Talk:Left–right political spectrum

Definitions of Left v. Right in US Wrong

Quoting the article:

The contemporary Left in the United States is usually understood as a category including New Deal liberals, Rawlsian liberals, social democrats and civil libertarians, and is generally identified with the Democratic Party. In general, left implies a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that favor the working class, and multiculturalism. The contemporary Left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and separation of church and state; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the working class.

The contemporary Right in the United States is usually understood as a category including social conservatives, Christian conservatives and free market liberals, and is generally identified with the Republican Party. In general, right-wing implies a commitment to conservative Christian values, support for a free-market system, and traditional family values. The contemporary Right usually defines itself as promoting deregulation of banking, commerce, and industry.

These descriptions are bizarrely inaccurate and distorted. Libertarianism is definitely antithetical to the modern left; and has more in common with the goals of the right. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, along many other freedoms -- personal and economic -- are long standing conservative values. Right-wing does not imply a commitment to Christian values. Today's "religious-right" is an evolution of yesterdays "Southern Democrats". Christian views span the political spectrum.

This section of the article shows definite bias. Perhaps it would be best to have each description written by people more favorably disposed to each view.

BTW, the assertion that the left advocates "government intervention on behalf ... sexual minorities" suggests government should be intervening on behalf of men. Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.125.67 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You should provide sources. Incidentally, "civil libertarian" does not mean Libertarian and a minority group "is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power". TFD (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also note the difference between a minority gender and a minority sexual orientation.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Equality of opportunity vrs equality of outcome"

um... I think this definition really shouldn't be here, because true equality of opportunity (a supposedly right wing thing here) would require very LEFT associated tactics. 100% inheritance tax, and raising all children in undifferentiated governmental creches comes to mind as possibilities... That is to say having wealthy parents gives you greater opportunity then having less wealthy parents. A more ACCURATE way to put it is that the Left believes Equality needs to be enforced, and the Right belives that Equality does the Enforcing (The left belives that the poor should get more money, the right belives that the lazy WILL get less money, and be poor, and that the hardworking will be the rich.)

This is really about the two sides' rhetorics, not what things would mean in practice.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it? Think that should be made clear then, otherwise it looks like WP favours a right-wing POV. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never head anyone suggest that "equality of outcome" is either possible or desirable. This is a straw man, thrown up by the Right. It suggests that those smart enough to be born into rich families start life on the same footing as those stupid enough to be born into poor families, and turn out rich not because of inherited advantage but because of inherited ability. And when someone such as Sotomayor says that you learn more if you struggle to the top, instead of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, the Right calls that idea racist! Rick Norwood (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but this sounds a bit silly. And I honestly don't think ANY article will make readers walk away with the idea that WP supports the "right", lol. Let's tear our party membership patches off of our sleeves here for a moment. The idea that being born to wealthy and successful parents gives you a guarantee of success or even better chances is not verifiable, and anecdotal at best. How do you explain the masses of people who WERE born under such circumstances but turned out penniless, broken and in poverty? How do you explain all of the "rich kids" who got on drugs, stole from their families and were disinherited? How do you explain "rich kids" who were abused by their parents and became unstable? Many people would even suggest that "rich kids" are more likely to fail (though that's also not verifiable or factual). Nothing even suggests that wealthy parents will "spoil" their children, give them money, leave them their estates, help them start businesses or anything. One can even argue that someone from more modest roots with a high motivation is more likely to succeed than the "rich boy". Though it's "original research" (lol), I was born poor yet managed to start a successful business by age 20. The point is that your birth-family's wealth is of little importance; and quite often means nothing.

Be careful, you are in danger of making the same mistake that you warn against, namely relying on anecdotal evidence to make statements about a whole population. Undoubetdly there are a not insignificant number of people who rise from poverty to wealth, and vice versa. Pointing this out does not negate the hypothesis that someone born into a poor socioeconomic backround is more likely to stay poor than not, and ditto to someone of middle class. Annette Lareau is a good starting point for some studies on the impact of one's socioeconomic backround on their success in life. Also interesting is Lewis Terman's studies, and Pitrim Sorokin's analysis of the termites who turned out as 'failures' in 'Fads and foibles of modern sociology' (if you can rustle up a copy). Frogsontoast (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Socialism, which most people identify as being "leftist", DOES believe in "equality of outcome" (to varying degrees). That is why social welfare programs exist, and why the wealthy are taxed more heavily under such systems. The idea is to reduce (or even destroy) class distinctions and boundaries; often per Marx's egalitarian ideology. Capitalism (in pure form) opposes these ideas. Under true Capitalism, social welfare could not exist (with the possible exception of the disabled/UNable to work). Individuals would also be taxed in equal proportion (i.e., 10% for all, 5% for all, etc). Capitalism is based upon the idea of "Economic Darwinism"; like in nature, the survival of the fittest. The lazy would either work out of necessity or live poor. It has *nothing* to do with the belief that people are "smart" for being born to rich parents, or "dumb" for being born to poor parents (which is your straw man, to be honest here). Whether "equality of outcome" is possible is up for debate, but it definitely IS desirable to many people. Read "The Communist Manifesto", and you will see this is absolutely the case. That is not to say you all desire it, but many people do.

Once again, this boils down to the inherent flaws of the "left-right" spectrum and its necessity to lump everyone/all ideals into a linear string. What is "left" and what is "right" is different to each individual, region and country. There is some consensus on particular things between certain "groups", but the spectrum is so poorly defined that its destined to cause ambiguity and even turmoil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.20 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your criticism of the Left contradicts your statement that the spectrum is flawed. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism"? My apologies, sir, but that is outrageous. I did not "criticize" any group or ideology; the only thing I'm here to criticize is the lopsidedness of this article and the extreme lengths people are going to here to justify it. Are you here to deny that Capitalism is a "Darwinistic" economic system? Are you hear to deny that Socialism's goal is to either decrease or destroy class barriers? Are you here to deny that Marx outlined his set of egalitarian ideals in "The Communist Manifesto" and that it was explicitly oriented towards so-called "Equality of Outcome"? Are you denying that most people perceive Socialism and Communism as being "Leftist"? None of these things are in themselves negative. As someone who has actually read Marx ("Communist Manifesto", "Das Kapital" and excerpts), I admit the ideas are beautiful and alluring (even though I'm not a Marxist/Communist/etc). So it is quite honestly beyond me how to accuse me of "criticizing the Left", and in any case, how that contradicts my real criticism of the spectrum. The only contradictory statements I've seen on this page are from a few people defending their own political beliefs with valor and loyalty. And that is not what WP is for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are saying. You said that the political spectrum was flawed then point out differences between left and right. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've simply mistaken what I said. I stated most people *identify* Socialists as being "left". I never outline any actual left-right distinction, which usually amounts to a game of "Pin the wing on the dictator". I'm not a left-right theorist, but I do realize many people are and I know where they think certain ideologies/parties reside. My concern here is that this entire article and the way it portrays different political groups and ideologies is almost exclusively written and controlled by those who support the "left". The slant is extremely evident. It would be totally fair for you and your peers to describe your *own* positions and ideals, but it's totally unfair that you all define your opponents and their positions as the ideal straw man. Numerous times factual statements have been made to the contrary of this portrayal but dismissed, and the arguments runs in circles. There's a reason why the article has the neutrality dispute tagged on it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Please put new posts at the bottom of the page.

2) Please use four tildes to sign your posts (upper left key on the keyboard, with the shift key, not counting the escape key, hit four times).

3) Conservatives can edit Wikipedia, and many do. But to edit Wikipedia, you need to cite reliable references, which usually means academic references, experts. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual error in Nolan chart

see [[1]]

External Links

RL, Phyrros, & perhaps others:

Let's compromise & leave both links up. In fact, the article could use more links of differing points of view. Sturunner (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. The problem is not the link. The problem is that http://politicalcompass.org does not disclose its left-leaning bias. Therefore, unaware visitors may take the test, receive a left-leaning result, and incorrectly infer that they are more leftist. I arrived at this conclusion after taking the test a few times, and always receiving a liberal/socialist score. Try it yourself. RL 04:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't really the test - the issue is the 2D political model they use. The test may indeed be garbage, but as they say in their own FAQ: "The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it." So maybe it's a bad demonstration. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the model.

Also, just because the test was biased to the left for you doesn't mean that it will be biased to the left for everyone. Maybe other people will receive a score biased to the right. For example, the test has some questions on religion. Giving pro-religion answers will move you in the authoritarian/right-wing direction. Therefore, a religious left-winger might claim that the test is biased to the right.

Besides, the World's Smallest Political Quiz has a clear libertarian bias, and it claims to be neutral too. I really think we should leave both links up. -- Phyrros (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To re-open an old debate, political compass is linked to in the article anyway, so why can't it be listed under external links? If the issue is bias, then surely the world's smallest political quiz can't be used either, as it was created by libertarians with an obvious bias in matters relating to the political spectrum.--Tangent747 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I'll add the political compass link, it can always be removed if people disagree--Tangent747 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ths drivel is more opinion than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.120.200 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Political Compass" rated me as being a "Neo-Liberal/Libertarian-Right-Winger" with my Anarchy<->Authoritarian rating being slightly more Authoritarian than Ghandi, lol. I suppose you could call that about right for me; I'm extremely Libertarian and an ardent Laissez-Faire Capitalist. It's MUCH better than this "left-right" spectrum, but I disagree with a few of its implications. The religion questions aren't to find out if you're an atheist or if you're religious, but they probe your ideas about separation of church and state. I'm a Christian, but firm believer in separation, so it did not push my score upwards (authoritarian). Being religious itself is not authoritarian; it's when you believe your religion should be 'enforced' on others. So the test is OK, and nothing to be alarmed about. But I don't think it's "perfect". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.20 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking through which lens?

• The contemporary Right usually defines itself as promoting deregulation of business, commerce, and industry; censorship of sexual content in the media and the use of government to support and promote the Christian religion; and government intervention on behalf of religious conservatives and the upper class.

This sounds more like a left-liberal portrayal of the right, rather than a self-description. IIRC, the left has for many years branded the right as favoring the upper classes. Is there a source on the right which we can quote as saying, "We conservatives favor the politics that support the rich?" (If not, then this might be a case of putting words in someone's mouth.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ed says the left has for many years branded the right as favoring the upper classes. That is exactly what right-wing means, favoring the upper classes. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Originally, the Right favored the upper classes while the Left favored the working class. Today, the words are tossed around so much that they have essentially lost all meaning. Witness the idiots on American television who shout, "Keep your left-wing hands off my social security." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is Seymour Martin Lipset in Political Man (1960):

The fact that many interests and groups which are not social classes take part in the party struggle does not vitiate the thesis that "the rationale of the party-system depends on the alignment of opinion from right to left," as the sociologist and political philosopher Robert MacIver has pointed out. "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. 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, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defense and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes." (p. 222)

This generalization even holds true for the American parties, which have traditionally been considered an exception to the class-cleavage pattern of Europe. The Democrats from the beginning of their history have drawn more support from the lower strata of the society, while the Federalist, Whig, and Republican parties have held the loyalties of the more privileged groups. (p. 220-221)

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that few who know what "right-wing" means call themselves right-wing. I cannot think of any mainstream politicians in any country who call themselves right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I love your quote from Lipset. But I must disagree that the Republicans were always the party of privilege. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and at that time the Republican party was the anti-slavery party -- or at least opposed to the extension of slavery -- while the Democratic Party styled itself "The Party of the White Man". Unless, of course, you see the lower strata of society as the strata most eager to deny rights to the lowest strata. There may be something in that. Also, the lower strata of society seem to be easily fooled, by those who tell them that God is a Republican. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Even then, the Northern elites backed Lincoln and the Democrats did better among Irish Catholics and poor farmers in the North. (Tammany Hall were Democrats.) But I accept the relationship between class and party is weak in the US. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like Lipset was identifying the rich with the conservative "right". My question, however, is about how the right-wing in America perceives itself. Would anyone care to address this question? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's rather rich for a party one of whose principal platforms is always lowering the capital gains tax and, lately, eliminating the estate tax, to contend that it is not acting in the interests of the upper classes. My sense is that conservatives tend to hold to the idea that what's good for the rich is good for everyone, but they still tend to favor policies that favor the economic interests of the upper classes. I'm not even sure they'd dispute that, if you put it in a careful enough way. On the other hand, the sentence in question is specifically about how the right defines itself - that means, I think, that we need sources showing people on the right identifying the right in this way. john k (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The "right" in America would deny that they are right-wing. In fact very few people call themselves right-wing today. But you will notice that the Conservative Party (UK) has always defended the right of aristocrats to form the upper house of the British parliament. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that it's at all true that the right in America would deny that they are on the right, although they might not use the phrase "right-wing." Nor, for that matter, would center-right parties in Europe, or Canada, or wherever, deny that they are right of center, although they certainly wouldn't describe themselves as "right wing." This premise seems flawed. john k (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You just said "Nor, for that matter, would center-right parties in Europe, or Canada, or wherever, deny that they are right of center, although they certainly wouldn't describe themselves as "right wing"." So why do you then say "This premise seems flawed." My point was that rather than try to redefine the right, the parties we call right-wing deny that they are right-wing. They either accept the political spectrum and claim that they are centrists or they claim that the left-right spectrum is meaningless. If they use the term "right" it is in relation to what they call the left. For example the new American president is often called left. On the other side, Tony Blair had no qualms about calling himself left-wing, although many on the left challenged this. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think this is true. In the United States, at least, the right pretty willingly accepts the label - do you have any evidence that they don't? In Europe, "the right" is more taboo, and so parties like the Christian Democrats or the Gaullists tend to call themselves "center-right," but they still accept the basic label of being on the right rather than the left. They still sit on the right side of their parliaments, though, don't they? At any rate, what we have here is a sentence talking about how the right views itself. That needs to be sourced, doesn't it? john k (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is up to you to show that the right in America call themselves right-wing. They have adopted the term "conservative", but not "right", although it is increasingly used in the media as a short form for US conservatism. Christian Democrats call their international organization the Centrist Democrat International. The other right-wing international, the International Democrat Union, which has UK, US, French and German members says its member parties are "centre and centre-right".[2] The historic right-wing parties, such as the German Conservative Party, have disappeared and the new parties claim to descend from liberal and Catholic centrist parties. Even in Japan, the Liberal Democrats are a continuation of the old Liberal Party not the conservative parties. Of course these parties sit on the right, the old right has disappeared. One exception however is the far right, e.g., the National Front, although I think they too have dropped the term right.

The view of political scientists is that the bourgeousie has replaced the aristocracy as the ruling class. But the new right reject this and claim that they are middle class parties representing all the people and argue that their policies benefit everyone. They cut welfare e.g. in order to encourage people to become self-sufficient.

The parties of the left otoh have not disappeared but have adapted.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, articles from the National Review which identify the conservative movement with the right - [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. From the Weekly Standard: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Conservative publications in the United States are perfectly comfortable describing their own movement as part of the right. john k (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the founders of the National Review included Willi Schlamm, James Burnham, Frank Meyer, Willmoore Kendall, and Whittaker Chambers, it is unsurprising that would keep their Marxist terminology and call themselves the right. Similarly the founder of The Weekly Standard, Irving Kristol, like other neoconservatives, decided to call himself right-wing when he abandoned Marxism. Note that they applied the label right-wing to themselves, not to the Republican party at that time. The Republican Party does not self-identify as right-wing and neither have their presidential candidates. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has rather reached the point of total craziness. Your argument appears to have become the No true Scotsman fallacy. Irving Kristol was not the founder of the Weekly Standard. His son Bill Kristol, who has never been anything but a Republican hack, did. The National Review was founded largely by William F. Buckley, not known for his youthful marxism, and the magazine is considered the flagship publication of the conservative movement. Whatever connection with the former left it may have had in the fifties don't really do much to cast doubt on Jonah Goldberg or Ramesh Ponnuru's right wing bona fides. You keep saying "right-wing," which I would agree few people ever use to describe themselves, but this article is about "the left" and "the right," which are both commonly used as self-designations in the United States. The two leading conservative publications are happy to use the term, as I've shown. So is George F. Will, another leading conservative writer. So also is an article posted on the GOP's own website. I can find plenty of examples of prominent conservatives referring to themselves as being "the right." This is unproblematic, and your efforts to deny it seem to be based on no evidence at all. john k (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) My primary point is that the right do not accept the description. They do not see themselves as the party of the ruling class, supporting inequality or social hierarchy. Rather they see themselves as centrists, or reject the validity of the political spectrum as outdated, see their constituency as the middle class or society in general, support equality and oppose class systems. That is why Americans who consider themselves right-wing reject the description of the right as POV.

Incidentally although Buckley was never a Communist, his professor Willmoore Kendall who encouraged him to set up the National Review was close to the CPSU. He introduced him to James Burnham who enforced ideological purity at the National Review, Willi Schlamm who helped raise money for the magazine and Frank Meyer, who developed the ideology for the magazine. Sidney Hook, Chambers and John Dos Passos (who never became a Communist but was admired in the USSR) were also major contributers. So it is unsurprising that they would continue to use some of their older terminology.

Incidentally, before the NR no US conservatives called themselves right-wing (or conservative for that matter). BTW he US was founded before the terms right and left ever had any political connotations. The US conservatives who call themselves right-wing are writers not politicians and they actually represent a radical element within the US right.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

American Conseratives do tend to describe "the right" in different ways from how political scientists and such would, but you still have nothing but assertion to support your point that it's only "writers not politicians" who call themselves that, or the rather ridiculous claim that people like George Will represent "a radical element within the US right." As far as I can tell, no matter how many examples I give of Republicans and Conservatives saying they're on the right, you're going to keep coming back by saying that those conservatives don't count. And whether or not use of "the right" emerged in the 50s is pretty irrelevant - it is certainly used now, and used basically all the time, and there's no reason to think that Republicans reject the label. Obviously "left" and "right" are generally used less often in the US than elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that Republicans reject being on the right - they just don't. john k (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What the left and right are (and how the general public or scholars of political science view them) are sometimes at odds with (A) how each wing perceives itself and (B) how each wing describes the other. For example, conservatives (on the right) and liberals (on the left) disagree about which wing has contributed more to ending race discrimination in the US. Two Democratic presidents aided the US civil rights movement, so it would seem that the "left" did the most. But I've read a lot recently about conservatives (the "right") saying it was mo[re the Republican Right (particularly those in the middle class) who opposed race discrimination in its bastion, the US South.

There are many such disagreements. How can we describe these disagreements without making the article take sides? (Or should the article indeed take sides?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that southern Republicans were more opposed to Jim Crow than southern democrats in the 50s and 60s? Because that's demonstrably false - every southern Republican in congress voted against the Civil Rights Act. As far as outside the south, large majorities of both parties supported the civil rights movement, but pretty much the only legislators not from the south or border states to oppose the civil rights act were conservative Republicans (like Barry Goldwater). And prominent non-southern conservative intellectuals opposed civil rights - the National Review, notably, and William Rehnquist. And that's not even getting into the "southern strategy." At any rate, we should not look at what "conservatives" or "liberals" believe on the subject. We should look at what reputable scholars say. john k (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote:

"They do not see themselves as the party of the ruling class, supporting inequality or social hierarchy." - TFD

Yet I'm accused of "criticizing the Left"? This sort of thing is spread throughout the entire talk page, and I'm with John on calling it a 'No True Scotsman'. Self-proclaimed Republicans and "Conservatives" in the U.S. don't simply accept the label of "Right/Right-wing", but passionately defend it as well. I've never heard any Republican deny being "right" (no pun intended). People in America don't think of the term with the same spite and contempt you do. Your definition of "right" is heavily centred around the European "far-Left's" POV. I find it just as incorrect and distasteful as a "far-Right winger" coming here and describing all of their opponents as Bolsheviks. I'm also disturbed by the idea that the you hold concerning self-proclamations of political views. You say earlier in the talk that since Bolsheviks didn't identify themselves as "left" and/or the term was not applied at the time that, essentially, they could not be left. Yet every time someone presents either evidence [toward] or the suggestion that your portrayal of the "right" is incorrect, you say it doesn't matter; AND that it doesn't matter how they describe or think of themselves. Every time you speak of them, you try to outline a vast distinction from what they think/say and what they really are (according to your POV). Yet it matters immensely to you how the "left" thinks of and describes themselves. This wreaks of double-standard bias.

Please don't be offended, as it is not at all my intention. I'm just pointing out that this is going in circles and you are being far too resistant re-analysis and suggestions for improving the article and making it neutral. I realize politics is a sensitive topic, and I sincerely apologize if I've upset you or came off as being belligerent. But the fact is the article is extremely slanted (and gives a very negative (and incorrect) portrayal of the "right" and an almost god-like portrayal of the "left") and all attempts to reason are being unfairly thwarted by partisan loyalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

he fact is that the term "right" derives from the reactionaries of the French Revolution and Marxists then applied it to people they believed were supporting the ruling class of whatever country they were in. It is interesting that the "American Right" decided to pick up this Marxist terminology. It's probably because the majority of the founders of the New Right happened to be former Communists. BTW I have never heard any politician in the US refer to themselves as right-wing. The Republican Party is a member of a group of "center and center-right" parties. They normally call themselves "Conservatives". I did not say that the Bolsheviks were not left-wing, I removed the paragraph beginning "The Bolsheviks were certainly "of the left", and the advocates of Stalinist, Soviet-style communism considered themselves to be "leftist"." The significance is that this was part of a section about how the term evolved. They believed (in the 1920s) that they did not consider themselves leftist. Do you have any specific suggestions or sources for this article? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I most certainly do, which is why I'm here. I just want a bit of collaboration between us all to improve the article. I believe it's important, and a C rating and dispute of neutrality is unacceptable for it. To save some squabbling and headache, I will get all suggestions and material organized before presenting it. I will also create a valid account and contact you on your talk page to discuss it. Even though we're disagreed, you've been quite respectful, and I thank you for that. Just bear with me, as I'm a bit busy with work.

However, I wanted to notify you all that it appears we have some vandalism. I don't think this could possibly be right, lol. If you look at reference [8], you see this:

The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture

Charles T. Goodsell Says Fuck You British Journal of Political Science,

Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 287–302

I tried to access the edit page, but it's blank. I don't know how to fix it. :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.30 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the vandalism. You have to edit the text the footnote relates to, not the footnote section. When you look for sources, remember that the article is about the left-right distinction. Sources that state the distinction is meaningless are valid. There are separate articles for left, right and center. We have been unable to find many sources on this, other than the historical development of the terms. BTW, when you come back you should begin a new discussion thread at the end of this talk page so that other editors will be more likely to read it. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, TFD. I will be back asap. I understand the context of the article, but thanks for the tips nonetheless. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.28 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was a socialist

The article should have a section making it clear that Hitler was a socialist and a strong pro-state anti-capitalist dictator, perhaps someone could copy the points of the NAZI party declaration of principles and compare it to other socialist parties.

A clear definition of socialism would help too.

In any case I expect john k will have a heart attack. Agrofelipe (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that Agrofelipe is turning this into a forum - he is making arguments about what should be in the article. Those arguments are wrong, but that doesn't make his comment a forum type comment. To address the substantive points, my heart is fine, Hitler was not a socialist, statism is not left wing, Hitler was not anti-capitalist except insofar as he scapegoated the Jews for the evils of capitalism, and discussing the Nazi Party program in this article would be an example of undue weight, especially as the party program was basically a propaganda document whose left-wing seeming elements were not actually implemented when the Nazis came to power. john k (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hitler was not a socialist"

Proof? I mean besides your comments

"statism is not left wing"

Then you are denying that socialism has dominated over the left wing policies for over 150 years? Perhaps you should post your definition of left wing.

"Hitler was not anti-capitalist"

This is absurd and easy to counter by Hitler's own words:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and prosperity instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -Hitler

Agrofelipe (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read reliable sources:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.[15]

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, statism and socialism are not the same thing. There are forms of statism that are not socialist, and forms of socialism that are not statist. The Tsarist system, or Bach's bureaucratic police state in Austria, were hardly libertarian wonderlands, but they were certainly not socialist either. And there's an anarchist tradition within socialism that is much older than either the social democratic welfare state or the Bolshevik party dictatorship. As Four Deuces says, it's up to you to find reliable secondary sources to support your argument. Just repeating Jonah Goldberg arguments doesn't cut it. john k (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was a socialist, which would tend to make him lean toward the left, but he was also an anti-communist, which would tend to make him lean toward the right. He was also an authoritarian, an extreme nationalist, and an extreme racist, all views associated with the extreme right. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The "socialism" of Hitler was continuation of support for state-protected monopolies and the welfare state (also called State Socialism) that were introduced by Bismarck as Conservative chancellor for the German Empire. Whether you call this socialism or statism, it is right-wing. I am aware of the arguments that supporters of Louis XVI and George III were also left-wing but they have no credibility. Anyway even if you want to think of Hitler as left-wing, it is irrelevant to the article which is about the difference between left and right-wing viewpoints. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

All of this debate does INDEED show that this "spectrum" is flawed. If you aren't familiar with it, look up its origin during the French Revolution. Being "right-wing" meant you were a monarchist who supported the king, which was a BAD type of person to be at that time (the guillotine comes to mind). When you define your opposition's platform (or "wing" in this case), your system is already flawed. Furthermore, it's flawed by its very nature; being linear. It's based upon no form of reason, logic, the scientific method or anything such; only upon opinion, convenience, bias and personal interest. If you are on one "side", it serves you well to put the most absurd-sounding ideals and the most notorious and ruthless people on the other. That is exactly what has been done, and exactly what this particular argument is about.

In truth, Hitler does not fit on EITHER end of this spectrum. Technically, you could get away with claiming either one. He was INDEED a socialist, but also a nationalist hellbent on preserving German pride and sovereignty. He was an enemy of Capitalism, but a supporter of aristocrats and "big business" he approved of (which served him well). He was very militant, but also dreamed of an international society (molded to his likings of course). If you attempt to force Hitler on to the spectrum, you would have to bend it into a sphere, which should tell us all something.

Personally, I believe a new political spectrum is needed; which can be tested with the scientific method and built upon mathematics. In my free time I'm working on the algorithm to solve it (the "Political Theory of Everything", if you will; analogous to the "holy grail" of physicists and their "Universal Theory of Everything"), and lay out a set of basic, theoretical, political laws. So far, it has proven flawless even against intense peer scrutiny; but it has not had enough testing for public revelation. The day will soon come though, when it shall be introduced and demonstrated in a computer program.

I also find it ironic that the same people (arguing against the idea that Hitler was "left-wing" or Socialist) who used the argument that Republicans claim to be on the right, therefore are on the right, totally ignored one of Hitler's own quotes proclaiming to be a Socialist. With this "wing" system, it always turns out that the "other side" gets the madmen on their "team". Demonstrative of its complete design failure; and yet I'm unsure of whether it was actually "designed", or just came into existence in the public imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.24 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are of course American. Although the US has no right or left wing political tradition they have for some reason decided to adopt the terms left and right (in fact all mainstream American politics is centrist). They then re-apply their categories to foreign politics and - suprise, suprise - some left wing parties are really right-wing while some right-wing parties are really left-wing. Their onclusion: the spectrum is meaningless. It is like someone watching a black and white TV and saying that they think blue and red are really the same color. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your last sentence is pithy, TFD, but you also ignore the existence of a large number of better informed Americans. Also, whatever else might be said about the US political system, it does operate a to left-right model in the same way as the European system(s) do(es). It is just that some Americans don't understand their own political system. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One may analyze American political groups along a left-right axis, but it forms only a portion of the poltical spectrum one would see in the French national assembly, particularly throughout history. One does not see an American Right that argues whether their head of state should be a Windsor or a Stuart. Or an American Left that argues whether capitalism should be abolished immediately or phased out. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And you are obviously British? What does that matter? And what if you so happen to be dead wrong in your assumption (and rather ethnocentric remarks)? We all would like to think our own political system is the best or the only "right" way of doing things (no pun). This is an absolutely dead-end "argument" and a most unsavory one which ignores the points everyone has made. Based upon all of your arguments on this page, it's not difficult to ascertain which "wing" you support. The very fact that you are arguing from your platform of beliefs calls into question everything you are claiming here. I know, this usually is not valid ground to tread in a Wikipedia debate, but it's definitely within scope when the problem itself is bias.

One of the most academically appalling parts of this article is the "Typical positions" section. It's not hard to decide who wrote it. In Britain, the official census states that 71.6% of citizens identify themselves as Christians. In the United States, it is slightly higher (roughly 73-75%). Other religions make up the majority of the remainder. This only serves to point out that the "Right" could not be "typically religious" or "skeptical of science" (in the light it is portrayed, because skepticism is actually a part of the scientific method when based on reason). Otherwise, nearly the entire population would be on the "right"! You will observe nearly equal numbers of Christians, other religious sects and atheists on both of these so-called "wings". This assertion was only provided to make the "right" appear to be uncompromising Biblical literalists who reject science. Again, pointing out the logical fallacies this "spectrum" is based on; and who wrote its rules.

We still have to provide the article, obviously, as we do with other debatable and controversial material. Ideally, we are obligated to find more independent and unbiased writers for the article; but this will be difficult due to the amount of people who were raised to believe in this system and their particular "wing". So we should start by loosening the partisan domination here. That alone will attract more unbiased eyes for analysis. There's nothing wrong with presenting the so-called "left/right"-wing ideals; but there's everything wrong with defining the "other side" as your ideal strawman. I will feel just as strongly about eliminating bias if this tables were to turn; or if I found it in any other condition.

Obviously, I'm just one person so I can't walk in and rewrite the entire article without support (though I would willingly do so if asked and present it for review). So I'm ASKING for your support. Please, lay down your own beliefs for a minute and think about things. Re-read the article and think about which "wing" looks the best and most "reasonable" when you're done. Don't try to claim it's just because your side is "correct" or "superior". It's because people have let their feelings slip into the facts and the grey areas the spectrum leaves. You can throw in your ideals when you describe what you believe in; but you should not be defining the other "side" with what YOU believe they are.

Thank you for your time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.22 (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your unsigned rant against The Four Deuces is entirely unjustified. His edits are based on fact, not opinion. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding, but I certainly do not apologize for "ranting" or "attacking" TFD. That is completely untrue, and nothing "unjust" has happened here. I could have academically appreciated a countering dissertation, but I'm not at all, with all due respect, impressed with an absurd accusation like this. I might hack away at someone's assertions, but I never personally attack a person or call names. Let's get back in bounds here, please.

And I'm sorry, but when it comes down to politics, practically EVERYTHING is a matter of opinion and point of view. The only "facts" in most cases are raw statistics, which are manipulated on all sides, often times (but not always). There's an incredibly thin line between reality and reality within one's own mind. It's not like chemistry where we can proactively test assertions and ideas and come to blunt conclusions. When I have more free time, I'm going to re-read in full, trace all of the citations and sources, and see if I can observe the same integrity of information you seem to. But for now, work calls, and I've got a production schedule to meet. :)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Typical positions

I agree that the wording can be improved upon, however I don't think that the entire section should be removed. Any thoughts? -Regancy42 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone could find a single source for them. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to talk about this. It seems to take a rather biased position and some of the examples given seem to be there just to spark conflict. Serious rewording needed, though not sure how. Also, I agree, this needs to be credited to a single source. Thanks! 75.71.179.210 (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is terrible as-is. Someone is going to be able to go find a ton of books and articles to reference to back up any kind of political position, so the mere fact of having some references doesn't defend anything. Having wikipedia editors hand pick positions and references doesn't work. As the commenter above noted, a single or two reputable non-biased sources should be used to create this list of contrasting positions. I'm not sure if it's even possible to rewrite these without bias. Johnm4 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard provided an interesting comparison:

...one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order. Since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the Conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme “left,” and conservatism on the extreme “right,” of the ideological spectrum.[16]

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't citing an anarchist economist make that little snippet a bit POV? Admittedly, those positions are accurate when referring to the old right of the Industrial Revolution, but half of what he describes as right-wing would seem anachronistic to today's right; the references to class oppression, statism and irrationalism are particularly provocative. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the April 1 issue of Wikipedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the only universally accepted difference between left and right relates to equality, which Bobbio identified as the only universal variable. All other differences were seen as relative to specific circumstances. (That explains why views that are considered left-wing in one time or place may be considered right-wing in another.) So perhaps we should abandon this section as something for which sources cannot be found. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Partially agree with Deuces here, so I've removed that section. Its main problem is actually repetition, not lack of sources. The article makes some of these points before that section (particularly about the left supporting social change and the right supporting traditional social structures, which is the main dividing line between the two) and so the entire thing seemed unnecessary. Moreover, it's a bad idea to include sections with lists, unless the article is specifically a list! If it's not a list, the information needs to be written in summary style per WP:SS.UBER ^(talk) 19:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How would you explain the Quebec Liberal Party? In the 1970s their opposition changed from a reactionary conservative party {the Union Nationale (Quebec)) to a social democratic party (the Parti Quebecois). (This process has occurred throughtout the world but Quebec is a very recent example.) The Four Deuces (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, and frankly I don't care either. The point is that the deleted section was useless. I have no interest in discussing the Quebec Liberal Party.UBER ^(talk) 21:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that in the 18th century there was a left-right divide between tradition and progress. In the late 20th century the divide is between capitalism and socialism. The parties of the left in 1789 became the parties of the right by 1989. Why is it that liberalism is now considered right-wing? You must explain why the left-right divide is meaningful since what was left in 1789 is right in 1989. You seem to accept 18th century concepts as modern. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue here was a silly section that we both agree had to be removed. There is nothing else to discuss.UBER ^(talk) 02:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether the left-right divide is based on equality, tradition or private property. This is not a trivial issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Because capitalism came from the left in the late 1700s, while Marxist revolutionaries (hacks) started dismantling early concepts of the left-wing, specifically, bourgeoisie liberal capitalism, and won over a massive amount of radical leftist crowds with their socialism. Thus, the aristocracy, which stood for the original right-wing in Enlightenment times, sided with the middle-class bourgeoisie and adopted classical liberalism as their point doctrine, in turn leading to such ideologies as conservative liberalism and liberal conservatism to assist in bringing liberalism to the right, as we see it nowadays.--UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with The Four Deuces that the left-right divide has much to do with equality. Until the modern press got ahold of it, left always meant working class and right always meant upper class. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly that is what the terms Left and Right mean, and there are articles about both. But this article is about analysing any political spectrum. If you look at the seating in the European parliament, most parties are neither right nor left, but they are still arranged from left to right. Bobbio seems to be the only writer who has tried to explain the distinction.[17] The Four Deuces (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

classical liberals in 1789?

I don't think "orthodox" should link to "classical liberalism" nor that "classical liberalism" is the best way to describe economic views in France in 1789. I'm not changing this because I am not expert in this subject, but I think a change should be made by someone who knows more than I. Were the two parties both anti-tarriff? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to be re-written. Marcel Gauchet wrote a good article about the development of the terms.[18] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have re-written the section. It was tagged for lack of citations in 2008 and lack of neutrality in March 2009 and none of these issues have been resolved. A lot of the text seemed irrelevant since it related to opinions held by groups on the left and right side at different times, rather than how the terms evolved. If I have deleted anything that may be relevant I ask that proper sources be found so that it can be re-inserted. Also, it would be appropriate not to re-evaluate the tags. We also need histories of the left and right. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good rewrite Deuces. Per your work, I've removed the tags since they're no longer necessary.UBER ^(talk) 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) I put in a new section about the differences between left and right. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your recent revert, TFD. After the revert, the Right sometimes capitalized, sometimes not, and my fixes of agreement of subject and verb are changed back. If your only objection was to the phrase "and they see government action to improve the lot of the citizens as harmful to personal liberties." I wish you had just removed that one phrase. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted that. I had changed your edit because the source was different[19] and I think the meaning was different. TFD (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting back the purely grammatical parts of my edit. As for the disputed phrase, as always, I yield to your expertise on European politics. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces edit

Excellent quote, The Four Deuces. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

what's the opposite of irony?

I was looking at the page for "right wing" and in the first sentence it defines the term.

I looked at the article for "left wing" and it has four paragraphs of preamble establishing the confines of the discussion, then it lists some political philosophies that might be considered "left wing", then it finally starts going into some details about what "left wing" actually means.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory and I don't mean anything derogatory by pointing out the difference in the two articles. I don't have a particular point nor any sort of ax to grind. I'm not suggesting that changes are needed. (Unless maybe "Left-wing values include the belief in the power of human reason to achieve progress for the benefit of the human race, secularism, sovereignty exercised through the legislature, mistrust of strong personal political leadership, and social justice." be moved to the first sentence of this article.)

But I think that probably says more about the two different political philosophies than anything in the articles themselves. If nothing else, it definitely makes the case for the importance of "reason" for the left vs. the importance of "action" for the right.

In any case, thanks for humoring me. Yours, 71.182.136.214 (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)