Talk:Right-wing politics

Modern definitions separated from historical ones?

As I read this article I don't think that it fits with the current definitions of what would be considered right wing. While certainly the historical roots are important, if those definitions aren't the commonly used anymore it could be confusing. For example, fascism would not be considered right wing by today's standards. In no way was any fascist government supportive of limited powers of government or expanded individual rights. To have an article that says a right winger can be anything from a libertarian to a fascist seems to mean that a right winger can be anything, which is not the case.

Jmvh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

Your posts are more likely to be read if you put them at the bottom of the Talk page. Putting posts at the top is a mistake usually made by newbies.

The term "right-wing" historically means those who support God, King, and country, and who support order, tradition, and the interests of the upper-class. Libertarians have tried to change the meaning of "right-wing", and have had some success in the popular press, to the confusion of those familiar with history. It would be nice if Libertarians offered reasons for their point of view, instead of just trying to rebrand it with new names. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, classical liberalism is considered right-wing in Europe because it advocates personal freedom and laissez-faire capitalism. Having not lived here and basing his arguments on dubious theories at best, Rick's overused argument that Libertarians are evilly trying to change the definition of the Right is not universally valid, and therefore, in practicality, moot. Secondly, libertarianism is usually associated with the social left-wing, even in America, if I'm not mistaking. So, while there may be some currents of libertarianism that feel more attracted to the capitalist Right for its individualist freedom, I'm not entirely certain the definition in this article also encompasses libertarians as an element of the Right. Thirdly, fascism (despite having obvious incompatibilities with the traditional Right) is generally termed far-right. The far-right advocates economic interventionism and authoritarianism, thus, not fundamentally "right-wingish." I'd say the current definition is relatively clear cut. :) --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I read a lot. In particular, I read many books written before 1960, and I have never heard "right-wing" used in any book before 1960 to mean "personal freedom" or "Laissez-faire capitalism". People described as "right-wing" before 1960 are super-patriots, anti-communists, the religious right, racists, or fascists. In reading European writers, again before 1960, they usually use the phrase "right-wing" to describe fascists or racists.

Turning to the use of the phrase today, while it is true that I don't live in Europe, I read many authors who do live in Europe, and they usually use "right-wing" today to describe anti-immigration politicians or nationalist politicians. I have seen the use UNSC Trooper mentions. The article should and does mention this usage. But it should not say that this usage is universal, even in Europe. For example, I googled "German right-wing politics" and the first hit reads "Sixty years after the end of World War II and the Holocaust, the right-wing, extremist National Democratic Party of Germany is attempting to shake up Germany with its confrontational slogans and mass demonstrations." I assume this use of "right-wing" is not the one UNSC Trooper likes. I googled "French right-wing politics". Skipping the first two hits, which are from Wikipedia, I got " in French a "libéral" is someone who is for free enterprise and market economy and the "radical socialiste" party is a center-right political party." I assume this is not the use of "right-wing" that UNSC Trooper advocates. I tried "Italian right-wing politics". Again skipping hits for Wikipedia, I found, "The populist right-wing party of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Friday officially merges with the post-fascist Alleanza Nazionale at the founding congress of Il Popolo della Liberta, the powerful new rightist bloc that is not only set to dominate Italian politics for the foreseeable future, but will also wield considerable power in the European Parliament after the June elections." This use of right-wing is closer to what UNSC Trooper means, since it is an alliance of Libertarians and neo-Fascists, and is trying to distance itself from the racist Northern League. Still, it seems clear that Libertarian is not the sole meaning of right-wing in modern Europe.

Please note that I did not say that for Libertarians to describe themselves as Right-wing is "evil". I said it was puzzling. Why would Libertarians want to use a word that, before 1960, was almost entirely negative in its connotations?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick NorwoodIP (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 October 2009

If you look at current seating in the European Parliament, the liberals still sit in the center and the fascists are on the far right.[1] There may be confusion because in more recent years the more conservative parties have followed neoliberal (not libertarian) policies but then so have the parties of the left. In fact the parties on the right today do not consider themselves "right-wing". The fascists are an an exception, although even they appear to be abandoning the "right-wing" label. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies and yes Rick I am a Wikipedia newbie :) I moved this section down per your comment.

I think there are several problems with this article based on your comments. First of all having a single "right wing" that encompasses diametrically opposed ideologies from modern Europe, 1800's Europe, 1900's Europe, America, etc is confusing at best. Would it make sense to create separate articles for American Right Wing, and European Right Wing (or possibly even divde that into specific countries) assuming those are entirely different as you have described? It just doesn't seem helpful to have a single article with ideologies that use a common phrase from different time periods or geographical areas that mean very different political philosophies. If anything this should be given more than the current passing reference at the end of the first paragraph.

UNSC Trooper, you said that libertarians are social-left wing. Ron Paul ran for president in 1988 for the Libertarian Party, and I think there is an overwhelming body of evidence that he would belong on the right wing. I've never heard this term applied to the left. As for fascism it seems odd to describe the "far" or "extreme" version of an ideology to be entirely inconsistent with the base ideology especially when authoritarianism is so prevalent on the extreme left (Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc). In fact authoritarianism is by definition not part of what someone who advocates for limited government would support. It would seem then that a much more appropriate classification for an ideology such as fascism that advocates high regulation, large central planning, limited individual rights (compared to the state) would be on the extreme left vs the extreme right. I think a more accurate definition of someone who was an extreme right winger would be someone who wants no government at all, like an anarchist.

Ron Paul fits UNSC Trooper's definition perfectly. If we all understood the Nolan Chart or the Political Compass, then none of this would even be in question, but people are hopelessly married to the traditional left/right axis.

The Nolan Chart is not perfect, but it's extremely clear. Left and right represent economic left and right, while up and down represent social left (down) and social right (up).ReignMan (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jmvh (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that the American Right call themselves right-wing? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The American Right Wing use the term right wing to mean limited government. On the political spectrum the extreme right should be anarchy (no government) and the extreme left should be totalitarian government. The right wing is mostly for less regulation, less government power, and more individual liberty, where the left wing wants government to be stronger so that it can address any problems that the private sector is not solving. In the middle there is nothing nefarious about either ideology, however once the government gets too big you will end up with Nazis, Soviets, etc, and the absence of government leads to a myriad of problems as well. Jmvh (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Jmvh: The use of "right-wing" to mean authoritarian is old and wide-spread. One can hardly read a book on the economics, sociology, or politics of the past few hundred years without encountering this use. The use of "right-wing" to mean "limited government" is new, local, and (I suspect) temporary. As best I can tell, it is a ploy by the American Republican Party to win votes for the deregulation of banks and for tax cuts for the rich, by appealing to people who consider themselves "right-wing" because of their religious, anti-immigration, anti-gun-laws, anti-feminist, and sometimes racists views. One has only to listen to, say, Rush Limbaugh or Fox News for five minutes for the extremism of the right-wing of the Republican Party to be apparent. This is why there are many more American Conservatives than there are American Republicans. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Right wing = Social Authoritarianism, Economic Liberalism (capitalism). There is no argument whatsoever on this, it's pretty well defined. ReignMan (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick, I believe that fascists are so typically coupled with the right wing in literature because of the propaganda efforts by the Soviet Union. Certainly during WWII it was advantageous to paint the Nazis as entirely different from the Communists, thus the Soviets claimed that everything that wasn't their exact brand of international socialism was "right wing." So even though the fascists and communists had very much in common, to the communists anyone who didn't support their views of class struggle was a right winger. After the war, it was advantageous for left wing politicians to continue this association as the term fascist lost all actual meaning and became simply a slur. Also, it seems ridiculous that a political ideology could exist for such a period of time that was merely composed of racists, really to make that accusation seems to be an attempt on your part to be inflammatory. Also I think you are confusing left/right wing and republican/democrat/conservative. It is not impossible to have a right wing democrat, like Grover Cleveland for example. Again I would contend that for the American Right Wing, the term has always meant a political position based on limited government powers. Therefore because this differs so much from the ideologies discussed in this article it should get its own article to avoid confusion. Jmvh (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the Fascists are considered right wing because they are. They advocate both economic liberalism (captialism) and social authoritarianism. There is no questioning this. The problem is, that most people wrongfully assume that the Nazis (who were economically centrist, politically extreme right wing) were fascists. ReignMan (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jmvh, you still have not explained why they are called "right-wing" instead of "left-wing" or "centrist". BTW I do not know of any mainstream politician who calls themself "right-wing". As for the propaganda efforts, fascists were considered right wing by their contemporaries. Churchill for example used the term. Back to the question: Why do you think that the American Right call themselves right-wing? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment "someone who was an extreme right winger would be someone who wants no government at all, like an anarchist" is actually the position of Cleon Skousen, which was popularized by the John Birch Society and Glenn Beck but has no acceptance in the mainstream. According to them the Right in the French Revolution were really left-wing, while the Left were really right-wing. I could never understand why the meanings would be switched around. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, American conservatives have used the government to promote "traditional" values; supporting sodomy laws, the English-only movement, tougher immigration, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act and the so-called "Academic Bill of Rights". Bobisbob2 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. American conservatives have usually advocated using the coercive power of the state - at all levels - in order to maintain social order. Even libertarians despite their call for an end to legislating private morality are no exception. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

the right and nationalism

Rick Norwood, please stop putting nationalism in the sentence that talks about the traditional right. Nationalism was not adopted by right-wingers until the late 19th-early 20th centuries. It was not apart of the traditional right. Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is what is meant by traditional Right. To me it refers to conservative and reactionary parties that largely disappeared following WWII as opposed to liberal and Catholic centrist parties (such as the Liberal Democrats in Japan or Christian Democrats in Germany) that are sometimes called right-wing today. Religious fundamentalists should not be included either. Usually the Right supported the established church, whether Catholic or Protestant. (These latter parties were previously called centrist and had a stronger commitment to capitalism and democratic institutions.) The Four Deuces (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Catholics can be fundamentalist too. Bobisbob2 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentalism refers to nonconformist Christians and excludes Catholics and members of mainstream churches. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics

"...the idiologies and philosophies of right-wing political parties have included elements of conservatism, Chirstian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalsim, and for extreme right parties racism and fascism." Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So? It doesn't mean nationalism was part of the traditional right. Please explain why natioanlism belongs in the sentence about the traditional right but not captialism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Historic right-wing parties never became pro-capitalist, although they did absorb nationalism. (You yourself said "Nationalism was not adopted by right-wingers until the late 19th-early 20th centuries"}. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That was around the same time they adopted captialism too, hence why nationalism belongs in the next sentence. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to provide any examples of this? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this shows that capitalism became apart of the right in the late nineteeth century (see page 2). It also notes that the right adopted nationalism in the "last fifteen years of the nineteeth century" (see page 11). Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) In France as in other European countries the main conflict after 1848 was between capitalists and workers, with capitalists forming alliances with the Right. But as your source points out, the majority of the French remained in traditional occupations, especially agriculture, and businesses tended to be small. The Right remained hostile to capitalism even if they formed alliances with liberals and radicals. Sometimes they even worked with the Left. Here is a description of the French Right in the late nineteenth century that is based on René Rémond's The Right Wing in France (1968):

Single, definitive categorization of the French right wing is impossible since one must distinguish between more traditional, monarchist reactionaries and aristocratic conservatives whose ilk long dominated the military, and radical right-wingers who espoused proto-fascist views. But both traditional reactionaries and proto-fascist ideologues evinced a common hostility to capitalist materialism, parliamentary democracy, and the liberal tradition. Moreover, the radical Right cultivated a certain nostalgia for pre-Revolutionary France, while for their part, the aristocratic conservatives became increasingly inclined to embrace the populist, nationalist rhetoric of the extremists. The mutual influence of these two groups is particularly evident in the sphere of colonial ideology. (Aviel Roshwald, 'Colonial dreams of the French right wing, 1881-1914'[2] actual text quoted available only to subscribers.)

My comment anyway was "Historic right-wing parties never became pro-capitalist, although they did absorb nationalism." So perhaps you could provide an example of a right wing party that did. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You showed that nationalists weren't part of the traditional right. Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. You are disputing that "[historic] Right-wing political parties have included elements of... nationalism", not that "nationalists were part of the traditional right". The Four Deuces (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just showing that nationalism was on the right as long as captialism and thus if nationalism is classified with the traditional right so should capitalism. However, I think neither are. Do you argee? Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me provide Germany as an example. The Prussian conservatives were Junkers who opposed the creation of a German state. However they later became nationalistic, united Germany in 1871 and formed the German Conservative Party. They protected the interests of Junkers not capitalists. Although they never supported the Weimar Republic, they continued as the German National People's Party until they were absorbed into the Nazi Party in 1933 and were not revived after the war. The Centre Party represented a mostly middle class (i.e., pro-capitalist), rural, Catholic minority and became a strong supporter of the Weimar Republic. After the war its members formed the Christian Democratic Union which became the "conservative" party after the war (although some members reformed the old party). The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree198.236.11.107 (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Evolution

The difficulty in defining this political term is in the fact that politics has evolved substantially over the last 200 years, and the usage of term has evolved as well (as happens with many words). Some evolution of the usage is related to evolution of politics, and some not.

Perhaps the main change in Europian politics in the last 50-100 years is the almost total annihilation of traditional monarchist-aristocratic right and the rise of free capitalist right. Traditional right advocated preservation of traditional class structures and institutions, while capitalist right advocate free capitalism, at the expense of traditional insititions. A great example of the latter is Margaret Thatcher. For example, privatisation of Royal Mail by the tories in 1990s would be anaphema to traditional tories. The main thing traditional and modern right have in common is social conservatism, which favors strong regulation of social issues. Traditional right never existed in the US, and therefore the transition is not relevant for the US.

Now I can answer two questions raised above.

1) Why fascists are called right-wing, even though they "advocate" extremely strong government control, while right-wing (say, american Republicans, or British Tories) are for small government? The answer is simple. Extreme right (or far right) are called so because they are an EXTREME version of traditional European right. The only thing they have in common with modern right is social conservatism (which is extreme in the case of far right). All is logical, if put into historical perspective. BTW this means that far right is no longer an extreme form of right-wing.

Actually, this is a mistake. The Republicans and Torries (conservatives) favor smaller economic government. The Republican party in particular is in favor of a larger social government, in which the Government says who can and can't get married, and censors the media. The right wing favors a larger government control over the individual, while the left wing favors a larger government control of the individual's money. ReignMan (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

2) Why libertarians are called right-wing? Classical liberals had nothing in common with traditional right or left. They were considered centrist if anything. But since the modern right embraced free market policies, classical liberals have found common ground with the right. However, consistent libertarians are also socially liberal which would make them left-wing. Thus libertarians cannot be classified as either left or right. Those libertarians whose priority is social liberalism (gay rights, abortion rights etc) identify as left-libertarians. Those for whom free market is more important identify as right-libertarians (say, Ron Paul). But overall libertarians cannot be called left or right.

Libertarians are not right wing, they are socially centrist, and economically left wing. I've many times been an outspoken advocate of the Nolan Chart and Political Compass, which would avoid all these confusions, but people seem married to the single dimensional spectrum.ReignMan (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could put these logical ideas into the article. At the moment the article is a bit chaotic, but I am still new to it and do not know where to begin yet.BorisG (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that "right-wing" and "left-wing" are buzz words, whose meaning changes to suit the speaker. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In general I would agree with BorisG, but would add a few points. Social scientists adapted the term "right-wing" to refer to the parties of the ruling-class, so bourgeois parties became right-wing as capitalists replaced aristocrats as the ruling class. They also invented the term "radical right" to describe reactionary middle class political movements using fascism as a model. Economic policy is a red herring - the new right is pragmatic - otherwise Ron Paul would have been the Republican candidate. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick, sorry, I completely disagree. While the terms are certainly relative, and there are difficulties with respect to some politicians and parties, by and large we all know who is right and who is left. Or at least who is to the right (or left) of whom. BTW if in your volabulary the term has little or no meaning, why do you care about this article at all?BorisG (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The terms are relative, but there is no consensus as to who is what. For example, would you class Stalin as extreme right, or extreme left? Either answer would be correct. Stalin was economically extreme left wing, while socially extreme right wing. By the same Token, Ron Paul is also neither, he's far right economically, but quite centered socially. ReignMan (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Historically, The Four Deuces is correct regarding the ruling class origins of right-wing. But currently this meaning has been completely eroded. Nowadays right-wing minded people are overwhelmingly less educated rural and provincial middle and lower-middle class. Hardly a ruling class. At the same time, left-wing represent mostly highly educated intellectual and cultural elites. At least in the US and Australia. Thus I object to the characterisation of right-wing as those advocating stratified structure of society. This has historical roots, but is no longer relevant.

I also disagree about the red herring bit. Free market policy is the cornerstone of modern right (since about 1970s), and has been in the centre of policy of such leaders as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Both sides of politics agree about this (whether they agree or disgaree with the policy itself). However over the last 100 years overall economic policy has swang to the left so much, that current right-wing economic policies would be considered social democratic by the standards of 1920s. Yes, present-day Republicans, Tories and Chritian Dems are far from classical liberals. But the fact that Ron Paul is far more radical in this regard than the mainstream republicans does not mean that this is red herring. Generally, left-wing parties advocate higher taxes and higher spending, while right-wingers advocate lower taxes and lower social spending. The difference in practice may be (and is) small (especially with most leftists moving to the centre post communism), but it still exists. Ron Paul is far too radical for the Republicans on economic policy, and out of tune with the heartland with his moderately liberal social ideas. But the fact that he was elected to congress from that party speaks for itself.

Or, to say it in one sentence, free-market economics is not the only defining charateristic of the modern right (the other is social conservatism), but it is not a red herring either. BorisG (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the politics textbooks that I've read note that the terms 'left' and 'right' don't have exact meanings (see for example Andrew Heywood's Key Concepts in Politics or the Penguin Dictionary of Politics). The most that can be said safely is that the left generally wants change and/or the promotion of positive liberty, whereas the right tends to favour tradition and/or negative liberty. But the terms 'left' and 'right' apparently had a different meaning in communist societies... What this all demonstrates is that the whole idea of a linear left-right political spectrum is an oversimplification, as discussed at the relevant article.--Pondle (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pondle 1) the theory you refer to is ok, but I am not sure it accounts for all brands of right and left, e.g., the evolution described above. I think it is oversmiplification in the name of an elegant theory. 2) I think this article is about right-wing in the West. The usage in communist countries was confused by government propaganda. I don't think we need even more confusion in this article. For analogy, during 1918-1920 Russian Civil War groups unaffiliated with either reds or whites were called the greens. Do we need to care about this when describing the worldwide Green movement? 3) characterisation of anything using only one dimension is always oversimplification. But unless we judge the group by the position on this line, this is OK. In mathematics it is called a projection. Nothing wrong with that, in my view.BorisG (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both BorisG and Pondle. BorisG is describing what the terms ought to mean. Pondle is observing that a lot of people in the media toss the words around carelessly. But this article should meantion Pondle's veiw in passing and use BorisG's view for the majority of its content. Keeping in mind that when you project the vectors <1,1> and <1, 10^23> onto the x-axis, you can no longer tell them apart. : )

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, then they are identical in this respect. They may still be different in other respects. Can's see a problem here. The only problem is when people try to judge the groups by this one aspect only.

I am happy that we are all in agreement. The only problem is that the weekend has ended and we have made no progress on the article itself :)BorisG (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians edit from work. It helps the day go quicker. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The academic model still applies to US politics. The Republican party is a party of big business (right) while the Democrats draw more support from the poor, placing them to the left of the Republicans. The Tea Party fits the description of radical right. There is a similarity with the middle class and poor supporters of the Bourbon monarchy in 1815-1830. You can read articles about all these concepts in Daniel Bell's The Radical Right (1955).[3] The economic policies chosen by the right (or left) may vary depending on expediency. Following the War, Western democracies saw the creation of a middle class a way of improving the economy and maintaining social stability. From the 1970s, they found that profits could come from outsourcing. Ron Paul's candidacy was interesting because it showed how far Republican ideology really was from laissez-faire liberalism. Where this analysis may be weak is that none of these ideologies derived from European conservatism or socialism, and are therefore essentially centrist. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"The academic model still applies to US politics." What academic model? "The Republican party is a party of big business..." So, you think farmers in the US heartland are big business? BorisG (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Farmers in the US heartland are big business. The era of the small farmer is over. But the bigger question is what "The Republical party is a party of big business..." means. The Republican party serves the interests of big business, but Republican voters are often ordinary, small town Americans who vote Republican because of social issues, such as prayer in the public schools and abortion. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if the model is accurate merely that has been applied by political scientists to US politics. The alternative view is that the US has two centrist middle-class parties. Should the divide between the two US parties be compared to UK Tories vs. Labour or to UK Manchester liberals vs. social liberals? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

BorisG, it doesn't matter if the Republican party appeals to farmers. They still believe in classes and are against equal distribution of wealth. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost everyone is against equal distribution of wealth. The big question in American politics is, should the upper class get all of the wealth, or only most of it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We won't get very far if we don't get out of old Marxist cliches (right=bad, left=good - or vice versa). At least for the purposes of encyclopedia, we should try to adopt a useful view that both sides aim at prosperity and happiness of common people, but believe in different stratesies of achieving that aim. I know it is a difficult position to adopt by strong advocates of either side, but if we don't do it, we will get a political pamphlet instead of an encyclopeida article (if anything:). As it is pretty hard to think good of politicians, I think it is useful to consider the views of scholars of corresponding pursuations instead. Further, I know some people and scholars still believe in crucial role of classes, but this is not a universal view. If the article uses class framework, it would represent a model-based view. I suggest we either avoid this framework altogether, or clearly indicate that this but one theory.BorisG (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that modern political groups did evolve from class-based parties. Whether or not the old categories of left and right are still relevant is a matter of debate. Conservatives and liberals have always argued that the distinction was meaningless (they argued that they represented the nation rather than narrow class interests) although that never stopped them from calling their opponents left-wing or right-wing. The reason the models sound Marxist is that they pioneered much of the terminology and categories. But the main response of liberals and conservatives is that they are neither left nor right but in the center. (The US of course shows a strange attachment to the term "right-wing".) The Four Deuces (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The modern American political parties still do represent classes, the Republicans represent the wealthy, the owners, and the establishment, favoring lower taxes and less social services. The reason southern whites vote Republican has to do with the continuation of the southern trend toward racism (The Republicans took that mantle over in the early 60s with Barry Goldwater). The Democrats still represent the middle and low income, favoring welfare, progressive tax, healthcare reform, social security, and they represent minorities.

But as long as were talking facts, let's also point out that from a purely political science standpoint, both the Democrats and Republicans are right wing parties. They both represent different shades of right-authoritarianism, although the Democrats are much closer to center. This is where the idea of a neutral article runs into problems, Americans view politically neutral sources to be left wing. Sweden, a nation nearly dead center politically[4], is seen as an extreme left wing nation by Americans.ReignMan (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that the US Republican and Democratic party are both right-wing, it is also true that they are both left-wing. Neither dares cut spending on either the military or on social security. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick, you've nailed it :)BorisG (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly true. I don't think, however, that just two issues should determine the entire outcome as being "both." You will find all sorts of parties who are right and left wing, who have unusual positions. Some right wingers are pro choice, but that doesn't make them left wing too, it means they have some non conforming views. In this case, the exception proves the rule, however poorly translated that idiom is. ReignMan (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether something is left or right depends on where you stand. I just had breakfast with a couple from Canada, and they mentioned that in the US Obama is called "extreme left" while in Canada he is considered far right. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's perception, not fact. Political center should always be defined as the midpoint between two extremes, that way there's some point to ground it to. Perception plays a huge role in any answer given. If you asked people from the United States and France who designed the first aircraft to carry a human into flight, you'd almost always get two answers. Both would be brothers, but one answer is incorrect.

The Americans would tell you (wrongly) that the brothers were Wilbur and Orville Wright. The Wright brothers did not, however, design or build the first working aircraft, and were not the first humans to ever fly. What they did do, was design the first heavier than air aircraft to fly under its own power.

The French answer (the correct one) would be Joseph and Jacques Montgolfier, who built the first aircraft to ever carry a human into flight. It was a hot air balloon, and in 1783, two men, Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier and François Laurent le Vieux d'Arlandes became the first two humans to ever fly.

This is a classic example of perception. Americans perceive that Americans were the first to do things, even when they were merely the first to do it in one way. Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb or the phonograph, he merely built the first successful ones. Again, Americans tend to overlook this detail in favor of national pride.

The same goes in politics. Americans think there's no way that anyone could vote for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez, and claim the elections must have been rigged. Yet at the same time, people in other countries cannot possibly fathom how anyone could ever vote for someone as stupid as George W. Bush, and insist that the elections were rigged. Notice a pattern?

Perception probably has written more historical myths to fiction than we'd like to admit. Lincoln is seen as a great president and an emancipator after his death, not a northern elitist liberal know-it-all who sticks his nose where it doesn't belong (which is how he was seen by conservatives in the U.S. Modern conservatives seem to forget the Republicans back then were the northern liberal party). Never believe anything that's given as a point of view. ReignMan (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion we should reach is that "The Right" is not a clearly defined term and therefore this article should be about the meaning of the term, and not list groups that are considered right-wing. The same issues exist for far right, center right, centrism, center-left and far left. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, perhaps. I wouldn't disagree with that. I think, however, a very general outline may be in order. The clearest definition I can think of is a group who's overall political leaning suggests that it is closer to the right/authoritarian extremes than the left/libertarian ones. The Republican party, Torrie party, Fascist parties, and other groups which are expressly right wing in both economic and social issues wouldn't be out of place, but other groups less well defined, like Libertarians would be less apt for inclusion. Likewise, the left wing politics section could contain the numerous Green parties, groups like the Canadian New Democratic party and Bloc Quebecois, and the German Left party. ReignMan (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)