Talk:Right-wing politics

reactionary as anti-authoritarian in the U.S.

Persons in the U.S. who oppose authoritarian command and control, big government programs such as socialized medicine, progressive taxation, welfare, affirmative action, increased funding for public education, gun control, etc. are often called reactionaries. This usage is obviously being used on persons who are anti-authoritarian, and other than the perjorative tone of those who are using this term, what else could they mean? If they mean something else, we must have to read their minds. If the usage of reactionary in the US were authoritarian, it would be used in the opposite direction. However, I don't think the anti-authoritarian usage is even exclusive to the U.S.A, because throughout the world socialist/marxist/communist/totalitarian types have used it on those they disagree with, also obviously an anti-authoritarian usage, again mixed with perjorative overtones, for some strange reason, perhaps this is the last residual holdover from its usage in the French revolution.--Silverback 17:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is the notion that socialized medicine, progressive taxation, welfare, affirmative action, increased funding for education, gun control, etc., are "authoritarian command and control".

Unsigned one, try achieving any of those without government guns, and then tell me whether it is a mere "notion"--Silverback 03:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The American government has far more guns than any country that has socialized medicine, progressive taxation etc. Moreover, the US government is fare more prone to use its guns against its citizens than Canada or any EU country.AndyL 03:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind that most of the people who oppose those things do so because they hate democratically-elected governments liberating people from the authority of the churches and the rich.

Why bear something so contrary to the evidence in mind? Do you have evidence? The right does not "hate" democratically-elected governments, they want them so limited it doesn't matter who is elected. It is the left that chooses to amass power in the government, assuming they will never lose an election and then whines and hates when someone else gets control of all that power. The statist marxists are an exception, they make sure they election they win is the last contested election.--Silverback 03:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They're not anti-authoritarian - they worship authority and what they want is authority that is completely unaccountable and can do whatever it likes. We aren't talking about anarchists here - and anyone who opposes socialism but isn't an anarchist is more authoritarian than the socialists. Rember, socialism is closer to the far-left/anarchists than to the far-right/fascists, and most of those who oppose socialism do so from the right. They are more authoritarian than the "big government" types because they want to replace government with arbitrary authority and unaccountable rule.

What a European notion. It is Europe that creates raises the strawman choice of Stalin on the left and Mussolini on the right and the complains that Stalin shouldn't be on the left. In the U.S.A, it is all totalitarianism (Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler) on the left and limited government classical liberals, like Washington and Jefferson on the right. At least there is a choice. On the right, the anarchists are welcome if they are not coercive.--Silverback 03:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So socialism (which does, after all, believe in limited government - government limited by constitution and democratic accountability, as opposed to unaccountable government of whatever size and uncontrolled authority whether it be government, religion or big business) and anarchism are right-wing in America? And conservative/reactionaries like Stalin, Moa, Mussolini and Hitler are on the left in America? That is interesting.

I guess in Silverback's mind Emperor Nero, Henry VIII, Metternich, Kaiser WIlhelm and Louis XIV were all leftists too. AndyL 06:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a single scale is not very informative, however, all were in favor of a more powerful central government, including the use of troops domestically than the American right would ever tolerate. Now the left would like to claim if they had the power of these autocrats that they would do more "good" with it. The right would not want to trust anyone with that much poorly constrained power. That government is best which governs least.--Silverback 06:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you do think Metternich, Henry VII etc were left wing!

Neo-con vrs. paleo-con vrs. classical liberal

When silver back says "Right" he clearly means either libertarian or possibly paleo-con. He clearly does not mean monarchist, fascist, or neo-conservative. When other people say right wing, they do sometimes mean these things. When some people say left, they mean to say social liberal. When other people say left, they mean central planning. This is very difficult for those who prefer social and economic laissez faire, like for example libertarians. What we need to do in this article is clarify all the different possible uses of the term "Right-wing" and distinguish between them, since they are clearly not all the same. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When silver back says "Right" he clearly means either libertarian or possibly paleo-con. He clearly does not mean monarchist, fascist, or neo-conservative.

Pretty good reason why silverback is not one to be an arbiter on what is right and left wing. AndyL 14:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lets consider this further - in Silverback's intellectual universe King Louis XVI of France and the ultramontainists defending the ancien regime in the 1789 Estates-General were left wing and the authors of the Declaration of the Rights of Man were right wing! Brilliant, except of course that the concept of right wing and left wing were coined in the Estates General to describe those sitting to the right of the speaker and those sitting to the left and Silverback's political spectrum is the exact opposite of what those who coined the terms right and left had in mind. AndyL 14:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is right, that is the difference between European and american application of the terms. "Conservatives" in the USA are trying to preserve a "liberal" constitution and the heritage of the revolution, and for some reason became identified with the right, despite the fact that in Europe the original mean of right was identified with the type of government system that the colonists revolted against. It isn't that hard to understand. You are trying to mock again, but must be only feigning that this is beyond your ken.--Silverback 16:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that must be it. It's actually because I get the impression that you see "right" as being anything you like and "left" as anything you don't like. Not a very useful compass for scholars. AndyL 17:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And of course you are wrong as far as the American context is concerned. Those colonists who opposed the American Revolution were called Tories, after all and were on the right of the political spectrum. AndyL 17:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to current usage. Back then the colonies did use the european term and the founding fathers considered themselves liberals, in favor of constitutionally limited government, strict constructionism in judicial interpretation (otherwise the supermajority protections become meaningless, further anti-majoritarian provisions such as the bill of rights, division of powers, checks and balances. Those founding liberals are who today's conservatives identify with, i.e., classical liberals, as opposed to todays socialist and marxist, command and control liberals, who propose government solutions to problems despite their professed distrust of government, it is a strange situation. Of course todays conservatives have been gradually creeping to the left as social programs develop constituencies, or they lack the intellectual and rhetorical wherewithal to keep the federal government out of things like education. Of course, some conservative principles have had to be modernized, keynesian economics has been accepted, and fiscal conservativism and the balanced budget has been abandoned in the face of economic warefare by states that manipulate the currencies. Japan and China (which pegs its currency to the dollar) try to sustain their export economy and balance of trade surplusses by keeping their currencies artifically low. Conservatives have recognized that this manipulation of the market must be fought, and have determined that if these countries insist on honoring every dollar we print and then lend it back to us at extremely low interest rates, the US will print dollars and borrow, eventually the pressure will build and the dollar will have to fall to its proper value that will allow the current account to come into balance. The US will have printed, borrowed and spend dollars while their value was high, and will get to pay back the debt in cheaper dollars at low interest rates.--Silverback 18:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm torn! Silverback thinks I'm right wing, AndyL thinks I'm right wing... Where is Thomas Jefferson when I need him!?! [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Sam, WHEELER and Silverback should just go somewhere and fight the issue out? AndyL 17:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should team up and erradicate totalitarian communist doublethink from the wiki instead? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps totalitarian fascist doublethink as well?

The essential difficulty is that there are many dimensions to left- and right-wing. They are perhaps not terribly useful. Many so-called right-wingers cannot stand each other's politics. Same on the left. The divide seems to be along economic vs cultural lines. In the past, liberal vs conservative seemed to be more identified with economic policy preference. Under that standard, I am a conservative. Currently in the U.S., the usage seems to emphasize cultural issues more -- abortion, death penalty, school prayer, militarism, etc. Under that standard I am a liberal. The latter, social definition seems to be predominant usage these days. I think a more useful divide is among those with authoritarian vs libertarian tendencies. I am on the libertarian end of things (though I do recognize some limited valid roles for gov't to resolve market failures). Bush is, in my mind, more along the authoritarian end of the spectrum. The question is whether to define left- and right-wing by current usage, by historical usage, or by social vs economic wing. A compounding difficulty is that left- and right-wing have different current usages in different countries. Wolfman 16:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. I tend to think Bush is liberal because he is putting us insanely deep into debt. High spending coupled with low taxation doesn't strike me as particularly conservative. He also is pretty liberal about environmental and nuclear proliferation regulations, and indeed treaties and regulations in general. Socially, he refuses to explicitly condemn gay marriage, and has suggested that his choices of judges won't be issue based, but rather on his assessment of the prospective adjudicator as a person. He certainly isn't isolationist in his foreign policy, perhaps the source of his greatest criticism. Neoconservativism is a form of neoliberalism, BTW. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, can you think of anybody generally viewed as a liberal who supports Bush? I cannot. But I can think of plenty of people generally viewed as conservative or right-wing who do support him strongly. Now then, how is calling Bush a liberal consistent with any reasonable concept of common usage?

As to your specific points:

• Doesn't everyone view Reagan as right-wing? That's the fellow that invented the idea of borrow-and-spend conservatism. If reducing debt is right-wing, then Clinton was about as right-wing as they get, and Reagan & Bush I & Bush II are left-wing.
• I have no idea what you mean by Bush being "liberal" about environmental regulations, he certainly doesn't have the support of environmentalists -- who tend to be viewed as liberal.
• Socially, he wants to amend the friggin Constitution to ban gay marriage -- note the inconsistency here with a states-rights perspective.
• As to picking judges, what he says concerns me not -- talk is cheap. His record on picking judges clearly belies his words.
• What does "isolationist" have to do with anything?

Wolfman 18:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. I tend to think Bush is liberal because he is putting us insanely deep into debt. High spending coupled with low taxation doesn't strike me as particularly conservative.

Nor is it particularly liberal (in fact low taxation is generally a conservative plank, particularly when its in the form of cutting taxes for the wealthy and high military spending isn't particularly "liberal" either..

He also is pretty liberal about environmental and nuclear proliferation regulations, and indeed treaties and regulations in general.

You're kidding right? Bush has gutted the EPA, refused to agree to Kyoto, unilaterally abrogated the ABM treaty and ignored US treaty requirements in regards to the UN and particularly requiring Security Council consent before conducting an aggressive war. AndyL 18:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no long term benefit from uneconomic policies. Bush did not gut the EPA, he just reversed policies Clinton was unwilling to live with himself and only tried to saddle Bush with using administrative law before he left office. Bush has used market oriented policies to make sure that the EPA standards are met in the most economic way possible. Remember it is only the wealthy that can afford to be concerned about the environment. Kyoto would have been an economic disaster which consensus science shows would have almost no benefit (less than 0.5 degrees C by 2050), and is only being justified by the fall back reasoning that it is only a first step. The world would be a trillion dollars poorer because of it. Think of that as 66 million lives (at the western price of $15000 per for improved prenatal care) or many more lives at third world opportunity costs. That amount would also finance quite a space program that perhaps could solve the whole global warming problem by some kind of intervention at the lagrange point between the earth and the sun. Imagine the technology that would develop to increase overall human capabilities. Medical research and any number of other developments could be afforded with the economic growth instead of the mis-advised treaty, that is NOT justified even by the uncertain science it cites. Kyoto supporters are mindless sheep, baaing to the same fear mongering tune.--Silverback 01:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would argue that Bush is certainly on the right, but is equally certainly not a principled conservative. He is (under the tutelage of Rove) rather Machiavellian. Deviating from conservative principle on matters where it serves him -- such as running up a debt that lowers taxes, especially for the rich, in the short run, but is going to fall on someone in the long run -- is not at all conservative, but it is not "liberal" (in any reasonable sense of that word) either. The only extent to which this is relevant to the article (as far as I can see) is that "right-wing" does not only mean responsible, principled conservative, any more than "left-wing" means only responsible, principled social democrats, parecon types, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

What I meant

I was using the Classical liberal definition, not the American Liberal definition. I was also using the term "liberal" in another way, the meanings of

1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate

Bush gives freely to corporations (esp. Halliburton), and generally opposes restrictions. Reagan was also practically the anti-thesis of conservative, perhaps in even more ways than Bush. I hope I proved my point, which is that these terms "Liberal" and "conservative" have lost almost all concensus meaning. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 20:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well no, I don't agree with your point. People do use these terms in public discourse, and the meaning seems to have a rough consensus among the general public (outside of those involved in this discussion). It's just that the meaning has evolved over time, and that the meaning depends a bit on context, as in the social vs economic discussion above. Calling Reagan the anti-thesis of conservative is all well and good under some academic definitions. But it's clearly not correct under common usage of the word. Wolfman 20:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your quite correct, by common usage Reagan was a moderate conservative, and Bush is a somewhat extreme conservative. Thats mainly due to how their viewed by their opposition, and the circumstances they find themselves in IMO, but I'm pretty sure its the case. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 20:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was using the Classical liberal definition, not the American Liberal definition.(Says Sam Spade)

Oh? Well heavy government spending is contrary to the classical liberal position. The classical liberal position is also very secular (anti-clerical) which Bush is not. My understanding as well is that classical liberals (at least not if you watch continental European liberals who are in the same mould) favour the negotiation of international treaties and regimes and compliance with those arrangements while Bush has been completely unilateralist in his approach and has ignored or rejected treaties which would inhibit the actions of his Administration. As for your other examples, they are non-political senses of the term liberal, using them in a political discussion is unadvisable since it can only create confusion. AndyL 23:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While heavy deficit spending is traditionally against the classical liberal values, I think they would make exceptions to address unfair market imbalances such as that caused by the pegging of the PRc currency against the dollar and the Japanese government interventions to support the dollar as I mentioned above (search keynsian). The deficit spending and accomodative monetary policy, were both attempts by the government to combat foreign government interference in the markets that was hurting the U.S. economy and employment. Bush's most important conservative achievements were the reduction in the double tax on dividends (too bad he did not succeed in eliminating it), and the general tax reduction. They reflect the right's superior intellectual understanding of the non-linear nature of the economy, that by lowering taxes, increased economic growth will eventually benefit all more than the initial lost revenue and perhaps increase in debt burden (especially at today's low interest rates, and paying back in tomorrows cheaper dollars).--Silverback 00:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is that so? I suppose we should lower taxes to zero then, because growth will make up for the lost revenue. All empirical evidence I have seen shows that we are nowhere near the downward sloping portion of the tax-revenue (Laffer) curve. Wolfman 02:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heavy gvt. spending is most certainly liberal, andyL, what would you call keynes, a conservative? What the heck?? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You just said that you were "using the classical liberal definition", now you are invoking Keynsian (or welfare) liberalism. Make up your mind. .AndyL 01:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Government spending levels and the scope of federal involvement has definitely moved to the left, which is why I find this idea that Bush is some kind of right-wing extremist laughable. Surprisingly keynes as much as conservatives still harbor a knee jerk reaction to him, has won the intellectual day. We do use liquidity and deficit spending to smooth over economic downturns and crises, we just aren't as "conservative" as Keyes when it comes to building up surpluses in better economic times, but perhaps he did not anticipate the philosophy of a continuing inflationary environment that keeps debt burdens shrinking to managable levels, while maximizing growth to create a wealth level that raises all ships and gives us more resources to deal with problems that arise.--Silverback 02:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No one believes in short-run fiscal policy to control business cycles anymore. Certainly not the Fed. Certainly close to no academic economits. It's all monetary policy now. Of course, fiscal policy is important for long growth or for tremendous shocks like the great depression. But fiscal policy is way too slow to affect garden-variety modern business cycles. The tax cuts were clearly not designed for short-run stimulation. Wolfman 02:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was criticism that the tax cuts could have been designed to have a quicker short term stimulous effect by targeting the part of the population that would save less of it. The low interest rate inspired mortgage refinicing boom, tapping equity wealth was probably more stimulative in the short term. The tax cuts were more long term structural reforms. The proposals for the new term are even more ambitious, and may get the government out of taxing savings and capital formation at all.--Silverback 02:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and the low interest rates were a function of monetary, not fiscal policy. That has relatively little to do with Keynes and much to do with Friedman. As to your previous comment about Keynes not understanding growth, I would argue that you very much misunderstand Keynes. Wolfman 02:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My comment was not about his understanding, he was brilliant and would understand the current situation, I said "anticipate", and I meant inflation not growth, although I may not have make that clear. I don't think he anticipated the extent to which we tolerate and even use inflation today, although, he may have been ahead of his time to an extent I am unaware of. Most economists of the time would abhor the debasing of the currency, but today's global pattern of floating rates, pegs and manipulations call for more sophisticated strategies. The principles may still be valid but have a new sense in this environment.--Silverback 03:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libertarians are right wing

Especially fiscal libertarians, if were making a distinction between economics and social issues (as libertarians like to), butreal libertarians are both fiscal and social libertarians (and right-wingers as well ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to document the assertion that the Libertarian Party is right wing? Surely they would not mind saying so somewhere on the web page if that is the case. All my libertarian friends quite despise those politicians generally thought of as right-wing, such as the Republicans. Would you characterize the ACLU as a right-wing organization? Really, it's quite preposterous to call libertarians right-wing. Right-wingers and left-wingers alike disgust us.

What does the ACLU have to do w anything? They are certainly not right wing... Libertarians don't have to claim to be right wing in order to be right wing, its a matter of labeling. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 23:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

certainly it's a matter of labeling, and your label is false. perhaps you were not aware, but the ACLU stands for American Civil Liberties Union. their fundamental mission is to prevent government intrusions on liberties. that's libertarian to the core. yet, they are widely regarded as a left-wing group. they are neither left nor right and applying either label to them is just as silly as applying such a label to the libertarians.

Thats wack, every libertarian I ever met hates nothing more than the ACLU, like for example how they got the boy scouts kicked out of public parks in california so that they wouldn't offend gay people. Thats real libertarian, eh? You don't sound like a libertarian to me, buddy. Real libertarians are right-wing red necks, and shoot the ACLU on sight ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And every libertarian I've ever talked to has supported the ACLU because the ACLU has supported the same causes. That article is choked with POV; there's no reason to put much trust in it. Lucidish 00:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, that would be right-wing rednecks. Also known as Republicans. You make my point. I don't know what kind of yahoos are libertarians where you come from. But California libertarians don't wear mullets.

Republicans don't defend the full extent of gun rights, much less the rest of the constitution, and have been very regressive in response to militias. Every libertarian I know is paramilitary. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The ones out here are more inclined to smoke a bowl than shoot something. Sounds like we come from different areas of the country. I'm San Francisco by way of Seattle, and Jmabel's got it right. My people out here voted for Kerry; Bush scares the crap out of me and mine. Merry Christmas to you too Sam. I got a little hot under the collar, sorry. It just galled me to be lumped in the same wing with Bush.

I heard an interesting story about washington separating his female canabis plants from the males, something not done in hemp cultivation. The best argument for drug legalization IMO is that it reduces the profit motivation, as well as taking a lucarative business away from gangs and other criminals. Careful how much you smoke tho, it may interefere w your aim WTSHTF ;) No worries about the debate, you remained civil, a sign of intellegence and virtue :) Have a look at my "party platform" some time @ User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases, and BTW, would you like to form a user account? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 01:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unsigned one, names can be mere propoganda, ACLU has a very narrow focus on speech and religion, and no interest in protecting property and other economic rights, something even leftists marxists consider more important. Ron Paul, a past libertarian presidential candidate, hibernates as a paleo conservative republican, without compromising libertarian principles and has no problems criticizing authortitarian centrists like Kerry or the neo-cons, and their "Patriot" Act. American conservatives are very libertarian, with a few exceptions like drugs, abortion and most recently, gay marriage. They compromise their usual rhetorical principles in order to accomodate these hypocrisies. If you are a libertarian, then you will know that even they are divided on the abortion issue, some considering the fetus a human life. Libertarians also tend to feel more comfortable with more principled like Bush over more morally relativistic people like Kerry. Of course, those that actually voted libertarian (such as myself) are probably more disillusioned with both, than those who identify as libertarian, but feel compelled "not to throw their vote a away". Most of those go the way of Milton Friedman, Mark Hatfield and Ron Paul and support the republicans. Another unsigned one.--68.35.159.18 00:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to form a user account? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. The reverter who referenced Nolan Chart to make his/her case clearly did not read the article.
2. "Libertarians also tend to feel more comfortable with more principled like Bush over more morally relativistic people like Kerry." -- you rather sound like a right-winger to me; please keep your morals to yourself

The Libertarian Party is not right-wing. Although some of their policies - gun rights, taxes, etc. - coincide with those on the right, on social issues - obscenity, drugs, gay rights, censorship, maybe abortion (?) - they tend to agree with the left. Anyway they certainly do not consider themselves to be right, but in some direction perpendicular to the left-right axis, so their listing here would be inappropriate. VeryVerily 00:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As this is being warred about, I notice the following in an anonymous edit comment: "Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, John Hospers, the CATO institute are all associated with the right". I don't know Hospers, but otherwise true enough. However, I can specifically state, as a person active in what would generally be categorized as leftist politics in Seattle, Washington, that many of the libertarians in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska have more in common with the left than they do with the right. I've worked with them on anti-war issues, drug policy, opposition to the USA Patriot Act etc., and some of them are very uncomfortable with what they perceive as the right wing of their own two-wing party dominating the party at a national level. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe libertarians are just as devided as everyone else... makes sense. I guess I simply tend to think of people I know who are libertarian (like the Free State Project folks), and forget about people on the coasts who I don't know about ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libertarians are social liberals and right-wing anti-tax, anti-government nuts. It's really quite simple. J. Parker Stone 02:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now "nut" is a strong word. I certainly think the Greens, Democrats, & Republicans are misguided. But they're not crazy (well, maybe the neocons are) and neither are we. There's a difference between anarchists & libertarians. We're not anti-government, we're limited government. But at any rate, as you note, we're not really right-wing either.

I don't know, some libertarians get up to that fine line, and most of 'em are a little kook when it comes to the issue of taxes. J. Parker Stone 06:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question is whether it is appropriate to list the U.S. Libertarian Party as one of the right-wing U.S. parties. And I believe we have been slowly coming to consensus that it is not. Trey, I can't tell whether you are disagreeing with that or just letting us know you doubt their sanity. The latter seems off topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:55, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm just blabbing. I always thought libertarians were generally classified as right-wing despite their socially liberal views, because they view modern-day Democrats to be big-government whores. Though there is libertarian socialism, which is something different. J. Parker Stone 09:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word "libertarian" in "libertarian socialist" is only coincidental with the main U.S. use of "libertarian". I believe it comes through the Spanish (though I could be mistaken), where "libertaria" is a word associated with anarchism, not minarchism. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Very different, those guys are the commies my Libertarian friends worry about when they watch Red dawn ;) . As friendly as we might be, and as much concensus as we might have, Libertarians are generally refered to as right-wing, in my experience. I think the terms left and right are practically worthless of course, but thats what links to political compass and political spectrum are for. if we want to go by the classical definition, libertarians are classical liberals, and would have sat to the left of the King of France, no doubt about it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 12:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, I would agree that libertarians have a lot in common with classical liberals, although I think it is going too far to say that they are classical liberals. One can no more be a classical liberal today than one can be a Chartist. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

The Chartism article is pretty good, thanks for mentioning it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the American left right spectrum, it is helpful to classify groups by their rhetoric, the rhetorical worship word of the left is "equality" and of the right is "freedom" (however hypocritical it sometimes seems). A big part of the reason the neocon's switched parties, is their anti-communist/pro-freedom roots could no longer hold in the democratic party, despite their leftist love for big government. I think we are coming to a consensus here that the Libertarians are on the right.--Silverback 01:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If consensus means "in Silverback's opinion", then you are indisputably correct. If consensus means something else, I see no evidence at all for that in the previous discussion.

unsigned one, you must be mis-counting. The few on your side aren't even putting forward arguments, just anecdotes. I've personally protested (yes, shouting mindless slogans carrying signs) with progressive friends against police misconduct and consumer fraud, and the failure of regulatory agencies to reign in abusive government granted monopolies (utilities), that doesn't mean I favor "distributive justice" over freedom. Libertarians are on the right, whether the consensus agrees or not, however, I thought I would claim a consensus, because someone above did and without any more consensus that I had, so consider it a reductio ad absurdem.--Silverback 03:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm quite numerate thank you. I can count to one, and I can even name him: Silverback. True enough, you are being absurd. The reductio part, I don't see. You seem to be argueing that libertarians are not on the left, ergo they must be on the right. The premise is false that libertarians must be one or the other.

I don't believe you will find anyone on the left who agrees that the left is anti-freedom. With rare exceptions, we all — left, right, center — think we ourselves are pro-freedom. Even Hitler thought he was defending the freedom of the German people to get their needed lebensraum. Even religious totalitarians typically argue that their sect's freedom just happens to require everyone else's subjection or destruction.

Understand, I certainly don't think that the U.S. Libertarian Party (what this discussion started out being about) is a party of the left; I merely disagree that it is a party of the right. It has few members who would be comfortable with either label, and some that would be comfortable with each. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Just because everybody uses the rhetoric of freedom, is no excuse to descend into moral relativism and nihilism. There is a real difference between those advocate less coercion and those who advocate command and control "solutions" to problems requiring the coercive power of government to implement. You admited that most of the national libertarian leaders that can be classified associate with the right, yet despite the evidence, you are resolved to be over influenced by a few anecdotal personal experiences of the "these nice people can't be right wing" genre. When it comes to opposing government abuses the extremes of the left and right can often find a lot in common. Where they part is the hypocritical leftist tendency to think that once they are in control of the government, it won't be abusive. If you query your libertarian friends, you will find that they think less government and government well constrained by checks, balances, standards of proof, etc are the direction to go, and not the welfare state. Leftists want gun control so that they can freely achive social goals at the point of government guns, rightists want to make sure they have guns make sure the government guns stay controlled.--Silverback 19:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be equating left-wing with authoritarianism and right-wing with freedom. Are there no right-wing authoritarians/dictators? How then would you classify Pinochet, Batista, Somoza, Botha, Chiang Kai Shek, Ngo Dinh Diem, Marcos, Duvalier, Ian Smith, Suharto, Noriega, Franco, Ozal, Pahlevi, Saud, Park, Fujimori, etc ad nauseam?

Yes, in the US left-wing is associated with a reliance on, and trust of government authority and government based solutions. The tendency to classify the authoritarians you mention as right-wing probably derives from two sources, a residual of the European definition of right rather than the american classical liberal definition, and because these dictators may have been the only bulwark against a worse authoritarianism, communism, during the cold war and so were hailed as the lessers of evils. The principle must be to opt for the least government possible to protect the rights of the individual, if external forces, or an evil populace wants to impose state communism on individuals, unfortunately a dictatorship, hopefully corrupted to the point of inefficiency, may be that "least" government. In this last decade or two of nation building, hopefully we can aim higher.--Silverback 23:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see. It seems that under your "U.S. definition", you would classify those fine fellows as left-wing? Do I understand you correctly?

To be honest, Silverback, I think your claim of an "american classical liberal definition" of "left" and "right" is Humpty-Dumptyism. What you seem to be saying is that you define your politics as constituting the legitimate "right" and anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of how they are generally perceived, is on the "left". So you start arguing, against almost universal usage, that (for example) George W. Bush is kind of a lefty. And now Pinochet, et. al. as well, despite his first move on coming to power being to arrest pretty much every actual leftist in the country and kill a good number of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Stalin and Mao killed far more leftists than Pinochet ever did, if that is the standard. That is what leftists do, only they have the hubris to think they are doing it out of some higher ideal, that supercedes the right of the individual. Leftists feel comfortable with centralized planning decisions as long as they are in control and their intentions are good, such as the FDA, delaying access to beta blockers and clot busters and cost over a million lives with the delays. It makes Timothy McVeigh look like he was playing patty-cake. I defend my left-right, authoritarian-liberty axis, precisely because it is defensible, and meaningful. Why defend confusion and meaninglessness, where the only other libertarian contributing, can only say he isn't left or right but not a centrist either. Fortunately, America has a strong classical liberal rhetoric and allegiance to the constitution and founding fathers among those identified with its conservatives and the right, that makes this axis makes sense. If you look at the rhetoric and actions of Kemp, Goldwater, Buckley, etc. and groups such as Y.A.F., the John Birch Society, etc. you will see a commitment to the rhetoric and reality of individual liberty. Of course we've already discussed a number of the more libertarian names. Both major party candidates in the last election ran to the center, despite depicting each other as extremists. Bush is admittedly a mixed bag, leftist in his centralization/federalization of education, rightist in his tax and social security reform. Leftist in his internationalism, rightist in his opposition to mandatory national service and conscription. The question here is whether the U.S. definition of the axis should get a fair representation or the European spectrum which has no meaning or use other than for propaganda and name calling.--Silverback 07:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not "the U.S. definition". This is the idiosyncratic definition used by a narrow group of U.S. libertarian conservatives. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:36, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Reopened

I see from a recent exchange of edits that this has come up again. I will point out that the web site of their 2004 presidential campaign says, "The closest you can come to charting Libertarians on a one-dimensional left/right spectrum is to plot us directly in the middle of the two extremes." [1] -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

That is just to start an argument that may get them listened to. It is a criticism of the spectrum that doesn't have an obvious place for them. To counter the essentially rhetorical position they have taken, is where prominent libertarians have positioned themselves, and that is with the limited government/paleo-conservatives/classical liberals, i.e. on the right. Look at Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Charles Murray, etc. When push comes to shove, Libertarians opt for economic affinity over social affinity. The would be to the right of Bush on taxes, education, welfare, medicare, social security, strict constructionism on the constitution, the environment, etc. Of course, Bush is a bit left of center.--Silverback 15:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Of course"? I presume you are just trolling.

I agree that most libertarians are on the right, but given that their party explicitly rejects the designation, I think it calls for some sort of remark rather than just inclusion in a list. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not trolling, I think it is a defensible proposition. Of course, it depends on what one means by "center", because the center of the US population has shifted to the left over the years, perhaps Bush is to the right of that center, but he is to the left of most past Republican presidents, except possibly Nixon (he of the negative income tax).--Silverback 18:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does right-wing mean anyways?

Everybody seems to know that left wing means Socialism. Right? Of course it didn't use to, it originally ment classic liberal, something alot like modern libertarians. But what does "right-wing" mean? It sure doesn't mean monarchism. And as much as those on the left try to make it seem so, it doesn't seem to mean fascism or Nazism either. Just last night I saw a documentary where Hitler lauded the Nazi parties defeat of communism and reactionaries. But the right can't be identified solely as "reactionaries" either.

Growing up in the USA, the people who actually called themselves right-wing were always the same. Anti-big govt., pro-business, pro-God patriots. The kind of people who wanted to put prayer back in school, and take the govt. and teachers unions out.

Frankly I think left and right have switched sides, w the right now representing classical liberalism (less govt. power, less taxes, less wealth redistribution) and the left representing pseudo-monarchism (more govt. power, more laws and "rights" for special interest groups, more wealth redistribution).

Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 10:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have an answer, and it's a historically objective one, but I know that people aren't going to find it satisfying. "Right-wing" means nothing more or less than supporting institutional conservatism - or, basically, the rejection of proposals for reform, let alone revolution, regardless of the content of those reforms. This is historically how the word originated, having to do with the French assembly, where those who advocated conservative policies sat in the right wing and those who advocated change sat on the left. This is the necessary meaning of the terms. So, for a while, it really did "mean" monarchism, in the sense that that's the thing that people of a certain generation used the word to refer to. Then it moved on to classical liberalism. Then to modern liberalism. It's a rolling stone.

But mere "conservatism" is obviously not the usage that people are most comfortable with today. The contingent uses of the word have changed in ways that don't need to be rehashed here, involving many ideologies, socialism, etc; and an argument can be made that right wing and left wing really are meaningfully tied to certain ideologies and not others, and I just haven't got a counter-argument that trumps that. The point, I think, is that so long as there's this ambiguity, the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" are horribly colloquial and not very scientific. It might be a good idea to abandon them entirely. Lucidish 00:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but how to express that properly in the article ;) Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess the best way is to say up front that the definition is controversial, and that the "political spectrum" itself is controversial. Then say the strictest way to define it is using historical origin -- right-wing meaning a tendency toward conservation, left-wing meaning a tendency toward reform.

Then add a section about how popular understandings, related ideologies, and tendencies form the 'political spectrum' model of this day and age. Ie, various socialisms, social democracy, and social liberalism on the left, and militaristic, theocrats, and minarchisms on the right. Anarchism, or "libertarian socialism", being a part of the radical center; corporate democracy being the maintream center. Then so people get the idea, maybe add a basis for comparison from another where and when. Say, for instance, the French model from way back when, where theocrats were the only folks on the right and just about everybody else was on the left. Lucidish 00:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism, or "libertarian socialism", being a part of the radical center; corporate democracy being the maintream center.

Ahahahahahahaha.... please review Radical centrist politics. Anarchists are on the extreme under any mainstream interpretation, and corporate democracy is pretty far right, IMO. Cheers, Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 12:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean "radical center" in the sense that they're talking about there. When I talk about them being part of the "center", I mean that anarchism is in between the left and the right because it doesn't advocate conservation or reform of government -- it advocates an elimination of it. So it has nothing to say about the "left-right" issue. Corporatistic democracy is what we have, internationally. Whether it's center or not, I don't know, because it's difficult to describe what is at "the center" in the model I just used. Pragmatists and statesmen, I guess. So I take it back about the corporate thing being centrists. Lucidish 17:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hehehe, ok. I like your idea about Left=reform, and Right=Conservative, mainly because its functional, but "reform" is a bit POV, favoring the Left. I think "Left=Change , Right=Stability, return to historical values" might be more balanced. Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 14:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naw, there are plenty of "reform" movements that are usually categorized as "right-wing". In Canada, for example, the "Reform" party; the similar Ross Perot effort not too long back in the States; the libertarians; etc. That shows the problem with the historical formulation -- that though "against reform" is accurate to describe "right wing" in some ways, "reform" isn't at all what people necessarily associate with the phrases 'leftist' or 'right-wing' in modern discussion.

I gotta disagree about reform favoring "the left", because reform just means change. Also, I think a conservative should be contrasted with a "Paleo-conservative" - someone who wants to roll back the clock (so to speak) on a lot of frontiers. For example, a theocrat in today's corporate democratic state would be a paleo-con. [merry xmas!] Lucidish 01:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of parties

Most of this article is taken up by a list of rightwing political parties. It should be moved to List of rightwing political parties or similar. Rd232 09:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the list should be separated out and moved (if so, ditto for left-wing politics, but clearly the article should not be moved, it is considerably more of an article than we ever put at a List of... title. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:59, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry! I was unclear. By "it" I meant the list within the article, not the article. And definitely ditto for left-wing politics. Rd232 10:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with this, but I seem to remember it being suggested before and rejected. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a bit annoying that lots of the countries listed as "Right Wing" also appear listed as "Left Wing" on its respective page. Afterall, if you're going to go alone the whole "one or the other" idea with this, then you have to stick to it. I guess the bottom line is to make sure that the lists don't contradict. --James 03:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

No countries are listed as being left- or right-wing. Parties are listed as being left- or right-wing. Most countries with anything like open political systems have both left- and right-wing parties. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

FOX News

I notice the addition of FOX News to one of the lists on the page. I don't necessarily object -- I'd characterize them this way myself -- but I'm sure they would deny the identification as "right wing" and I wonder whether it is an appropriate inclusion as just a list element with no comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I just checked Left-wing politics and did not see the NY Times or the broadcast networks listed.--Silverback 09:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly those are not left-wing to the degree that FOX is rightwing. I presume you are not suggesting adding those there (which I would object to strenuously). The question is whether it is appropriate in an encyclopedic context to address FOX's certainly right-wing politics by simple inclusion in a list, which does not allow for addressing complexity. I think it's not, and while your response was cryptic, I assume you agree. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't view Fox's politics as certainly right wing, at least not any more than the broadcast networks are leftwing. Just as both major parties run to the center so too, to some extent do the major media. Bush's internationalism and nation building, his federal involvement in primary and secondary education, his medicare drug program all put him to the left of any previous republican in "accomplishment" and perhaps only to the right of Richard Nixon in philosophy, since Nixon proposed a negative income tax, but did not accomplish it. Fox News aligns more with Bush and the bi-partisan neocon movement than with the right wing.--Silverback 06:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Silverback is agreeing with me here on the one matter relevant to the article, although it would be a lot simpler if he would say, "yes, I agree, take FOX News out of the list". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Let me beg this question, partly because I've never seen why myself and partly because it might help you guys figure out whether or not to include Fox News; How or why did Fox News gain the reputation as right-wing, and how did the other aforementioned news agencies get labelled as left wing? I mean, it just seems to me that a media group would want to stay as moderate as possible to have as many viewers as possible. Of course, I'm open to them indeed being right and left wing, but like I've said, I've never really seen why myself. Perhaps I'm just ignorant because my father works for NBC.--James 03:29, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think the media is inherently left wing, not necessarily out personal bias, but natural human laziness. It easier to go to a government official and ask what they are going to do about a problem, than to investigate the problem and find out the actual causes. Government officials don't want to seem uncaring, but all they have at their disposal are liberal command and control solutions, and they don't have the media or rhetorical savvy to take the position that the government has no legitimate role in the issue at hand. Furthermore, it is more important to be percieved as doing something at the moment, than to really solve the problem, because the media only pays attention when it is a crisis, and will forget about it until it becomes a crisis again. I have seen just this sort of liberal bias on Fox News, with O'Reilly haranging federal officials to do something about the power blackout or pushing federal officials to use the military on the border with Mexico. (a violation of posse comitatas that no conservative or libertarian would countenance)--Silverback 09:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is so much perversion of vocabulary in the previous remark that I cannot really respond to it, I can only comment.

1. "liberal command and control solutions" borders on being an oxymoron in the main way that the word "liberal" has been historically used. Apparently, this makes Ivan the Terrible and Hitler "liberals".
2. Conversely, he is using "conservative" to mean only a principled, Burkean conservative. It should be needless to say that the calls for using the military on the border with Mexico have come entirely from the right.

Back on the point we were talking about: I think that Fox News is firmly on the right, but I also don't think it is useful to include them here: they are not an overtly ideological organization, and while I think it is useful to discuss their implicit ideology in the article about Fox News, simple inclusion in a list is inappropriate.

For those who are interested in why Fox might be characterized as right-wing, these articles from the (openly left-wing) The Nation, might be of help: [2], [3] (paragraph 2), and especially [4]. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Unindent, Jmabel, I agree with your point about my use of "liberal", it illustrates the almost complete reveral of meanings today from the traditional ones. In the U.S. the right does identify with the founders as classical liberals, and view today's liberals with their socialist ideas, as the successors of the centralized authoritarian monarchs and totalitarians.

However, I think you are wrong about the military on the border, that is the response of unprincipled reactionaries, posse comitatus is a central conservative principle, and was featured prominently in the Waco investigation by mainstream conservative republicans. The call for military on the border has gotten little support from the republican party and Bush did not have to do any arm twisting to keep if off the national agenda.

I am glad you emphasized "principled" conservatives because they are the ones in closest affinity to libertarians, and why I think most libertarians, unofficially identify with the right. Libertarians find principled conservatives the easiest to reason with, because they can at least recognized that they are being hypocrits when they advocate the drug war, and various other governmental regulations. They are the persuadable conservatives. The unprincipled have no need or desire for philosophical consistency.--Silverback 15:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As has come up elsewhere: whether U.S. libertarians tend to work more with the left or right is a very regional issue. In my experience, Alaska and (especially urban) Western Washington libertarians are more likely to flirt with the left than the right. I would agree that principled, secular conservatives are often close to libertarians, as are those on the left whose main issues are anti-military, anti-drug-war, and civil liberties in general. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:28, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a poorly balanced article

This article is disproportionately focused on the concerns of the contemporary right in the United States. It hardly mentioned the capitalism/socialism issue, which has been the main distinction between left and right in most of the world for most of the last 150 years. I have expanded the right wing issues section a little. I think some major changes are needed:

• 1) Far more history (autocracy; classical liberalism; emergence of the democratic right in the 19th century onwards; the anti-democratic right (ie fascism and Nazism), including its connection with the anti-democratic left etc.)
• 2) Clear definitions of the main strands of contemporary right wing thought on a global basis (ie not just the US), which acknowledge the complexities without getting bogged down in them
• 3) A section on the relationship of different strands of right wing thought to democracy (probably instead of the fascism section)
• 4) More economics
• 5) Less on the war on terror
• 6) Less on Israel-Palestine
• 7) A reduction in US centrism in any area not already covered.

Philip 07:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • One can no more drop discussion of fascism from an article on right-wing politics than drop a discussion of the communist states from one on left-wing politics. Otherwise, open to this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

    Fascism would still be included, but not as a main heading. No other strand of right-wing politics is a main heading, so the article is currently the equivalent on one about left wing politics which highlighted only communism. Philip 20:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • Our current article on Left-wing politics has a section "Leftism and the Soviet Union".
    • I'm not necessarily opposed to where you want to go with this, but if you are planning a major overhaul, you should take a look at Left-wing politics, too. About a year ago I did major overhauls on both (both were much weaker at that time) and tried to make them parallel. They've now had a year to drift apart, and I know that (in particular) MathKnight's additions to Left-wing politics about recent anti-war stuff created an imbalance, and he won't agree to repeated suggestions by myself and others to get that material largely out of there. I think it is important that at least a large portion of these two article remains more-or-less in parallel, and would urge anyone who is planning to overhaul one to make sure they also look at the other and see if there are parallel changes to be made. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fascism as Right-wing ?

In the fascism subheading, the author does not argue convincingly as to how fascism and socialism actually differ, nor as to why fascism should be considered 'right-wing'. From the passage we can infer he/she is making two claims: 1) that fascism is 'almost universally considered to be part of 'the right' and 2) that historical political clashes between fascists and socialists as well as statements that it is a right-wing ideology (Mussolini) whose founding tenets included a 'vigorous [opposition]' to socialism (according to the Nazis) are sufficient support for premise #1.

But many points in the passage detract significantly from these main ideas instead of supporting them. It paints the picture of fascism as a 20th-century movement with socialist roots whose members tried to (violently) displace and purge old guard socialists for the purposes of political power. It also concedes, in rather ambivalent language, that fascism has considerable dissimilarities to most other right-wing views and mentions that German fascists (whose platform contained many 'socialist aspects') vied for communist constituencies and opposed laissez-faire capitalism. Going on this alone, this would certainly not fulfill most people's definition of right-wing, and it does not help to persuade them as to why they should categorize fascism as a right-wing phenomenon.

The sub-entry needs some major revision; instead of pointing out the fact that fascists considered themselves separate (and opposed to) socialists (and communists), it needs to explain why WE need to distinguish between two political philosophies that the author likens to each other in several important ways, but fails to contrast in necessary detail.

- B ( User:24.254.38.89 06:08, 14 Feb 2005)

Fine, B, you are advised to introduce references and quotations to authorities within the field of Political Science who hold your point of view.

--Johan Magnus 06:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many academics, such as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Dan Silverman have advanced theses in recent times about certain aspects of Nazism that place the system somewhere on the left wing (but closer to the center than traditional socialism) rather than the right. My personal opinion is that fascism is a special case that goes outside the traditional left/right spectrum because it is rather difficult to classify in terms of political economy, considering the hugely authoritarian aspect of the state and its influence in every imaginable area of life. But I am not interested in advancing either view. Instead, the sub-heading of fascism needs to define fascism in concrete, readily understandable terms (ideally NPOV), amply distinguish it from socialism (to which it is too-closely compared), and justifiably link it to the subject of 'right-wing politics' in order to serve a use on this page. It does not do any of this, and thus I am left wondering what use its inclusion serves in this entry. [This is an anonymous edit 24.254.38.89 14 Feb 2005]

This edit war seems to be continuing with recent edits by User:Pearlg and User:Silverback. My opinion remains what it has been: I think their edits are dead wrong. However, since some of this has to do with the accuracy of a quotation for which I don't have a source in front of me, I am not reverting at this time. Would someone more expert please weigh in? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I searched the quoted reference, and couldn't find the quote. I replaced it with actual quotes relating to "century", there is something in the article about "tending" to the right, but it wasn't a very strong statement, and with the original being in Italian, it is difficult to know whether the original was a left-right distinction or a wrong-right distinction. The document certainly contained a disavowal of the right wings individualism and liberalism. --Silverback 22:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Insertion of POV

I believe that this edit by User:4.246.120.182 is almost pure POV. (By the way, the immediately following edit, by the same person, seems fine to me; someone else may want to insist on a citation, but I think it is pretty much a statement of fact.)

Judging by this edit, this person's politics are not far from my own, so I hope he/she will listen to me: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Do I agree with you that the Bush administration has been, to put it politely, selective in their efforts to export democracy? Absolutely. Do I agree with you that their policies have, on the whole, been detrimental to democracy at home in the U.S.? Absolutely. Do I believe that any of this belongs in the narrative voice of a Wikipedia article? Absolutely not.

If you can find good citations of people expressing these critical views (it shouldn't be hard), they belong in Wikipedia somewhere, although I would argue that a leftist critique of neoconservatism belongs in Neoconservatism, not here: the reason for the discussion of neoconservatism in this article is to show where it does and does not fit into the spectrum of Right-wing thought, not to provide a second wide-open discussion of neoconservatism.

But, in any event, these clearly non-neutral statements don't belong in Wikipedia's own narrative voice. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Neocons are a type of neoliberal, and thus are leftists by any classic definition of left and right. Sam Spade 00:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is clearly the view of some rightist non-neocons, and should be expressed (with citation) in the article neoconservative, but it is clearly a minority view, somewhat akin to the view that fascism is on the left. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting Article

I just want to add a few brief comments on this article. First, this is an important and interesting discussion, and I like the spirit in which the authors of the article have tackled it. For the most part this is a useful and fairly objective rendering of the topic at hand. Philip may be correct that it is vaguely America-centric, but it is useful nonetheless. I would like to see a succinct definition of "right wing" in addition to all the discussion, but I'm not sure one exists.

Some of those who are arguing about what is left and what is right bring up a valid point, and one that is suggested in the article but perhaps not totally clarified. If the revolutionary tradition is on the left, how do you define someone who revolts against a stodgy, backwards communist government in order to establish a facist government that takes care of its people? And the notion that a government can be left-wing or right-wing in theory but not in practice is also an important one. A commmunist revolutionary may start out as an idealist but turn into a crusty old dictator; etc.

At its most basic level, right wing simply means "resistant to change." However, if the established government at the time is what is traditionally considered "left wing," then we have a conflict of definition because clearly right wing at that point will entail a rebellion against the established order. So the definition of right-wing can entail something of a catch-22. I believe many people are confused about the definition for this very reason. Perhaps the entry can acknowledge more succinctly the potential for inherent contradiction in the definition. (A slightly more sophisticated modern economic definition of right-wing might be: someone who wants to accumulate wealth and keep it, while resisting changes that would undermine his economic and social stability. But even that is a simplistic definition, and primarily an economic one.)

Here is an example of political spectrum confusion as well (American, unfortunately). BusinessWeek, May 31, 2004, on the book 1912 by James Chace. There is a reference: "the reformist Democrat (Wilson) has to contend with a charismatic left-winger (Eugene V. Debs) who's exploiting the growing public sentiment against economic dislocation and contentration of wealth." Later there is a reference: "1912 was a pivotal year for reshaping the major parties. The GOP, long the home of big government and reform, became strongly identified with corporate interests instead. Many Bull Moose progressives eventually moved into the Democratic Party of TR's cousin Franklin. And President Wilson's regulation of business and his enactment of workers' rights legislation and a graduated income tax turned many Socialists into Democrats."

In the modern era, there is the confusion that communism represents the left; and what is opposed to communism represents the other side of the spectrum. However, sometimes the "other" side is (say, highly stratified) totalitarianism, whereas other times the other side is simply democracy or capitalism. In other words, the concept of a linear spectrum may be a bit flawed to begin with; but in any case, the notion has provided its share of confusion and ambiguity over the years.

I will respond quickly to the previous comment, as well. "Neocons are a type of neoliberal, and thus are leftists by any classic definition of left and right." The response to that was, "That is clearly the view of some rightist non-neocons, and should be expressed (with citation) in the article neoconservative, but it is clearly a minority view, somewhat akin to the view that fascism is on the left."

I'm not sure it's important whether or not this is a "minority view," simply for the fact that the average person doesn't have a good grasp of the nuances of right vs. left. I think one can clearly make a case that at the very least the neoconservatives are all over the map on the political spectrum; certainly they cannot be strictly or easily classified as merely right wing. I.e. if the average person thinks Saddam Hussein is a member of al-Qaeda, do we put that in the Wikipedia as is?

(Not confused yet? Columbia Encyclopedia definition of "left": "in politics, the more radically progressive wing in any legislative body or party." The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: "A descriptive term for an individual or a political faction that advocates liberal, radical, or even revolutionary policies, usually in favor of overcoming social inequalities." The words "radical" and "revolutionary" are not rare in definitions of "left". But listen to neoconservative Michael Ledeen: "Of all the myths that cloud our understanding, and therefore paralyze our will and action, the most pernicious is that only the Left has a legitimate claim to the revolutionary tradition." Ledeen of course has a background in Italian history, including facism, and many of his neoconservative contemporaries obviously have roots in the left, some in Trotskyism and communism. Nowadays they are not necessarily "conservative" on social issues. On economic issues many of their views are compatible with the modern Republicans but not necessarily strictly "right-wing" from a traditional point-of-view. They are often defined by their foreign policy views, which are largely molded after those of earlier Democrats like Wilson and FDR, though certainly distorted: either improved or bastardized, depending on your perspective. Also note that many neoconservatives were extolling many of the same policies they are now under Democrats like Scoop Jackson and others in the Coalition for a Democratic Majority -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan, etc. If party politics morph in the United States of America, does that mean the very definition of left and right change as well? At least for the purposes of the Wikipedia, I don't think so -- though it's important to acknowledge that muddiness does exist. Just as interesting is the definition of "moderate". If someone believes in flexing American military muscle around the world indiscriminately -- call him a super-hawk -- yet also believes in sabatoging bulldozers in rainforests out of concern for the environment, he might actually be classified as a "moderate" because he shares views with both dominant parties. Yet arguably he is anything but. It might also be worth noting that the concept of the political spectrum has often seemed particularly muddied in the United States of America; and that might be one reason why it's good to reference the US only when necessary.)

Philip has some good suggestions. Fascism is an important part of the article because it represents an extreme; in theory, facism is a great right-wing ideal just as in theory, pure communism would be a left-wing ideal. In practice few on either side support either (both work better on paper than in reality) but both ideas are helpful for understanding the theoretical differences between the two sides. However, providing a wider historical backdrop in the article could be useful, including going back further in history and making American politics merely an example rather than a main part of the context. More specific subcategories and discussion of how they fit in could also be useful.

Stuff like Fox News should not be included without a discussion of the various points-of-view about the entity. Fox is clearly not friendly to the left in the United States, but not everyone will classify it as right-wing, and in fact one could even make the argument it is more neoconservative than conservative; in short, any controversial examples would require some discussion as to why they are there. (Provocative examples will also cause some readers to inherently distrust the content, so they should be used sparingly.)

Overall, this is an interesting article. It is useful as is, but hopefully it will continue to improve.

Brilliant comment, have you seen political spectrum or political compass, or http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ?

Personally, I can't even classify myself (User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases), much less everyone else, using what I'd call a false left-right dicotomy. Cheers, Sam Spade 01:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You also might want to look at left-right politics, which has the most extensive discussion of contention over just what "left" and "right" have meant, as deployed by various writers. In some cases, one would reach very different conclusions about who is "left" and who is "right" depending on whether one says that the difference is degree of willingness to accept radical change or the difference is which class interests one is aligned with, not to mention several other variations.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful remarks, hope you take an account & start contributing to articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Big Business and the Nazis

From what I have read and the documentiaries that I have seen, the people that were most against the Nazis were the business owners, especially the owners of large businesses. In fact, Hitler tried to woo three groups to join him in his pursuit of electoral success. The poor and working class people of the cities, the farmers and businessmen. He had his most success with the poor and working class, somewhat less with farmers and he did very poor amongst the business owners.

I am not trying to put forth some political message but I thought that Right-Wing, as it pertains to business and wealth, was mis-represented in the Fascism section of "Right-Wing".