That is complete and utter nonsense of the highest order. Cut the bias interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.13.55 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Check out Will Durant, author of what you call "complete and utter nonsense of the highest order", winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and one of the 20th century's leading historians. Compare his credentials with the credentials of the sources you get your information from. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not unsupported opinion. Once again, I am assuming good faith, I think you actually believe the things you say. I'm just suggesting you read a little more widely, and keep an open mind. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the current definition is good if we're looking it within the context of sociology. A more political science or economics orientated definition would be from a bit different perspective, and of course different authors have different view points. The fourth note acknowledges this sociology view point: "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain--". The sociological focus on social equality would ignore (macro)economic left-right axis; and social equality and economical (income) equality do not mean exactly the same thing. This viewpoint also ignores the moderate right-wing politics' relationship with the theory of equal opportunity. The sociological definition is valid, of course, but rather narrow when we take into account the actual, wider usage of the term. --Pudeo' 04:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the economic meaning is wider than the sociological meaning. Such things are hard to judge, but the statistics I've read suggest that only about ten percent of the Right are Libertarians, as compared with 30% who are self-acknowledged racists, and an even larger percent who see the Christian religion as their prime reason to identify with the political Right. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The positioning of ideologies from left to right is based on how people and the parties see their relative position, and in many cases, the parties are actually seated in legislatures. Parties usually like this seating plan because it places them closest to the parties with which they are most likely to cooperate. Liberals for example may form coalitions with the Left or Right and therefore like to sit in the center, which is fine by the other parties. Research in Western Europe in the post-war era showed that two axes could be drawn that showed parties differed more in economic and social policy according to how left or right they were. But that does not mean that these positions define the left-right axis. They can reverse depending on circumstances as indeed they have both in the U.S. and in Europe. TFD (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Right-Of-Centre

There are various sources on this and other websites as well as in mainstream media and society that refer to the term "right-of-centre/center". Would it not be a good idea to include a new section in the main article to define the concept? It seems necessary to me because the terms "centre-right", "right-of-centre" and "right-wing", while sounding similar, describe materially different political positions. For example, in the European Parliament, there is the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) group, the right-of-centre group of European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the right-wing European Alliance for Freedom (EAF). Each of these groups ideologies diverge significantly from on another, as such I believe it would be wise if terms used to describe said ideologies left little room for ambiguity. The term "right-of-centre" could also possibly include some of the less radical Eurosceptic political parties in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group as well as parties from elsewhere in the world that subscribe to certain schools of conservatism. What I would like to see is the political spectrum content on Wikipedia include stand-alone articles for "Right-of-centre politics" as well as "Left-of-centre politics" alongside the established main poltical positions. Though, an alternative, and potentially better solution, seeing as they are both fairly short, could be for the articles Centre-right politics and Centre-left to be expanded and respectively renamed "Centre-right/Right-of-centre politics" and "Centre-left/Left-of-centre politics". If you agree with me, I would appreciate any assistance in this endeavour.

MBFCPresident (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The article discusses the different segments of the Right. But I do not think your terminology is standard. TFD (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)