Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Vision Thing's comment

Moving the discussion to the bottom of the page:

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

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

Factual accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do agree that we digress.

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

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

External links

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

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

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

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

Fascism

I wanted to revert Deuces's edit, but I'm not looking forward to entering an edit war. Ignoring Rick's personal comment that I'm a right-winger and that I don't acknowledge the fact that Mussolini was one of my kind (while it's true that I'm a right-wing man, I don't think someone has the right to manipulate an article for his own political enjoyment): why do we insist on having fascism stated in this lead, where it seems that a few days ago the listing of conservative/fundamentalist/traditionalist was fine, today is countered by the inclusion of fascist by an IP, backed by someone who has a history of anti-Right populism in his writing, and all of a sudden we need to change the parameters of the lead because someone wants to state his likely leftist bias and screwing a perfectly balanced lead? Fascism is stated in the Varieties section of this article as a type of extremist Right, and, in my opinion, we don't need to state an extreme view in a lead where the most common and basic beliefs of the Right are listed. Like I said before, fascism has a place in the far-right article, not here. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Standard reference works call Mussolini right-wing. That is not to say that Mussolini was "one of (your) kind". I don't think that at all. I think Mussolini was right-wing and that you belong to a movement that has chosen, for reasons I cannot fathom, to use that name. If, as I suspect, you have nothing in common with the right-wing, wouldn't it make more sense to call your group something else?

Rick Norwood (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead should make clear that there were major political groups parties identified as right-wing that were anti-liberal from the French Revolution to the end of WW2. Most of these groups then disappeared except in southern Europe, Latin America, Quebec and a few other places. However the term right-wing then came to be applied to liberal conservatives (e.g., UK Conservatives), conservative liberals (e.g., Japan's Liberal Democrats) and other parties that had been considered centrist. Most of these parties reject the "right-wing" label because do not see themselves as a continuation of authoritarianism. However for some reason in the US and to a limited degree in other countries, some political groups have embraced the term "right-wing" and challenge the credentials of some of the members of the traditional right, going so far as calling them left wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a very contentious and bias addition. Fascists are certainly not part of the traditional right, far or otherwise. They didn't even exist when the traditional right was defined following the French Revolution. Which is made up of monarchists, theocracists and reactionaries. Mussolini was a revolutionary, who began his career as a Marxist and claimed as his biggest influence Georges Sorel, the revolutionary syndicalist. He and his movement are to the left of Bonapartism. It is absolutely disputed where this is on the political spectrum and as thus should not be included here. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That is an example of what I am talking about: "some political groups have embraced the term "right-wing" and challenge the credentials of some of the members of the traditional right, going so far as calling them left wing." The Four Deuces (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you seem to be confused, or at least not very well read on the subject. Study the origins of the political spectrum—when it was first traditionally defined following the French Revolution, on the right were Theocratic Catholics and the Absolute Monarchists. It has always been disputed whether fascism is on the right, since it emerged during the 1930s (more than a century after the traditional definition of "the right"). Even by fascists themselves, such as Oswald Mosley who presented themselves as a third way. Though the left, especially in North America, seem to try to negate the complexities of this quite persistently, especially the inconvient fact that Mussolini began as a Marxist and throughout his career was influenced most prominently by Georges Sorel. Most scholars on fascism disagree with your opinion, to put it bluntly. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No the dispute was about fascist ideology c. 1919-1921 and there is no academic dispute that fascist government or ideology after that time was right-wing. In fact all right wing ideology since 1789 has had some influence from the center or the right. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini used the term fascism to describe his policies, having contrary definitions and meanings over the years. Trying to define it as "right-wing" is really unrealistic considering the contrary and "third-way" aspects of it. Soxwon (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that all of this discussion is about lables and none about policy. The article should be about right-wing ideas, not who gets to use the term on their bumper sticker. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 3 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'[1] 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)

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).[2] 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[3], 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)

Here is the Random House Dictionary 2009 definition:

33. the Right, a. the complex of individuals or organized groups opposing change in a liberal direction and usually advocating maintenance of the established social, political, or economic order, sometimes by authoritarian means. b. the position held by these people: The Depression led to a movement away from the Right. Compare left 1 (defs. 6a, b). c. right wing. 34. (usually initial capital letter) the part of a legislative assembly, esp. in continental Europe, that is situated on the right side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more conservative or reactionary views than the rest of the members. 35. the members of such an assembly who sit on the Right.

Since the Right is a European concept and has changed since the 1815-1830 Bourbon monarchy, there is disagreement over where the term should be applied to contemporary British politics and many of the parties people want to list are actually liberal or centrist. The Left is different because it has a shared history (First International).

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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.[4] 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)

that logic is beside me:

Benito Mussolini wrote his own little news paper called La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle) which was ferociously anti-capitalist, anti-militarist, and anti-Catholic.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/348552/La-Lotta-di-Classe

"The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism." Karl Marx (On the Jewish Question)

Early Nazi Adolf Stocker put it this way: “the Jewish questions — always and everywhere — has to do with economic exploitation.”

In other words the Nazi’s attacked the Jewish people because they were capitalists.

--OxAO (talk) 16:14, 9 June 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)

"fascists were considered right wing by their contemporaries. Churchill for example used the term.

no, Churchill never called the fascists right wing. He supported the Fascists over the communists but that doesn't make them right wing.

--OxAO (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Churchill never supported fascists, and he called them right-wing while he called communists left-wing as reference shows. He did not call himself right-wing, in fact he was a Conservative. However, as you correctly pointed out, calling conservatives "right wing" was invented by the communists. Because the founders of modern American conservatism were 90% communists, they adopted marxist terminology to describe U. S. conservatism. TFD (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

your link only shows Churchill saying the Nazi's might of been different from the Communist but it didn't matter.

your statement whoever these 'founders of modern American conservatism' were 90% communist? Do you mean 'were' in the sense they changed their view point or were in the sense they still were communists? Where did you find that information?

--OxAO (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2010 (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)

You guys are wrong about a great many things. Government Moral laws including Alcohol, drugs and prostitution was started under the socialist Woodrow Wilson and pushed more by Roosevelt. Tougher immigration if you imply we should allow known murderers and rapist to walk across the border unchecked then yeah we need tougher immigration.

To not have one language at government levels means we need over a hundred different translations for everyone to read in their native tongue, even Russia and Iran prints their government materials in English to cause less problems. The Patriot act not great but temporary and far better than a state of war.

added: Just read about "Academic Bill of Rights" sounds like a great idea to keep propaganda of any kind out of the class room. How can anyone be against that?

--OxAO (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck is not really a reliable source. Wilson in fact opposed Prohibition in the United States. TFD (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Woodrow Wilson vetoed the Volstead Act but once it was signed into law he supported Prohibition on Beer and didn't take that part to the Supreme courts. What does Glenn Beck have to do with anything? I have listened to him three or four times and can honestly say, I can not trust much of what he says.

My point is the Moral laws started under Wilson using the war as an excuse for moral laws using the The Committee on Public Information and other new organizations to implement their own morals on the public. Wilson was a big left wing Socialist supporter.

--OxAO (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned Beck because he is the original source of the misinformation you presented. Wilson of course put socialists in jail he ended the CPI in 1919. And of course socialists opposed the war and prohibition. It seems you have a lot more in common with socialists than Wilson did. TFD (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how Beck is he source when I read about this in the 1990's?

Wilson ended the CPI in 1919 so the war ended in 1918 why did it last that long after the war was over?

One example of a socialists put to jail was:

Eugene Debs whom who was a socialists that spoke out against Woodrow Wilsons war. He put anyone that spoke out against his agenda in jail. Which this doesn’t have anything to do with either of their politics, It has to do with the CPI which is a war time effort to force citizens not to talk about the war.

These are socialist’s statements not conservative:

Woodrow Wilson said that Evolution is "not theory, but fact" that "Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice."

Wilson even mocked individual rights: "a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual"

“Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand.”

“All that progressives ask or desire is permission–in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word–to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”

--OxAO (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

William Jennings Bryan, the progressive whom enemies called a "hillbilly" socialist, was the leading opponent of evolution (see The Great Monkey Trial). I can see no difference between your comments and those of socialism. TFD (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2010 (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)

"reactionary parties" I am going to take this issue up. It is a condescending remark directed only at right wing groups and started by leftest and should be omitted. Reactionary at least the term should be used by either left or right wing. For example: the left is very reactionary to fight global warming during technically an ice age.

--OxAO (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2010 (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No idea what you mean by "left" or what they think. Both the Conservative Party (UK) and the Conservative Party of Canada support the monarchy. Ian Gilmour named support of monarchy one of the main principles of the party. Liberal does not necessarily mean the opposite, but often includes both. See the Liberal International website that shows pictures of Hayek, Mises and Rand, but also Hobhouse, Roepke and Rawls.[5] TFD (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That is absolutely incorrect, wrong and is insulting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealand does not have a conservative party. Rogernomics, which included cutting agricultural subsidies and trade barriers, privatising public assets and the control of inflation through measures rooted in monetarism was carried out under the socialist New Zealand Labour Party after 1984. After the socialists tired of these liberal policies, their author, Roger Douglas, left to set up ACT New Zealand. ACT considers itself "liberal" and they are critical of the "conservatives" in the New Zealand National Party which they call "statist" and "not a safe home for liberalism".[6] It would be an insult to call them conservatives. TFD (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another clip from M. Friedman: "I never characterize myself as a conservative economist. As I understand the English language a conservative means conserving, keeping things as they are. I don't want to keep things as they are True conservatives today are the people who are in favor of ever bigger government."[7] TFD (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

tradition

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

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

Source questionable

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

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

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

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

The document is real and was originally leaked on Wikileaks. You can read about the controversy in Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC). The source used for this article is WorldNetDaily's website, but you can read the report at the Federation of American Scientists' website[8] and other places as well. TFD (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

I have requested semi-protection for this article here. TFD (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The IPs are now blocked.[9] TFD (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Right wing

The term "Right Wing" tends to have more than one definition. While the definition of 'resistance to change' is often used, it is not the sole definition employed. In the west, "Right Wing" often refers to those things that are in line with Church doctrine. This definition of right wing is also in line with the origin of the term in the French Revolution, when the church was allied with the monarchy.

For example, many people considered "right wing" are opposed to certain socialistic government programs, even though those programs have been around for nearly a century or more. While the notion of "Right Wing" as resistance to change is confounded by this apparent attempt at change, the notion that western conservatives conserve particular religious values is amenable to it. Obviously this notion would need to be sourced. But it's worth considering digging up sources which establish this definition. I will when I have more time. --Ryan W (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are trying to completely redefine the term contrary to established academic usage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

By way of illustration, a quote from the book I happen to be reading at the moment, "A History of the Twentieth Century" by Martin Gilbert. "It was the right, not the left, that was gaining the initiative in the streets of Germany. ... They were, Hitler explained in the first issue of their own newspaper, the SA Gazette, not only an instrument for the protection of the Nazi movement, but were 'primarily the training school for the coming struggle for freedom'..."

Anyone who lived through World War II knows that Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were commonly described as being on "the right" while Stalin and Mao were commonly described as being on "the left", with America staunchly liberal, meaning neither on the right nor on the left. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Saddhiyama and Rick Norwood. TFD (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We are going around in circles here. As was discussed previously here, we don't source Wikipedia articles from personal anecdotal evidence, but from reliable published sources such as Zeev Sternhell, an expert on Fascism, who states "Fascism is 'ni droite ni gauche', neither right nor left." No consensus developed for adding "fascism" to lede in that previous discussion. --Martin (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Martintg, give us a break. Sternhell, while a scholar has extreme views that no other scholars accept. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear these fringe views brought up over and over again. If I want to read them then I will stop reading Wikipedia and get all my info from Glenn Beck's website. TFD (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful. Arkon (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's stick with mainstream opinions. TFD (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your stomach reactions are original research. Sticking to one-sided sources and calling them mainstream does not make them so. - BorisG (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is when we approach a topic we should look at what mainstream opinion is rather than look for sources that support our own point of view. Sternhell's views are not widely held, and I do not see why editors are continually using sources like that. TFD (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for sources that support our POV, then calling them mainstream, does not make them so. Mainstream is in the eye of the beholder. - BorisG (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If mainstream were in the eye of the beholder, then Wikipedia would not exist. In spite of extreme views from the Right and the Left, there is a mainstream consensus, ideas accepted by a majority of informed sources. This mainstream is represented in print encyclopedias, such as the Britannica, in The World Almanac, in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in other standard reference books. When books and articles are referenced, they should show an awareness of this mainstream opinion, show caution where they depart from it, and offer overwhelming evidence for any such departures. Wikipedia should cite such departures only with a note that they are departures from the mainstream, and in all such cases give more than one source, unless the subject of the article is the book or its author. Wikipedia should avoid referencing books that show no knowledge of the mainstream, make a large number of non-mainstream claims, and assert opinions without evidence. Such books are notable for disagreeing with each other, and growing more and more divergent. Books of substantial value build toward a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. But the process of defining mainstream sources should be decided by the consensus of the editors, not just declared by one or two editors. Mainstream encyclopedias such as Brittanica are very careful about labelling movements, people etc. And they are also careful of presenting opinions, however mainstream, as facts. And also in declaring what is mainstream. Also all significant minority opinions have to be mentioned. This probably includes all scholarly opinions. The best thing we can do when discussing controversial issues is attribute every major opnion like many scholars consider etc, rather than present them as facts. The problem is when a handful of editors decide for the whole of wikipedia what mainstream is. Anyway, enough of these meta discussions. I'd better try to contribute content. Time for me to put up or shut up. - BorisG (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)