Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
It would be nice to know what are/were each nation's right-wing political parties, and whom from said parties became a leader of state. Kingturtle 18:08 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
- 1 Impartiality, please
- 2 deleted and moved here
- 3 Be bold!
- 4 some hard-to-understand text deleted to here
- 5 a buzz of opinion
- 6 Comment on changes
- 7 Left wing facism
- 8 Hitler was a Leftist
- 9 What the article needs
- 10 edits wars/dubious content
- 11 Moving analysis of fascism to fascism article
- 12 More dubious content
- 13 Rewrite
This article, as it stands, has a rather blatant left-wing bias. For example, fascism is closely linked to right-wing thinking by only the third sentence! Since fascism is a 'radical' ideology it would be anathema to anyone who regarded themselves as a 'conservative'. (Furthermore, fascism advocates large, intrusive government, and therefore could be considered more akin to left-, rather than, right-wing philosophy, which advocates the exact opposite.)
Also: "in theory anyone has an equal chance in a free market. However in practice, a free market is likely [...] to result in [...] almost all of the real "power" held by a small percentage of the population. Hence, it can also be considered a doctrine of the right-wing." Hence? *Hence*? This seems to imply as /fact/ that a doctrine of the right-wing is that power should be held by a small percentage of the population--which is at best, a highly disputable opinion, at worst, a complete nonsense.
- I agree with this criticism. Economic ideology is better expressed somewhere else. I've tried to rewrite it with a NPOV. Let me know your thoughts.Drernie 21:10, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The article now seems to imply that "right-wing" is the same as "conservative", in the sense of resisting political change. However I have the impression that right-wing is defined simply by opposition to left-wing doctrines, not opposition to change in general. The leftist agenda is for government-mandated equality, in the mild version proposing equal rights for everybody under the law, followed by income redistribution through taxation, and in the extreme version progressing to communism. E.g., if the left propose abolishing a monarchy, then anybody who opposes this is on the right, and is also conservative. However if someone was to propose establishing a monarchy in a place where none ever existed, this would still be right-wing, but not conservative. Does this make any sense? ( 20:03, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- The concepts of political "left" and "right" will always be difficult to define precisely, because they are inherently amorphous, but I would say it is unfair to categorize right-wing thinking as merely being in opposition to change from left-wingers.
- Speaking from a right-wing perspective, I would say that right-wing ideology is fundamentally *pragmatic* in nature--i.e. right-wingers believe that change should take place in terms of *reform* of existing institutions which evolved over aeons and have successfully stood the test of time. Right-wingers are therefore naturally scornful of Marxist/Revolutionary "idealists" who believe in a "Year Zero", the discarding of all "old" ideas, and starting again from scratch (exemplified by such catastrophic failures Stalin's Five Year Plans, and Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution). In the case of the Cultural Revolution, 3000 years of Chinese culture was chucked down the pan, by "enlightened" left-wing philosophers--although this is an extreme example, most left-wingers aspire to re-invent society in some such manner, and this will always be opposed not only by those who revere the past, but by those who have any grasp of pragmatism.
- Although Libertarianism refuses to categorize itself as either left- or right-wing, I would say that many modern right-wingers are libertarian in nature, in that they believe in the freedom of the individual from the interference of the state, as opposed to the state-centric paternalistic view of the Left. Low taxation is a fundamental principle of the Right, and low taxation necessarily results in a smaller role for government, and (it is argued) therefore greater individual freedom.
Hmmm its difficult this right-left wing thing, It seems to be something you instinctively "know" whether something is left or right wing, but when you come to define it in detail it becomes very difficult.
There seems as far as I can tell, to be two different strands of right-wing politics which often contradict each other. There is a "conservative" right which generally opposes change from tradition, generally defends priveliged elites and wealthy interest groups, and opposes egalitarianism and is generally suspicious of rampant capitalism, often prefering protectionism, and favouring small business.
And there is the "free market" or "radical" right, who are perhaps best exemplified by say Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan who often profess to believe in traditional values etc, but advocate radical free market policies of deregulation, privatisation etc, which often have the effect of enacting far reaching social change and destroying "traditional values". As I say they can both be considered right-wing but often contradict each other. That's my thought on the subject anyway G-Man 20:36, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- As long as "right-wing" just means opposition to left-wing values, then there's no reason to expect it to form a coherent group. The "conservative" group are obviously opposed to any changes that the left may like to make. The "radical" group I suppose was tagged right-wing because it was reversing programs introduced by past left-wing governments: although some of their rhetoric was to suggest that the free-market would make everyone better off, in practice it seems that wealth tends to become concentrated. ( 20:54, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- At times, free-marketers have also joined supposedly left-wing parties (e.g., David Lange's government). Normally you wouldn't expect such coexistence, whether on the left or right. I suspect it only happens when first past the post voting is in force. ( 21:07, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Since the definitions of Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics appear so inextricably tied together, I am proposing a higher-level page called Left-Right politics whose purpose is to discuss their definition. That would allow the page for each wing to focus more on its unique characteristics (such as how it evolved in that country), rather than characterizing its opponents. What do you think? Drernie 21:41, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I think thats a good idea, so long as "left" "right" and "left wing" and "right wing" all link to it JackLynch 03:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
deleted and moved here
" However, in most western countries 19th-century laissez-faire economics is considered the traditional system, with 20th-century socialism a progressive departure, thus the advocates of the former are on the Right and the latter on the Left (though many would dispute this characterization). "
The very fact you have to mention that many, rather than some would object, should be a clue that this is not a good sentance. JackLynch 02:58, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"Libertarianism, Anarchism, Feminism and Green politics all defy simple classification on the traditional left-right axis, though (fairly or unfairly) the former is sometimes associated with the Right and the latter two with the Left, at least in the west."
Libertarianism is viewed as both left and right wing, depending on if it is social (left) libertarianism or economic (right) libertarianism. As for anarchism, feminism, and green politics.... I am extremely dubious that anybody (who agrees on strict definitions of terms) thinks of them as anything other than left politics. JackLynch 01:55, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm not going to delete the recently (anonymously) added paragraph, though it really annoys me when controversial material is added anonymously. For the record, the anonymously added material was:
- It should be pointed out however, that Fascism as a right-wing group is inaccurate. Many of the philosophers of Fascism such as Robert Michel, Sergio Panunzio and Giovanni Gentile were originally syndicalists, a group identified with the left. Bennito Mussolini himself was originally a socialist. Fascism is really the control of the government in a developmental dictatorship where land, labor, and capital is subordinated under the state for the good of the nation. This is more in line with stalinism and maoism than the traditional agendas of the bourgeoisie.
I think this falls in the tricky category of "technically true, but misleading." My own inclination is that at the very least, if this stands, there should be a reference to the article Nazism and socialism. However, this anonymous addition is really more about early Italian fascism than about how that and other fascist movements (such as Nazism) later played out, so that article is more an analogy to the issus at hand than actually addressing it.
There is no question that early fascism had some roots on the left as well as the right, and that there were even some revolutionary elements in fascism as a philosophy (even at a late date), ones that were in some cases in common with socialism. (See for example Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939 by David Schoenbaum, 0393315541). If I were so inclined, I could even list some Italian-American syndicalists who went to Italy to join the early fascist movement.
On the other hand, I think it is ridiculous to deny that fascism as it has actually played out has been firmly a right-wing ideology. Yes, most fascism (like Maoism and Stalinism) is totalitarian, and not a particularly bourgeois movement (especially not a haute bourgeois movement), but the totalitarianism of Maoism and Stalinism is not what makes them leftist. In fact, many on the left would call Maoism, and especially Stalinism "pseudo-leftist" for exactly that reason. Virtually everywhere fascists have come to power (e.g. Italy in the 20s; Germany, Spain and others in the 30s; Argentina in the 70s), there have been mass imprisonments or executions of leftists. Fascists have not performed equivalent mass imprisonments or executions of rightists. That alone should speak volumes. While the origins of fascism are firmly petit bourgeois, fascism in power has inevitably made its peace with the haute bourgeois, far more than with the working class.
World-wide, the bulk of international support for fascism has come from the political right. Look at how the US split on its attitudes towards Mussolini and Hitler in the 30s, or at how more recently the most ardent powerful US supporter of fascist regimes was Jesse Helms.
The thing is, I don't want to turn the article on Right-wing politics into an extended essay on why fascism should be, with slight qualifications, classified as right-wing. Maybe that deserves an article of its own (analogous to Nazism and socialism)? Maybe a Fascism and right-wing politics, with a paragraph or two summary here, but the sifting of evidence elsewhere? Anyway, I'm going to wait until a few people have commented before I start such an approach.
It would be very useful if the anonymous contributor would participate in this discussion, preferably after adopting some sort of user name, so that we can see what contributions come from a single person. -- Jmabel 08:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Since it's been over 48 hours and no one has chosen to respond to my remarks, I am going to feel free to edit accordingly. -- Jmabel 05:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sam Spade 07:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
some hard-to-understand text deleted to here
Hey, I found this sentence confusing, and mildly impossible to learn anythin from, so I moved it here
Some non-conservative groups also identify themselves as "on the right" (at least within some context) to indicate their opposition to the left, though such groups very likely dispute the left-right characterization altogether.
"Some groups" (which groups?) are "on the right", while being "un-conservative" (what does that mean? I've never heard of "un-conservative"), though those same groups (which groups?) are not likely to use terms such as right/left (directly contradicts the first part of the sentence).
--18.104.22.168 20:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
a buzz of opinion
Hmmmm. This article doesn't seem to say much, does it? It reminds me of that quip, paraphrased, "I can't you what right-wing politics means, but I know it when I see it." Surely we can introduce the topic in a more meaningful way than, "term right-wing is ... undefined" Mkmcconn — 03:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the following paragraphs, which seemed to me to add no substance that they didn't also take away.
- Today, conservatives often use the term "right" in a positive sense to refer to individual liberty and the social and economic institutions that support it, though the specific term "right-wing" has (until very recently) only been common in a negative usage by opponents. Fascist and neo-fascist groups also often embrace the term positively, which is one reason why mainline conservatives shun the term.
- Leftists often use the term "right-wing" as a pejorative label: they interpret the right as defending the traditional power of aristocrats, royalty, established religions and the wealthy against that of commoners. In this sense, the term has also become associated with nationalist or racist movements which promote the interests of a dominant majority, or, in cases such as apartheid-era South Africa, with a ruling minority, denying the rights of other groups. The radical right has associations with fascism or with terrorism, just as the radical left has associations with communism or with terrorism. Of course, most groups on the left and right tend to vigorously deny any such linkages.
More of what Mkmcconn removed:
- "the term ... refers to the segment of the political spectrum associated either with any of several strains of conservatism, or with opposition to left-wing politics."
- ". Some of the more extreme right-wing elements are also referred to as "reactionaries".
Also, the simple statement "While fascism is usually considered to be right-wing, it contains many differences from other politics that are usually classified as right-wing," was replaced by:
- "While fascism is usually called “right-wing”, it contains many elements that, from an American “right” or conservative perspective, appear similar to identical to the ideology and politics of the “left”. As such, it differs from other politics that are usually classified as right-wing. The biggest difference is that the modern right views individual liberty and responsibility as supreme and the state to be subservient to the individual and to support the economic and social institutions that support individual rights, while the “left”, which includes fascism, view the state or society as supreme to which the individual owes his subservience. It is this difference between primacy of individual rights as opposed to group rights and government control that splinters the “right” into warring factions."
I find most of these edits objectionable, especially the last one. I think it is absolutely absurd to claim that fascism is a movement of the left.
My feeling is that in general these edits constitute a gross insertion of POV. They also completely destroy what, up to now, had been a careful symmetry between this article and Left-wing politics, turning this into a pro-right-wing article, while the other (IMO) remains reasonably neutral.
I don't feel that I personally should revert any of this, because I was a major author of the article as it stood before. However, I would ask for someone other than Mkmcconn to please take a look at Mkmcconn's edits and weigh in.
Comment on changes
I find this sentence inadequate, "However, the term got much of its modern understanding from early 20th century usage, where it was used to distinguish nationalism (right) from internationalism (left)." There is a glaring omission here and in the article in general of the left as the party of labor and of the right as the party of capital (or of property and power). Additionally, as for example, expressed as imperialism as in the British Empire, conservatism combined nationalism with developed internationalism as might be said to characterize the modern American Council on Foreign Relations. Fred Bauder 13:44, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=3480375&oldid=3480342 I find excellent. If right-wing has no one definition, it has a number of generally accepted definitions (reminds me of the discussion of truth) some of which are much more generally accepted and can be included in the article. Fred Bauder 13:49, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Early 20th century usage arranged parties to the right and left of ultimate principles. In that case, nationalism (right) was distinguished from internationalism (left). In later times, the reference has been in terms of ideologies of progress. As much as the left seeks progress by departure from the status quo, the right seeks progress by staying the course. For this characteristic resistance to scrapping tradition, right-wing elements are sometimes referred to by their opponents as, "reactionaries".
has some problems. The most glaring is the failure to connect "reactionary" to its etymological roots as the reaction to left-wing excesses such as those of the French Revolution and of communism as it unfolded in practice during the 20th century. Innovative right-wing movements often seek some resolution which would resolve some social tension while preserving or even enhancing the status quo, for example, the social welfare reforms initiated in Germany by Otto von Bismarck. On the left the lure of social reforms which do not change the underlying power structure are often opposed especially by Marxist-Leninists. Fred Bauder 14:10, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
These two paragraphs which were removed:
Today, conservatives often use the term "right" in a positive sense to refer to individual liberty and the social and economic institutions that support it, though the specific term "right-wing" has (until very recently) only been common in a negative usage by opponents. Fascist and neo-fascist groups also often embrace the term positively, which is one reason why mainline conservatives shun the term. + - + -Leftists often use the term "right-wing" as a pejorative label: they interpret the right as defending the traditional power of aristocrats, royalty, established religions and the wealthy against that of commoners. In this sense, the term has also become associated with nationalist or racist movements which promote the interests of a dominant majority, or, in cases such as apartheid-era South Africa, with a ruling minority, denying the rights of other groups. The radical right has associations with fascism or with terrorism, just as the radical left has associations with communism or with terrorism. Of course, most groups on the left and right tend to vigorously deny any such linkages
are very much about usage of the phrase rather than about the underlining phenomenon. As an encylopedia article coverage needs to be about the phenomena themselves. Fred Bauder 14:10, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Let's try it this way, then. 1. Revert to the version prior to edits by User:Anonymous. 2. Add in the list items from the most recent anonymous edit. and 3. Go from there. Mkmcconn — 17:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
That about does it for me. In my opinion, the intro is now the perfect blend of information and evasiveness appropriate to the subject-matter. If I did not address all of the concerns expressed above, please feel free to revise or revert what I have done. Mkmcconn — 18:33, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
So long as we are rid of the claim that fascism is part of the left, I'm basically OK with going from here. -- Jmabel 18:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Left wing facism
Can you cite one encyclopedia or dictionary (political, philisophical or general) that makes much a mention? AndyL 19:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the section on fascism, modifying all statements which seemed to imply that fascism is part of a monolithic right wing, by limiting the terms of comparison. If I'm catching Sam Spade's reference correctly, I agree that it is a commonplace in many conservative writings, especially on economics, that there is a strong family resemblance between modern-day (American) "liberals", and the anti-libertarian rhetoric and policies of the fascists. Mkmcconn — 20:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm fine with your changes. It's one thing to point out differences between fascism and other right wing ideologies or to point out that some argue that fascism or Nazism borrows some ideas from the left. It's another to say they are left wing or that there is a serious claim they are left wing. AndyL 20:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Sam, can you cite one encyclopedia or dictionary (political, philisophical or general) that refers to fascism as left-wing?AndyL 23:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Hitler was a Leftist
- Hitler was a Leftist - an extensive case providing evidence in favor of refering to Hitler as a Left-winger by Dr. John Joseph Ray
No Hitler was a racist warmonger. Domination by the majority ethnic group is generally considered right wing as are dreams of empire.
- If those are common definitions, it would strike me strange that they arn't in the article. Perhaps that is because they are innacurate? Sam Spade 03:14, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sam, I haven't worked at all on the article, but I think nationalist empire-building could be in the article. The British Empire was generally more popular with the Conservative Party I think. But there are confusions, for example the Soviet Union was also an expansionist empire. Likewise with racism, you don't need to go too far to find leftists who engage in systemic racism, again the Soviet Union will do for an example. But perhaps the exception proves the rule. Fred Bauder 23:11, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
This (the claim that Hitler was a leftist) is a claim so silly as to be hard to argue with. It's like arguing with someone who says, "Actually, Oliver Cromwell was Jewish." -- Jmabel 04:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- Did Cromwell claim to be Jewish? From what we have recently discussed on the wiki style guide, I seem to remember that we are to call people/groups what they call themselves? Hitler called himself a socialist, and so did Mussolini. Sam Spade 07:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Mussolini called himself a socialist *before* he became a fascist. He never called himself a socialist once he adopted fascism and spoke and wrote vehemently against socialism.AndyL 08:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- (1) concur with AndyL on Mussolini. (2) No, Cromwell never claimed to be Jewish! But plenty of anti-Semites have made that claim, pointing at (among other things) his extreme focus on the Old Testament God as against the other two aspects of the Christian Trinity. That was a rhetorical flourish, not an argument I am willing to pursue at length in a discussion of an entirely other topic. -- Jmabel 22:37, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you bring something to the table, I will make use of it, and as is usual for a pundit such as he, andy fails to address the blaringly obvious quotes cited above, which I will cite again here for rhetorical flourish ;)
- Hitler was a Leftist - an extensive case providing evidence in favor of refering to Hitler as a Left-winger by Dr. John Joseph Ray
Look, as I've said in the talk page of the article on fascism it is perfectly relevant in the article on fascism to talk about the fact that there were weighs that some socialist and anarchist currents fed into some aspects of fascism. (For this particular material, I would think the article on Nazism would be the most appropriate place.) Yes, the NSDAP program in the 20s had some socialistic aspects, although (1) most of them could as easily be called Bismarckian (or do you also consider Bismarck a leftist?) and (2) many of these aspects were identified with precisely the wing of the party that was largely purged in the period in which Hitler consolidated power as we've discussed in talk page of the article on fascism. To say, however, that this makes Hitler a leftist is like saying Ronald Reagan is a leftist because he was once president of a labor union or Irving Kristol is a leftist because he was once a Trotskyist.
From several things you've said, I gather that you don't find the categories of "left" and "right" to be particularly meaningful or useful. Well enough. This article (and the many related articles) overtly discuss the fact that these categories are not universally accepted and that the meanings of the terms are somewhat in dispute (see especially left-right politics for this last). Perhaps there is something useful to be said in left-right politics or in political spectrum using Nazism or fascism as an illustration of why these categories are problematic. However, overwhelming common usage considers Nazism and fascism to be part of the right, and they belong in a article on right-wing politics along with a good deal of clarity as to where they differ from other politics generally called right-wing.
I have no interest in tarring conservatism with the brush of Nazism, but I increasingly feel that you are precisely trying to do the symmetric opposite: to somehow tie fascism and Nazism to ideologies you abhor (mainly socialism, which you seem to define so broadly as to include most of the [[United States Democratic Party: after all, the page you cite says Hitler was a leftist because his programs had some points in common with those of FDR!) and then claim that what they have in common constitutes their essence, and that therefore they are one and the same thing. You have every right to hold this thesis. You have every right to practice believing three impossible things before breakfast. But it has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia article.
Jmabel 23:48, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with all of the substance of that, altho not the tone, particularly not in your conclusion. So long as their is a good deal of clarify that, among other things, some consider Nazism/Facism to be left wing, rather than right, or at least that a good many find Right-wing politics to be a poor catagory for these ideologies. My opinion about what is where on the political spectrum is in pretty close accordance to but my opinion really shouldn't be an issue here. Likewise my abhorance of Socialism is seriously questionable considering I myself am left/centrist according to the the test on http://politicalcompass.org/. The point is that there are valid objections, and clarification is necessary. Sam Spade 00:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Sam, I don't want to get into another tedious "is fascism socialist, is Nazism socialist" debate. Instead I'll refer you to Myth: Hitler was a leftist. In any case, my question is still on the table: can you cite one encyclopedia or reference book that either calls fascism "left wing" or says that whether fascism is left or right is open to debate? We are trying to emulate encyclopedias here and if any general, political or philosophical encyclopedia makes the points you do I'll concede. We should base ourselves on scholarship not on what particpatns at debate night at the local Ayn Rand club meeting would argue. AndyL 00:48, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
And Sam, I'm sorry to break this to you but your chart is bunk. There was actually a great degree of econmic freedom under fascism. AndyL 08:36, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
What the article needs
- As it stands, the article discusses several arguably leftist aspects of fascism, but says almost nothing about the rightist aspects. I would hope that the latter would be addressed before any expansion of the former, or this article will become very imbalanced.
- There is almost nothing in the article about conservatism or any other right-wing position except fascism. Yes, we have a perfectly good article on conservatism, but some of it should be here as a digest, in a section with an indication where the main article is.
- Similarly for "reactionary."
- Per a remark Fred Bauder made elsewhere, there should certainly be discussion of the relation of the contemporary right and capitalism. Probably (this is me now, not Fred) including the irony that the original right supported an ancien régime that was emphatically pre-capitalist.
- Again, per a remark Fred made elsewhere, there should be some discussion of tradition, religion, and (my extrapolation) nationalism.
Jmabel 05:01, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
edits wars/dubious content
This article seems to have tendencies toward pathological muddification. Instead of giving examples of how blurry the terminology is, it seems to me that it would be much more productive to explain, for example, why China is not called right-wing (and rightly or wrongly, this is the case), and the reasons that despite similarities, a fascist nation, like Franco's Spain and unlike modern China, is called right-wing. The article must be saved from seeming to report that anyone who uses the terminology as it is most commonly used, applying it as it is typically applied, is the victim of some kind of secret conspiracy. Well ... language is a conspiracy in the truest sense; but it is a most open one, into which we each have an almost intuitive insight, because we are participants in it! Don't make it seem so darn mysterious. Mkmcconn — 20:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Look, Mkmcconn, I agree with you that we'd be better off without this stuff in the article, but people keep reinserting it and there is no way we are going to convince them not to. So I try each time to remove blatant bias instead of deleting outright, because the latter just makes for edit wars.
- The last three days I've spent nearly all of my Wikipedia time dealing with matters (mostly lacking in much substance) where people are fighting POV wars over articles instead of adding anything substantive. I've come to accept that in a consensus process, controversial articles are going to contain some content I think is useless because someone else thinks it's important. I'd really like to keep the battles mostly to the things where someone wants to say things that are just plain wrong rather than to things I just think aren't so important: section 'em off and let people make their own decision whether they care to read the section. Then get on to writing meaningful content instead of fighting petty edit wars. -- Jmabel 20:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
There needs to be some explanation that these terms are relative rather than absolute. Maoists, for instance, would refer to the Chinese Communist Party as right wing deviationists (just as in the late 1920s Bukharin and Rykov were the "Right opposition"). AndyL 03:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- I have no argument with saying that the terms are relative - and the article said this at every turn. But the recent anonymous additions tend toward making the terms seem, not only relative but, arbitrary and meaningless. I admit that it's quite a challenge to identify what the terms of measurement are, that are relevant at any point across the spectrum - but, that is what this article promises to at least attempt. I'm thinking that it fails whenever editors misunderstand the task, and begin to write as though they are writing about a really objective thing, rather than relative comparisons across a spectrum. What do you think? (I also wonder about that term "reactionary" - which I've always perceived as a purely pejorative label, not an objective measure of "extremism". It seems to me that anyone can be labelled a "reactionary", if they are critical of the left.) Mkmcconn — 16:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Moving analysis of fascism to fascism article
I think a brief paragraph stating that fascism is considered by some authorities to be right-wing with links to fascism and nazism should consitute the entire section on fascism and nazism. I think this article should be restricted to mainstream conservative political tendencies. Including analysis of fascism only confuses the issue as we are attempting to analyze too wide a range of concepts. Fred Bauder 23:11, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Does someone want to do this? -- Jmabel 23:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- Having analysis of fascism in the fascism article is not putting it under the carpet, it is putting it in the fascism article. Fred Bauder 00:47, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
- If you limit the article to conservative and libertarian viewpoints you still have plenty of ambiguity to discuss. Fred Bauder 01:28, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with FredAndyL 23:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
More dubious content
- "Today, in many issues, right-wing dichotomy is set by position on national conflicts, rather than economic differences. The War on terror campaign, led by the United States, and the Israeli war against Palestinian terrorism are probably the issues that separates left from right. While right movements are hawkish and support the war on terror (including military operations against terror-sponsoring states) and emphasis the need to unite against Islamic terrorism threats (such as Al-Qaida, Hamas and Arab dictatorships), left wing movements are more dovish and rule out military actions against extreme Arab regimes as violation of human rights and international law (see also: Anti War protests).
The Neo Conservatives (NeoCons) are a representers of the current right ring politics."
Besides the fact that its not very well written (I've fixed the outright spelling errors), I don't think it's accurate, and (since it's currently without attribution to any authoritative source), I think it needs to be either better fleshed out or deleted.
- The first phrase, "Today, in many issues, right-wing dichotomy is set by position on..." is so confused I don't even know what it intends to mean, so I didn't try editing it.
- There are plenty on the right who have demurred from the War on Terror as expansively cast by the Bush administration. For starters, Jacques Chirac of France is hardly a leftist. In the US, there is still an isolationist streak on part of the right (think Pat Buchanan) and there are others on the right (e.g. John McCain) who have raised many of the same human rights concerns as are more prevalent on the left.
- Neoconservatives are certainly hawkish. That is part of what distinguishes them from some othe classes of conservatism, as well as from much of the left. But John Kerry, for example, seems at this point (June 2004) pretty hawkish on Iraq (says he will actually increase troops if elected). Does that make him right-wing? I guess the case could be made, but it would certainly not be the majority view.
- The very notion of "terror-sponsoring states" is inherently POV. It should always be qualified by who characterizes them as such. Is bombing civilian populations terror? How about mining harbors? Torturing suspects? I assume everyone can see where I'm going.
- I for one don't buy the argument that "Islamic terrorism" is a different matter than Jewish, Christian, Hindu, agnostic, or Wiccan terrorism, with the exception that the last probably doesn't exist.
I could probably say more. Again, the upshot is that this should either be reworked with clarity, accuracy, and sourcing, or it should be deleted.
User:MathKnight, with whom I have an NPOV dispute on these matters at left-wing politics seems to have chosen to ignore my comments above and plow further in this direction. For example: "Most right wing groups support the use of military measures against terrorist organizations and terror supporting states." Would that include, say, right-wing Arabs? "...the majority of them [believe] that terrorism is an absolute evil..." This is just silly, especially with no citations.
I could go on, but I am hoping someone else edits this recent addition before I have to seriously engage. Would someone else involved in this page please take a good look at this? -- Jmabel 20:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)