Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Dictionary Definitions Don't Ignore

Since dictionary definitions are such an authority (pun intended) on the subject of politics I'm posting some dictionary definitions here:

from dictionary.reference.com [1]

right wing   –noun 1.members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform. 2.such a political party or a group of such parties. 3.that part of a political or social organization advocating a conservative or reactionary position: The union's right wing favored a moderate course of action. Origin: 1930–35 ---

American Heritage Dictionary [2]

right wing n.

  1. The conservative or reactionary faction of a group.
  2. See right. [3]

right'-wing' (rīt'wĭng') adj., right'-wing'er n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition ---

Cultural Dictionary

right-wing

A descriptive term for conservative or reactionary political views, particularly those supporting the current social order or calling for a return to an earlier order. Right-wing groups are sometimes known collectively as the Right. (Compare left-wing.)

And..

A descriptive term for an individual or a political faction that advocates very conservative policies. Right-wing groups generally support free enterprise. In the United States, the right wing generally argues for a strong national defense program and opposes federal involvement in promoting social welfare. (Compare left-wing.)

Note: Although both major political parties in the United States have right-wing factions, right-wing policies are usually associated with the Republican party.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition [4] ---

I DID NOT HEAR ONE WORD ABOUT THE RIGHT BEING AUTHORITARIAN. DID YOU? DOES ANYONE EVEN SEE THE WORD AUTHORITARIAN IN ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS?

CASE CLOSED.

Like I said the whole article needs an overhaul.

JUST TO NAIL IT DOWN.

con·ser·va·tive (kən-sûr'və-tĭv) adj.

  1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
  2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
  3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
  4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
     b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

  1. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
  2. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
  5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [5] Elodoth (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are all good definitions. I would be happy to see the lede based on any one of them. And you are correct that, unlike Webster, they do not mention authoritarianism. (They also don't mention small government or free markets.) Rick Norwood (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence now reads: In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms applied to positions that focus on preserving traditional values and customs and maintaining a form of social hierarchy.

Compare this with the lead for Conservatism: Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values....

Basically we are now treating right-wing as a synonym for conservative, which is incorrect. (If it is correct the articles should be merged.) Could someone please suggest a better lead? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the right-wing almost always associated with conservatism, though? Nationalism is a form of conservatism as well, so is traditionalism, the support for free market capitalism and religion. The right itself is conservative, so the similarity between the two leads is in no way surprising. What we should do is develop the lead for this article and include additional goals the right stands for - believe it or not, corporatism is also a right-wing ideology. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

While "right-wing" and "conservative" often have the same denotation, they often have different connotations. As several people have noted, "right-wing" usually has a negative connotation, while "conservative" usually has a positive connotation. The same is true of "left-wing" and "liberal", though in that case the denotations also differ: communists are left-wing but not liberal.

Also, it seems to me that "right-wing" is almost always political. One hears of "conservative Christians" but seldom of "right-wing Christians", unless the people referred to are active in politics.

So, the phrase and the word are similar, but not the same, though I suspect that many people don't know the difference.

Free market ideals, on the other hand, are usually considered liberal. Certainly in Australia the liberal party is the free-market party. The political alliance between free-market liberals and social conservatives is, as far as I know, unique to the United States, and even there indicates a willingness to share votes rather than convergent philosophies. Historically, it seems to me that most conservative politicians have favored protectionism. The Four Deuces, what is your impression on this? You know more about it than I do. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see economic and social policy as accidental rather than essential aspects of conservatism. In fact conservatives in the UK and Canada were opposed to free trade that the Liberals supported. Generally they back the policies that they believe are most beneficial to society, their supporters or themselves at the time. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your last sentence seems to me to be true of every group. They differ in what kind of society they consider "best". Rick Norwood (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I altered the first sentence. Now it says this:

In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms applied to positions that focus on returning to or upholding traditional values and customs and maintaining a form of social hierarchy

This makes the right synomous with reactionism, conservatism, and aristocracy/capitalism/free markets. Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bobisbob2, why do you say this, "aristocracy/capitalism/free markets"? aristocracy -- capitalism -- and free markets are not one lump thing. You can put capitalism and free market together (as long as it isn't state capitalism. Aristocracy has nothing to do with free markets or capitalism. Some of you guys need to start looking some of this stuff up. Elodoth (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lede based on the dictionary definitions quoted above. I have allowed the phrase "has been used" to include capitalism, even though this usage is too new to appear in dictionaries. Why Libertarians want to declare solidarity with the upper class and established religion is beyond me, but if that's what they want, who am I to object.

Please note, Elodoth, that I am not saying that your views are authoritarian. What I'm saying is that, as best I can tell, your views are not right-wing, according to the dictionary definitions you yourself quoted. If I'm in error about this, you need only point to the part of a dictionary definition that applies to your views. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Elodoth, I put them together because, despite their important differences, they all believe in class and hierarchy. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Random House

Here's the Random House Dictionary 2009 definition:[6]

33. the Right,

a. the complex of individuals or organized groups opposing change in a liberal direction and usually advocating maintenance of the established social, political, or economic order, sometimes by authoritarian means.

b. the position held by these people: The Depression led to a movement away from the Right. Compare left 1 (defs. 6a, b).

c. right wing.

34. (usually initial capital letter) the part of a legislative assembly, esp. in continental Europe, that is situated on the right side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more conservative or reactionary views than the rest of the members.

35. the members of such an assembly who sit on the Right.

I think that the lead should include 34 & 35. But note that it is the original definition and 33 was developed by applying French political concepts to the US. (So they are two distinct but overlapping definitions.) It appears the concept of a distinct Right developed after the second restoration of the monarchy in 1815 with the Ultra-royalists and the concept of a distinct Left originated with the June Days Uprising of 1848. I think it is important to include this definition because when we speak of US politics we may refer to Republicans and Democrats but in Europe, especially before WW2, it makes more sense to refer to Left and Right.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The opening sentence is incorrect

"In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms applied to positions that focus on returning to or upholding tradition and maintaining a form of social hierarchy."

Listen carefully, please. The word and implies both must be true. But both those assertions are not true. (I've demonstrated this numerous times above.)

This would be true:

[...]the Right are terms applied to positions that focus on returning to or upholding tradition which sometimes includes maintaining a form of social hierarchy.

I'm about to edit the first sentence and change it to that.

Does anyone have an objection to that? Elodoth (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you, Rick Norwood. :O) Elodoth (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Now it really is incorrect. It's not enough to want to return to some tradition to be labelled right-wing; otherwise, an orthodox Stalinist in modern Russia would be considered right-wing. The Right never focuses on returning to a tradition of equality - some form of sweet hierarchy or inequality is always there, whether you're conservative in religion, gender, race, politics or anything else. In fact, it is the "tradition" component that is non-obligatory: the laissez-faire market economy project launched in the 1980s is not a tradition but a radical novelty bordering on utopia, but this is compensated by the fact that it does involve economic inequality. That said, the previous version wasn't sourced and the current one isn't either, so I guess that makes them both equally good.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Origins and use of the term

I have added two paragraphs to the end of Origin and history of the term explaining its use in social sciences. Please advise if you have any comments. Also, I notice that most of this section has nothing to do with the subject and I have moved it into its own section (Edmund Burke). The Four Deuces (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

References

The Marty and Brantlinger references concerning social hierarchy just don't say what they are cited for. I would be the first to agree that right-wing politics has always been about hierarchy (political one in the old conservative Right, economic one in the new liberal Right), but you've got to find sources that actually say that. The funny thing is that I remember I did encounter a claim to that effect in a reliable source some time ago, but I can't find it now.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the closest I can get to a source tha really confirms the "hierarchy" thing. A review is not as good as the real thing, but these are my two cents. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to Bobbio's book at Google Books.[7] He describes right/left as tending toward inequality/equality, and therefore still meaningful today. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

Differences concerning definitions of right wing continue. I would like to suggest adopting the following lead section (which is primarily from the Random house definition), which I think would remove much of the controversy:

Traditionally the term the Right, which was usually capitalized, referred to the part of a legislative assembly, especially in continental Europe, that was situated on the right side of the presiding officer and was customarily assigned to members with reactionary or more conservative views. The term also referred to the members that sat on the right and the political parties to which they belonged. Today the term the Right is primarily used to refer to political groups that have an historical connection with the traditional right.

The term right may also used to describe the reactionary or more conservative elements within any political group or society, although this usage is often contentious. It is used in a variety of models of the political spectrum, although there is disagreement over the definitions used in these models.

In the United States, the term right has come to be associated with American conservatism.

I welcome any comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope I think the curent lede works fine. 64.119.52.68 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot better than it was. Before it was entirely lop-sided and just had little to do with reality. This, by The Four Deuces, is more inclusive and not heavily biased as the old one was. Elodoth (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

64.119.52.68 - could you please elaborate on your reasons. Clearly the term is used in different senses and there has been considerable disagreement over which definition should be used. I thought that if we accept this, then the article could be less disputed. Otherwise we are trying to find a definition that includes both Otto von Bismarck and Friedrich von Hayek. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why a source referring primarily to fundamentalism somehow encompasses all of right-wing politics? Soxwon (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Soxwon, and I'd like to know the same thing. Can you all answer Soxwon's question?

I put the POV template back up on top of the page (where it belongs because 99% of this article is biased.) and because nothing was ever resolved.

You can't just keep reverting my (and others') edits when plenty of sourced evidence has been given here on the talk page.

Kindly cut the crap and get with reality in the article. Elodoth (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I already answered earlier, it's a poor source. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I know you did, Four Deuces. I was talking to the revisionists who edit this article, not to you. Elodoth (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Something strange has happened in the last few months.

It used to be that a google search would return, first Wikipedia, but second major news sources: Time Magazine, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times. That is no longer the case -- the top returns on google are all blogs, often current, hastily written, totally unauthoritative sources. I thought maybe the new "bing" would be better, but no. After Wikipedia their top hits are yahoo "answers" by people who are just voicing their unsupported opinion.

Have we moved into a post-factual society, where most people just want to read what other people like themselves think?

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. L O L HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

That is one of the funniest things I have ever read, Rick, coming from you. The sheer irony! Hee hee hee. (And considering that this IS Wikipedia "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" no matter how out of tune with the facts.

Thanks for the laugh. Elodoth (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a great believer in facts, and have always changed my opinion if the facts were against me. Sarcasm is not, however, the same as facts. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me put a qualifier on that statement, Rick. You are a great believer in some facts while turning a blind eye on others. Don't you think ALL of the facts --- the whole historical and current picture --- would be more enlightening? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or is it a stage for espousing one's uninformed opinion? Elodoth (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My principle motivation in study is curiosity. I love to discover new facts. I'm currently reading Diodorus Siculus (volume XII) on Greek and Roman history and Will and Ariel Durant The Age of Reason Begins on the 16th Century. I recently finished David McCullough's biography of John Adams and Isaac Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare. My only idiology is that kindness is better than cruelty, reason better than dogmatism. I also have a great deal of respect for what actually works in the real world, over against any party line. And I'm deeply suspicious of sources that claim their side is always right and the other side always wrong. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Then why do you insist on keeping this article so incredibly slanted? It tells one part of the picture (the authoritarian part) and almost never mentions it's exact opposite (the anti-authoritarian part). You never address my points. You consistently skoot around them. I've given you sources, others have given you good sources that are much more comprehensive than the picture you paint about conservatives, and you just won't acknowledge them.

Why is this? Elodoth (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the section on Authority and Social Order is not only biased, it is badly written. I've done some work to fix that. More work is needed. The section on Nationalism also needs work, but I lack the expertise to attempt a rewrite from scratch. Maybe I can contribute later. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of this trouble goes back to the lead where we assume that there is a right-wing tradition that has some commonality, rather than a concept that has been applied to varying systems. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. As best I can tell, economic liberals were never called right-wing before the 21st Century. Elodoth, can you explain why some Libertarians now identify themselves as "right-wing"? That is, what do Liertarians see themselves as having in common with the "God, King, and country" traditional Right? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I should remind you, Rick, that during the latter half of the 20th century, the political spectrum changed, and economic liberals were considered right-wing in the early half of the century. You're applying the American stereotype again here. Economic liberals supported private property and self-initiative, while the mostly socialist left opposed that. Just a little fact I thought I should mention among your biased and erroneous claims. Also, does this section have anything to do with the article? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true that I lived through the second half of the 20th century, and know more about that first hand than I know about the first half. If, as you say, "right-wing" was used to describe economic liberals in the first half of the century, it should be easy for you to give me an example. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just search for lists of liberal parties on WP (National Liberals, Democrat Liberals etc.) You'll see that most of the pre-1945 liberal parties were placed on, or described themselves as, centre-right. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you tell us to which parties you are referring? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to some of the liberal parties here, which also seem to advocate conservatism. The German National Liberal Party and Romanian National Liberal Party also mixed classical liberalism with nationalism and were considered centre-right parties at their time. This mixture is what made liberalism appear more right-wing back in the day. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Liberal parties in Europe were generally considered centrist and sat in the center of parliamentary chambers with Conservatives to their right and Socialists to their left. The right-liberals were wealthy businessmen who often supported Conservatives, who were aristocrats and royalists and supported militarism, protectionism and in Germany the welfare state while the left-liberals, who were middle-class, supported peace and free trade and opposed welfare. I do not think that the terms center-right or center-left were ever used then.

In the US then we would describe Teddy Roosevelt as a right-liberal and Robert Taft as a left-liberal.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

New defintion propsel

There seems to be three types of right-wing. The traditionalist right (conservative, reactionaries, monarchist), The cultural/nationalist/nativist right, and the capitalist/private property right.

I therefore propose this new definition: In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms applied to positions ranging from preserving traditional values upholding cultural or national heritage and/or supporting private property.

This gives the right a different defintion than conservatism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That definition basically describes anyone who is not a revolutionary communist. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't describe non-nationalist social liberals, socialists and anarchists. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Social liberals (could you please identify who these people are?) and most socialists, e.g., Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, the president of Iraq, the president of Columbia, the opposition to Castro, Hugo Chavez and Aristide, Morgan Tsvangirai, and Benazir Bhutto, Jean Kirkpatrick, Linda Chavez and Sidney Hook supported property rights. In fact if you ever go to the United Kingdom you will find that private property still exists. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are social democrats and democratic socialists. I believe Bobisbob was referring to hardcore, anti-property socialists. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there are so few hardcore, anti-property socialists any more (the last ones I can think of were hippies on communes in the sixties) that to characterize the Right as being in favor of private property would put almost everyone on the Right.

One of the many problems with the current use of left/right politics is the assumption that most people are on one side or the other, when in fact most people are both liberals -- they believe in freedom and equality -- and conservatives -- they believe in tradition. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Accepting private property is not what defines then on the left. Bobisbob2 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Religion" Section

The Religion section seems to violate WP:SYN. It combines the facts that the French Right supported the established church and the fact that the American Right is supported by (largely non-conformist) church-goers to conclude "It is common for those with strong religious views to be associated with right-wing causes". It then applies the label right-wing to a variety of political parties that are not normally considered to be right-wing, including the Combatant Clergy Association that helped to overthrow the Shah of Iran. Does anyone have a reliable source that actually states this? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is common. But we should actually state that religion is one of the key components of right-wing factions, but not necessarily the element that completely defines the right-wing ideology. I don't have a source, however. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that this section has been edited and the tag removed, but there is still no source for the overall theory. WP policy states Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Note too that some of the parties mentioned define marriage as between one man and one or more women, while others (in Iran) allow sex change operations. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem of the section is not only synthesis but also general lack of sources. Two thirds of section are unsourced. -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There are pretty of sources. The sentences that are unsourced are hardly disputed. I take it you just don't like religious conseravtives being mentioned on the right. Bobisbob2 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to answer a circular question

Rick said, "Elodoth, can you explain why some Libertarians now identify themselves as "right-wing"? That is, what do Liertarians see themselves as having in common with the "God, King, and country" traditional Right?"

Rick,

• Libertarians in the past have not identified with the right so much as the left has thrown us in with the right.

• Libertarians don't have anything in common with "King". (Country is another story. The God part is wrong, too. Some rightists, some leftists and some libertarians are religious or spiritual, some not.)

• The traditional right (paleoconservatism) is not about "King", either. The traditional right is about believing in the American Revolution, liberty and independence.

• The left are the ones who shoved our classical liberals out of the way over a hundred years ago and then, get this, called them the right!

• The left is now calling us (libertarians) radical right-wing extremists

• Considering that we are now in a left-wing dictatorship I am actually proud to part of the opposition.

• What's up with the "country" thing? I am a patriot to America and her sovereignty ... NOT to the government. Ha, only a leftist would question our sovereignty... Downright traitorous. Elodoth (talk) 19:42, :16 June 2009 (UTC)

The application of "right-wing" to English-speaking countries originated with Communist Party political analysis and was later used by Marxist social and political scientists, who applied concepts used in Europe. I really think it is confusing to try and define a commonality between the European and American Right. It does not matter whether the term is now commonly used. Why can't we separate the two concepts in the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The traditional right (paleoconservatism) is not about "King", either. The traditional right is about believing in the American Revolution, liberty and independence.

Supporters of monarchy were the traditional right during the Fench Revolution while the left supported a republic. The American Revoultion took place before both concepts were conceieved. Also paleoconservatives are hardly better than neoconseratives overall. They don't mind using government to enforce "moral" principles (e.g sodomy laws). Read what liberatrians acutally think of paleocons like Pat Buchannan. [8]

Libertarians in the past have not identified with the right so much as the left has thrown us in with the right.

Why do you identify with the right them?

I really think it is confusing to try and define a commonality between the European and American Right. It does not matter whether the term is now commonly used. Why can't we separate the two concepts in the article?

Because they are similair and have common ground.

Bobisbob2 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Again you need a reliable source showing that they are considered to be the same thing. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says they are completely different? Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No one said they are completely different, merely that you should show that reliable sources consider them to be the same. In your left-right spectrum we have the Bourbons, Adolf Hitler and John McCain on the Right and Robespierre, Joseph Stalin and Barack Obama on the left. Could you please provide a reliable source that confirms this. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Four Deuces. The funny thing about how Hitler is considered to be right is that he would be more aptly described as left. His economics were more left than Keynes.

To Bobisbob2 -- Modern liberals are not liberals. Isn't that a gas? Classical liberals are actual liberals. Modern liberals tend to be socialist or communist leaning and have blessed little to do with liberalism. Libertarians and libertarian-leaning old time conservatives like Ron Paul (and many of the American people) have more in common with classical liberalism than any modern liberal does.

How many modern liberals do you see standing up for gun rights, for example? Thomas Jefferson was the one who pushed for the whole Bill of Rights to be included in the Constitution and especially the second amendment.

It's true, too, though, that BOTH conservatives AND liberals are not much about liberty but more about oppression and stifling opposing opinion. Elodoth (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources! Where are your sources? You make these sweaping statements but don't offer any evidence.

You write, "Libertarians in the past have not identified with the right so much as the left has thrown us in with the right." The Left may have rejected the idea that the upper class should be taxed at a lower rate than the working class, but that hardly forced you to join the Right. You could have run Libertarian candidates, and in some cases did. Make your case with the American people instead of giving up some freedom to get lower taxes and higher debt. Liberals did not force you to vote for a president who believed (according to his "signing statements") that the president was above the law, who appointed people to the FCC who fined (was it NBC?) half a million dollars because they aired a dirty word, who opposed gay rights, opposed reproductive rights, opposed the right of the terminally ill to die with dignity, opposed medical use of marijuana.

Of course, your rhetoric about a "left-wing dictatorship" is just rhetoric. We have more freedom today than we have ever had, and share with the other liberal governments of the world the benefits of that freedom. (The idea that someone is going to take away your guns is totally unsupported -- no politician of either party would dare.)

Can you name one thing you want to do (other than smoke pot and not pay taxes) that you are not allowed to do? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious, Rick. "Liberals did not force you to vote for a president who[...]" If you're talking about Bush, I voted for Nader. We don't own our own bodies, we don't own our own property. People are getting taxed like crazy so they can support billionaire bankers, drop bombs on middle-eastern countries, and have whatever hard-earned savings they (had) spread around to others against their will. This is not liberty. Our two (one?) party system is almost impossible to change. Can you be serious about them not wanting to take our guns? Obama and the nuts in Congress are finding more and more devious ways to disarm Americans. (They won't be able to do, though, because Americans won't let them.) And higher debt? Bush was horrendous enough but now we have a president who has already spent how many trillion dollars? Hint: He's a leftist. Are we on the same planet here? Elodoth (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces, i'm just saying that there are certain things that unite right and left-wing ideologies. Of course there are differences in terms of authoritarianism and liberitarianism and such. Bobisbob2 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I got carried away. Of course you voted for Nader.

But the personal income taxes in America are one of the two lowest tax rates in the world. You don't want to pay taxes. You may also want to live forever. Good luck.

I own my body. I can do anything I want to it except get stoned. I can punch holes in it. I can tattoo it. I can pour alcohol into it. I can fill it with Whoppers. I can take my body anywhere in the world except Cuba and North Korea. And I can leave my body to provide organs for others when I die. If you don't own your body, who did you sell it to?

There are people who oppose private ownership of firearms, but they have no political clout. All the alarmist rants about Obama wanting to take away your guns are totally without foundation, unless you're a felon or a Mexican drug lord.

Which brings us back to the point of this whole conversation. Wikipedia requires evidence. Statements that seem true to you, because the media you listen to repeat them over and over, still require evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted.

When do you give sources, Rick? I have given sources which proved my point and all you did was little tap dances around them and never addressed them.

Paying heavy (or any Federal) income taxes is not a necessary evil of government. You can have small govt. with no big taxes. We had it for most of our history. That only started with the Federal Reserve and the 16th amendment in 1913. What difference does it make what other governments do? One of the great things about America has been that we don't do what other govt.s do and don't care what they do.

Concerning your body, can you sell it legally? No. Can you smoke without paying enormous taxes on the cigarettes? No. (You can buy them online but in some states they're even trying to stop that.) NYC passed a law that says restaurants cannot serve transfatty acids. Concerning choices in your health, do people need a license to practice medicine? Yes. Is Obama trying to ram a federally controlled health-care system down our throats? Yes. Need I source these things?

Do we really have freedom of speech on a federal level? No. The FCC.

Do they want to regulate the auto industry? (My God, I almost forgot, the fascists own it now.) They want us to do the useless Kyoto protocol thing. Pretty soon they'll start taxing the amount of gas you pass as you walk down the street.

Are licenses needed for just about everything? Yes. You need a license to practice law. You need a license to teach. You need a license to drive a car. You even need a license for your dog in most states.

Are licenses needed to start a business? For virtual ones yes. Not to mention another million regulations that need to be followed in order to carry on a business.

You need to buy auto insurance in every state (I believe) except New Hampshire. Tyranny if I ever saw it.

Are employers mandated to hire a certain quota of racial and gender groups? Yes. Are they told how much to pay workers? Yes.

Concerning your property, can you defend your property with a gun? In most states no. Do you have to pay ridiculous taxes on your land so it won't be seized by the state? Yes. Can your local govt. take your land for any reason it chooses? Yes.

Do you read the news, Rick? The gun (and knife) grabbing Obama and congress and Sotomayer -- see these:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45

"(U) Legislative and Judicial Drivers

(U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence." http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

http://gunowners.org/

http://www.panamalaw.org/montana_governor_signs_new_gun_law.html

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/14/sotomayor-worries-gun-rights-groups/?feat=home_headlines

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/bulletins_decisions/bulletins_2009/vol43_05222009_no21/43genno21.ctt/43genno21.pdf

"Obama wants the senate to ratify a little-known treaty that would create a national registry for guns. Under that treaty other nations would be able to identify gun owners in the United States. The treaty would create a gun control system that would be open to international sharing. Offenders would be prosecuted under treaty law and they would be eligible for extradition." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o Elodoth (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Corrected a broken link. Elodoth (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How should right-wing be defined in this article?

The term right-wing originated in 18th century Europe where more conservative members sat to the right of the president in parliamentary chambers It is still used especially in France and Italy where the more conservative parties have an historic connection with right-wing parties of the past, and continue to sit on the right. In the twentieth century a number of social and political scientists constructed models that applied the term to the politics of English-speaking countries. Since then American conservatism has been called right-wing, although the term is generally considered derogatory in other English-speaking countries.

Should the article treat the Right as a single topic with unifying features or should it state that it is used in different ways? Is there one definition for the Right or are there several? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Four Deuces. Exactly my point. Elodoth (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User comment

Unification: The article should describe the most common features right-wing groups take. The right-wing ideologies share a common ancestor starting in France and spreading to the rest of the Western world and some of the non-Western world being adapted and such but with the core of the original right still intact. Thus it should not be treated as a polyphyletic term. They does not mean the article should not note important differences between some right-wing movements. Bobisbob2 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that the common view is that French absolutism is the ancestor of modern American conservatism? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So where did American conservatism come from if not from Europe. Bobisbob2 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any source stating that American conservatism came from Europe? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That Russell Kirk, Willaim F. Buckely and others cite the works of people like Edmund Burke as inspiration. Try[9] or read the section on Burke in this book [10]. Were's your evidence that American conservatism evolved in a vaccum with no influence from outside. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Edmund Burke was actually English, not French. Where is the French connection? (BTW the view that American conservatives are Burkean conservatives is not even accepted by most American conservatives and has even less acceptance in the academic community.) The Four Deuces (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, Four Deuces, that is correct. Elodoth (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rick, you said I make sweeping statements and don't source them. Here you go (from the article):

"Friedrich Hayek wrote that it was incorrect to represent the policitical spectrum as a line with socialists on the left, conservatives on the right and liberals in the middle. Instead he suggested seeing each group as pulling at the corner of a triangle. The socialists had by mid-twentieth century pulled harder, so that the entire political spectrum had shifted to the left and socialist ideas had become respectable. In the United States however the difference between conservatives and liberals was obscured by the fact that it was possible to defend individual liberty by defending established institutions, as the American tradition was liberal. He thought that the attempt to transplant the European type of conservatism to America had created confusion in viewing the political spectrum as had the tendency of American radicals and socialists to call themselves liberals.[11]" Source: Hayek Elodoth (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph you quote is a good example of a well written and well sourced paragraph. If memory serves, The Four Deuces wrote it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hat's off to The Four Deuces. Rick, I answered your last rant with my own rant. (above) ;) Elodoth (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Move long discussion to new section

Comments not indented are by Elodoth.

Indented comments are by Rick Norwood.

When do you give sources, Rick? I have given sources which proved my point and all you did was little tap dances around them and never addressed them.

I would guess that at least half the time I spend on Wikipedia, I spend researching and quoting sources. When you give a reliable source, I respect it.

You bring up a lot of topics that would fun to debate, but this is not the place. The topic here is the meaning and usage of the phrase "right wing".

That said, there are a few points that I am unable to resist commenting on.

Do we really have freedom of speech on a federal level? No. The FCC.

The FCC only controls broadcast media, your speech is free. Essentially there are only two things you cannot say on the air. You cannot plan or encourage a felony. And you can't say the Seven Dirty Words. But the Left would like to see the second restriction removed, while the Right defends it. Aside from that, you can say anything you want, and do. The people who protest most loudly that the government is taking away free speech are free to say just about anything they want, and do.

Are licenses needed for just about everything? Yes. You need a license to practice law. You need a license to teach. You need a license to drive a car. You even need a license for your dog in most states. Are licenses needed to start a business? For virtual ones yes. Not to mention another million regulations that need to be followed in order to carry on a business. You need to buy auto insurance in every state (I believe) except New Hampshire. Tyranny if I ever saw it.

I am a teacher and don't have a license to teach. I started my own business and don't have a license to start a business. The American Medical Association and the American Bar Association are in charge of licenses to practice medicine and law, not the federal government. I live in Tennessee and am not required to buy auto insurance.

I agree that there are some restrictions on freedom, but think you exaggerate their impact.

Do you read the news, Rick? The gun (and knife) grabbing Obama and congress and Sotomayer -- see these: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45 "(U) Legislative and Judicial Drivers (U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence." http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Yes, I read the news. The statement about rightwing extremist groups is a true statement. There have been three murders in the last three months by Right-wing extremists. Some people have suggested that gun control is necessary, but I haven't, Obama hasn't, congress as a body hasn't, Sotomayer hasn't.

http://gunowners.org/

This case involved nunchaks, not guns. Sotomayer ruled according to the law, instead of being a judicial activist, and ruled in favor of state's rights, and against the power of the federal government. The source you give tries to spin that.

http://www.panamalaw.org/montana_governor_signs_new_gun_law.html

This is an example of more gun freedom, not less.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/14/sotomayor-worries-gun-rights-groups/?feat=home_headlines

This story reports that Sotomayor decided the case in question on the law, avoiding judicial activism, and that the NRA has not decided whether to take a position on her nomination -- hardly a (if you'll forgive the expression) smoking gun.

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/bulletins_decisions/bulletins_2009/vol43_05222009_no21/43genno21.ctt/43genno21.pdf "Obama wants the senate to ratify a little-known treaty that would create a national registry for guns. Under that treaty other nations would be able to identify gun owners in the United States. The treaty would create a gun control system that would be open to international sharing. Offenders would be prosecuted under treaty law and they would be eligible for extradition." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o Elodoth (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is hardly a reliable source. This is a myth that does not grow more credible by repetition. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. The discussion should be about improving the article not a debate on a specific administration. Elodoth if you have information on the libertarian right, then contribute to the article. Bobisbob2 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

blanking

An anonymous editor has deleted large sections of the article with no comment except "made changes". Some of those sections may deserve to be deleted, but a change that large should be discussed here. I'm restoring the blanked sections. But this editor's work on other articles has been good, and my objection is not so much to what he did as that he did too much, too fast, without explanation. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I put it back, there was too much original research and most of the info in the social heirarchy section belonged in the other sections(religious heirarchy in religion, ect). Bobisbob2 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

By "I put it back" I assume you mean "I took it out, again". That's an awfully big change. Since two people (I gather) think it all should go, I'll take a look on a case by case basis. But changes this big really should be discussed here. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the section on Social Hierarchy. Since the original French "right-wing" supported a social hierarchy, and since Russell Kirk says that a social hierarchy is essential to conservatism, the section is certainly important. Also, every statement in the section is referenced. The claim that it should be split up over several subsections ignores the essential role it plays in right-wing thought. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the reference to John Adams, which is very much to the point. I would appreciate it, Bobisbob2, if you would explain what it is in the Social Order section that you consider "POV". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened the long section on "economics". This article should state what the right-wing views on economics are, not argue in their favor. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened the long section on "religion". It had too much that was specific to American politics.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Economics" section says ...in modern Western politics the Right strongly advocates small government and free market capitalism. It might be better to say ...in modern Western politics the Right is associated with neoliberalism, although it has also been adopted by most governments across the political spectrum. Some readers may take the term "advocates" to imply that they actual carry out these policies once in government. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The economics section is far too American-centric as of right now. Perhaps something on right-wing populism in Europe and other movements could help it? Soxwon (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I would like to see more non-American references. And, as best I can tell, while many politicians have run on a "small government" platform, I can't think of any who actually decreased their own power after they were in office. Jefferson didn't. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A major neo-liberal theme has been concentrating power in central government, with the result that government services cost more and deliver less. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The opening sentence is incorrect [continued]

I also stumbled over the use of "and" in the opening sentence ("In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms applied to positions that focus on preserving traditional or cultural values and customs and maintaining some form of social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4]"). The qualifier "sometimes", used in the later section on "Social hierarchy", ("Right-wing politics sometimes involves the creation or promotion of a social hierarchy.[44]"), seems to make "and maintaining" an incorrect way of summarizing.

While larger changes are clearly being discussed, it seems clear to me that in the interim, "and maintaining" should be corrected to read "or maintaining".

As requested, although this change seems straightforward to me, before making a change to this effect, I'm asking to see whether the idea of keeping "and" is needed in face of the later contradiction.CSProfBill (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement "sometimes involves the creation...of a social hierarchy" in "Social hierarchy" is not supported by the source from Fundamentalism Observed. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism

Would you all agree that paleoconservatives are right-wing? Elodoth (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what they are. But they seem more like a lower middle class reaction against both the upper and lower classes than a true right-wing ideology. [User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd see them as a sort of ultra-conservatives, positioned on the far right. They seem to support a renewal of national tradition, advocating a return to the very first cultural tendencies of their respective nation, thereby creating an extreme form of reactionary politics. I think they're well on the right. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitions of paleoconservative

–noun

• a person advocating an older, traditional type of conservatism, esp. in politics. [12]

• adj. Informal

Extremely or stubbornly conservative in political matters.

From Paleoconservatism

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian right-wing movement in the United States that stresses tradition, civil society and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.

We can conclude (from these sources) that Paleoconservatism is a part of the right-wing.

Big points:

• Paleoconservatism is anti-authoritarian.

• Paleoconservatism is extremely or stubbornly conservative in political matters. Elodoth (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Gottfried who coined the term paleoconservative and has written extensively about the meaning of political terms and the history of American conservatism wrote that there has never been a conservative movement in the US, that he is opposed to conservatism and that what Americans call conservatism is actually liberalism.[13][14] He does write about the American Right, but I think the meaning is that they are on the right of the mainstream American spectrum rather than they have anything in common with the Right in other countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, The Four Deuces, because from my own studying that is exactly what I came up with. What are known as paleo or old-time conservatives are really an awful lot like classical liberals in the U.S. However, they are still considered part of the right-wing in the U.S. And they probably represent the biggest section of the right-wing in the U.S. So at least a chunk of the article needs to include this because it is important. :O) Elodoth (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have written a proposed new lead below. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism is an even split between right and left. In their view, the promotion of law and tradition will lead to on the one hand gains towards goals (for the Left) and continuity of already obtained gains. (for the Right) However, these are only entertained as differences of opinion between paleoconservatives, because there is a common believe amongst them that both are valuable and can only be gained through the strict promotion of tradition.

The paleoconservative philosophy is, in no uncertain terms, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Extreme paleoconservativism takes an even stronger stance: the rules are perfect and if they seem inadequate, then that's because not everyone is following them. (a sentiment typically followed up on by attempted crack downs on rule-breakers, because the exclusion of changing the rules means that the only way to improve, or secure, the situation is to force the people who are not following the rules to comply, or to eliminate them entirely. This of course inevitably leads to tragedy). Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The right is usually associated with...

On page 258 of the book British politics today authors explain the use of certain analytical concepts that political scientists use in their works. For the political spectrum they say: "The right of the spectrum is usually associated with tradition, individualism, liberty and free enterprise". -- Vision Thing -- 12:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. It is not the way "the Right" is commonly used, but I don't know that much about British politics. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not the far right at any rate. :) Soxwon (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We should acknowledge that there are a number of models for "left, right and centre" of which British politics today (p. 258)[15] provides just one. In this model, according to the authors conservatives are right, socialists are left, and liberals and social democrats are in the centre. However on page 51 they refer to the Conservative Party (UK) as "centre-right" and European conservatives as "right" even though the CP (UK) has always scored higher on "individualism, liberty and free enterprise" than the European Right.

BTW I notice that Vision Thing has added a definition from this source to left wing-politics. If you do this you should change the lead to remove liberals and social democrats who are considered centrist in this model. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the source, conservatives are right, socialists are left, and liberals (in the European sense of the word) and social democrats are in between (social democrats center-left, liberals center-right). -- Vision Thing -- 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't this definition is limited to Britain. Authors commented on a general use of the right/left and they started their overview with French revolution. -- Vision Thing -- 08:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A single book does not trump multiple sources that say otherwise. Unfortunately, the link provided by The Four Deuces does not go up to page 258, but if the book begins this discussion with the French Revolution, it certainly does not say that during the French Revolution the Right supported individualism, liberty and free enterprise, because during the French Revolution the Right did no such thing. When scholars use the left/right dichotomy at all, they use Left to mean socialist or communist and Right to mean support for the upper class and for a state religion. Ask an educated person to name someone on the Left, they will probably say Marx or Stalin, and for someone on the Right they will probably say Franco. Thus, both Left and Right have largely negative connotations.

These standard meanings are supported by numerous quotes from dictionaries given above.

On the other hand, the popular press uses these words in new, non-standard ways, and this article should mention both uses, as it now does. But it should not give just the popular meaning and ignore the dictionary meaning. Even more so, it should not put a positive spin on one word and a negative spin on the other.

Those who favor small government and low taxes should make their case for small government and low taxes on its merits, not try to change the language. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

British politics today provides a clear definition for left and right and states that liberalism and social democracy occupy the centre. It is OR to sub-divide the centre into centre-left and centre-right and re-group them as left and right. Hayek was not big on "tradition" and Tony Blair was not big on "common ownership of the resources", although they articles not imply otherwise. There are bipolar models for the political spectrum but this is not one of them. This model divides the spectrum into three distinct groups of left, right and centre.

BTW the association of the Conservatives and the Right with capitalism came about because traditional liberals decided to join forces with the aristocrats who they thought would prevent social reform. Margaret Thatcher's father for example had been a Liberal and Ian Gilmour called her of a "neo-liberal", totally opposed to Conservative principals. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you want to split hairs, it doesn't say that liberalism and social democracy occupy the centre. It says that liberalism and social democracy occupy position between conservatism and socialism. Here is a direct page link [16]. -- Vision Thing -- 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide the page no. It seems that Google books has changed and links no longer go to the page no. However it is not splitting hairs to suggest that the center is distinct from the left and right. For example, in Political Man (1960), p. 222, Lipset wroteThe right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes. Hayek wrote 2. The picture generally given of the relative position of the three parties does more to obscure than to elucidate their true relations. They are usually represented as different positions on a line, with the socialists on the left, the conservatives on the right, and the liberals somewhere in the middle. Nothing could be more misleading. If we want a diagram, it would be more appropriate to arrange them in a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner, with the socialists pulling toward the second and the liberals toward the third.[17] In your definition conservatism is identified as the Right, socialism is the Left and there is also a middle of the spectrum. Personally I believe that social democrats should be kept in the Left-wing politics article because of their historical origins and self-identification with the Left, but your definition specifically excludes them. In fact it probably places the Conservative Party (UK) and the Christian Democrats in the centre as well. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Link should lead you directly to page 258. If there is some problem, in the contents you can click on link to chapter "Political concepts" (p. 251) and then just scroll down until you get to it. Lipset wrote that in 1960. This was written in 2004. 44 years are a long time. I'm not sure that class issues are as important today as they were in the 1960.

If you check list of political parties in Germany you will see that Social Democratic Party is classified as "center-left". The only purely left-wing party is The Left which nicely fits to description of the left I gave. -- Vision Thing -- 09:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition in the book is consistent with the models used by Hayek and Lipset and still used by political scientists today. While the book does not mention class in its definitions, it is implied, e.g., "Why have so many working-class voters supported the party of the midde-class? (p. 88) in the section Party loyalty and social class. Class issues are not as important today as they were in 1960 and Lipset noted that they had already lost significance. More recently other writers have tried to develop new bipolar models, like the one pictured in the book. The trouble with these models is that they are unhelpful in categorizing political parties. The Nolan chart for example now places all major Western political parties on the right of the spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The terms are still helpful because today's parties have historical origins and relationships to other parties, especially the Left. The German Left party e.g. was a merger of the PDS and a splinter of the SPD. The PDS (or SED) was a forced union in East Germany between the SPD and the Communist Party. The Communist Party was originally a splinter from the SPD. The SPD is a member of the Socialist International along with over 100 other parties. But while Social Democrats were able to survive by moving to the centre, and more radical groups have emerged, the historic parties of the Right have largely disappeared. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing's edits

The phrase "taken out of context" suggests that sentences before or after a given quote change the meaning of the quote. I've given you such a sentence in British Politics Today. You have not provided any evidence that the several sources quoted in the section on the Right and science are taken out of context.

I have no objection to the quote from British Politics Today, provided it is put in context. That is, instead of making a claim for social science in general, which is contradicted by numerous sources, make the claim for Britain today, and add the qualification from the book.

If you want to support a particular political belief, then instead of trying to change the dictionary meaning of a phrase to bring it in line with your belief, it would seem more honest to describe your belief with a word whose dictionary meaning corresponds to that idea. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would question using British Politics Today as a source. The book is about contemporary British politics, hence the name, rather than an analysis of the political spectrum. The discussion of the political spectrum merely appears as part of an appendix on political concepts. It is much better to refer to articles or books actually written about the subject and reflect what they say. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Science section violates WP:NOR. None of the sources supports the claim that "The political Right often finds itself in opposition to scientific organizations". At best they support claim that some right-wing groups have recently found themselves at odds with scientific views on evolution and global warming. However, even such claim would violate WP:NPOV if it would stand alone, without additional clarifications on the general views of the political right on science.

As for British Politics Today, main subject of the book is the British politics but the appendix, which is serving as a source here, is about general usage of political scientists so it is a valid source. -- Vision Thing -- 18:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

British Politics Today is not a valid source. Right-wing politics is a long article about a complex subject and therefore the lead should not be taken from a thumbnail sketch in the back of a textbook. The proper approach is to read the academic literature and base the article on that rather than writing a summary and then searching for a source that appears to agree with your point of view. (In fact it does not agree as I pointed out.) The Four Deuces (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to me which criteria from WP:RS British Politics Today doesn't satisfy? Also, when we take a look at sources section of this article it becomes clear that this source is superior to majority of them. For example, it is clearly superior to sources which Rick Norwood uses in an attempt to paint the right as opposed to science. -- Vision Thing -- 20:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says " their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (their italics). The authors of British politics today are not regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Also "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse". The appendix of British politics today has not entered the "mainstream academic discourse" because it is merely the appendix to a textbook. Also "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation". Do a lot of academics quote this source? No. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Kavanagh is a Professor of Politics at the University of Liverpool and he is certainly a trustworthy source for a general use of the terms left and right wing. Also, book was published by Manchester University Press and WP:V says: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses..." -- Vision Thing -- 12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you select the one paragraph appendix from British politics today because it is the most reliable source available for the definition of "right-wing" or did you select it because it comes closest to your own definition of right-wing? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that article doesn't properly reflect how the term "right-wing" is used. I don't have a personal definition of right-wing and I think that left-right terminology is useless for any meaningful analysis or discussion. Terms like anarchist, socialist, libertarian, etc. are much more precise. -- Vision Thing -- 09:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Vision_Thing: The problem with your edits is that they do not tend to present the Right objectively, but tend to reject any source, however well established, if it says anything about the Right that does not agree with your views (which, as best I can tell, are not right-wing views at all), and at accept any source, even one as minor as an appendix to a textbook, if it supports your views. When authors say, as they often do, that Franco was a ight-wing dictator, they are not saying that Franco supported freedom and private property. When they say that George Wallace was a right-wing governor of Mississippi, they are not saying that George Wallace supported freedom and private property. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for reply about science section and NOR and NPOV policies. -- Vision Thing -- 09:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are young and relatively unread, and really don't know how the phrase "right-wing" is used outside of your social circle, or if you know perfectly well how the pharse "right-wing" is used, and are trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda vehicle. I'll assume good faith, and explain (again). NOR means "no original research", which means that the ideas in a Wikipedia article must reflect a respected published source. The material on science is heavily sourced, therefore the NOR claim is inappropriate. NPOV means that Wikipedia must not be used as a propaganda vehicle for one side or the other, but must attempt the ideal of academic objectivity. Since the sources for the conflict between the Right and science are from various countries around the world, and since the section is brief -- just one sentence! -- it hardly violated NPOV.

Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of the difference between WP:V and WP:NOR. You can use sources and still violate NOR. Problem with your sentence is that it says that the political Right often finds itself in opposition to scientific organizations and none of your sources says that explicitly. That is a conclusion that you derived from two or three sources that reported instances of few right wing parties opposing evolution and global warming theories. With equal validity you could claim that the right sporadically/rarely/constantly finds itself in opposition to scientific organizations. Nothing in your sources indicates what is general relation between science and right-wing. -- Vision Thing -- 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume that you have not read the references. When a reference uses the phrase "right-wing creationist theories" they are specifically calling creationist theories "right-wing". When a conservative web page says "promoting Obama and left-wing climate ideas", they are specifically calling global warming "left-wing". When a Reuters article says "Darwinism did become an issue during the left-vs.-right political turmoil (in Turkey)" they are specifically saying that evolution is a "left-vs.-right" issue in Turkey.

The Right's oposition to science is pervasive. I could have quoted a hundred sources. I limited myself to four. Would it help if I offered another dozen or so? Read The Republican War Against Science for more on this topic. I did not list it as a source here because it is specifically about the American Right. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a section on the Right and "enhanced interrogration". Lindsey Graham recently said "I mean, one of the reasons these techniques have survived for about 500 years is apparently they work".[18] So we have a long history of right-wing belief that "enhanced interrogration" gets to the truth from the Spanish Inquisition to compassionate conservatism. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that enhanced interrogation has only been around 500 years is a gross underestimate. You need only consider the Roman's advanced interrogation of Jesus for an earlier example. Also, there is no evidence that it works. It may work, in some cases, but mostly it seems so pervasive not because it works, but because torturing people is fun. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You can quote a thousand sources. That doesn't change a thing. Original research is "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". By saying that the right "often opposes" science you are conducting unpublished analysis of published material. -- Vision Thing -- 20:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Vision Thing is correct. You need a source that says The political Right often finds itself in opposition to scientific organizations over such topics as evolutionary theory and the global warming debate or something similar. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, The Four Deuces. I will add exactly such a reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a page from The Oxford History of the French Revolution on which you discovered that "The conflict between the Right and science began during the French Revolution."? Or are you simply equating the church and the right? -- Vision Thing -- 14:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've provided the pages numbers you requested. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no discussion about views of the right towards science on those pages. As before you are conducting original research. -- Vision Thing -- 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Right-wingers certainly support science if it leads to financial profit, better weapons or other products or information that benefit them personally, so to say that the Right is anti-science is an inaccurate generalization.Spylab (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing: It is true that the authors of the Oxford History don't use the phrases "left" and "right", but since those phrases originated during the French Revolution, when the Encyclopedists were on the Left and the Roman Catholics were on the right, it is easy to see which side is which. The Four Deuces knows more about this subject than I do; he may be able to do a better job of providing the requested context. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The best source for the Right being anti-science would be Joseph de Maistre, who is the father of right-wing ideology. Here's a link to a JSTOR article that discusses him and the warfare between "science" and "religion".[19] Glenn Wilson (psychologist) identified "opposition to scientific progress" as one aspect of the "conservative character" [20] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to write this up or shall I?Rick Norwood (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you go ahead. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed VT's edit to the lead: "the Right are terms used to describe support for ...maintaining some form of private property". What is the source for this? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The specific reference provided, which does not contain a page number, does not appear to support this.[21] Could you please indicate where this is stated? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference is apparently to page 53 of Peirson's book.The%20modern%20state&pg=PA53 It does not however support VT's edit. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Science"

The fragmentary one-sentence section on "Science" smacks of a cheap shot and should be removed. The whole section gone, in other words. The statement may well be more or less correct as far as content goes, as the position of MANY (but by no means ALL) "right wing" people on such matters is well identified, but the assertion strikes me as a provocation and remains a highly-correlated but utterly non-germane tangent from the main topic of the article at best.

This from a pinko that writes on the history of various aspects of radicalism for WP. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And therefore is expected to err on the side of sympathy for the right wing? —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the rejection of science by the Right is germane, and the section should be expanded rather than removed. In a way it is a cheep shot, but it also says something important about the Right wing. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This article treats the Right as a single ideology from Joseph de Maistre to John McCain. I set up an RfC on this issue[22] and suggested a new lead.[23], but the consensus was to not change. Using the existing definition, it is clear that being against science is one of the founding principles of the Right, just as supporting science was a founding principle of liberalism. Here's a link to an article that describes De Maistre's opposition to modern science.[24] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say the that critics of the right link the right to opposition to political movements which have adopted "science" as a constituent element such as in human-originated global warming and neo-Darwinism. As the text stands now, the claims are overly broad and simply assumes the left's view of the right as factual when it merely arguable. What do others think of my proposed wording? patsw (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

De Maistre did not in fact say anything about global warming or evolution and neither of those concepts had been conceived when right-wing ideology was developed. De Maistre in fact opposed modern science as you can read about here: [25]. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what one person that lived 200 years ago has to do with general attitude of the right towards science. -- Vision Thing -- 14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

VT, you may as well say you don't know what one person who lived 2,000 years ago has to do with Christianity or what one person who lived 200 years ago has to do with Communism. De Maistre is the father of right-wing ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe, and sources seem to support it, that Edmund Burke is that person. But nevertheless, it wouldn't be the first time that followers stray from the path laid down by the originator of movement. -- Vision Thing -- 14:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Edmund Burke was not right-wing. The Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain is not right-wing. In fact the term "right-wing" derives from the seating in the French estates general, not from the British Parliament. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

From "West European politics today" (by Geoffrey K. Roberts, Jill Lovecy, p. 23) about the UK political system: "There are four main political parties: the right-wing Conservative Party, a left-wing Labour Party )to which most of the important trade unions are affiliated), a moderate Social Democratic Party founded by former members of the Labour Party, and a Social and Liberal Democratic Party." -- Vision Thing -- 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They are using it in a relative sense. John Redwood explains that the term is inappropriate[26] and it is only used as a criticism by opponents. It's like calling someone a fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Points 2, 3, 4 & 5 from his post can also be applied to United States, so the same case for inappropriateness of the term can be made for it use on Republicans. -- Vision Thing -- 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Both the Conservatives and the Republicans self-identify as "political parties of the centre and centre right".[27] Many people however argue that they are right-wing, just as many argue the Democratic Party is left-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Then do you agree that the current article structure is deeply misleading? Main headings should be about different concepts of the "right", and each of them should have subheadings detailing their positions on certain issues. Current structure implies that all positions are shared equally among all movements that are labeled as right wing. -- Vision Thing -- 16:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Patsw: The Right's oposition to mainstream science is amply documented. What the Right claims is the Left's view is in fact the view of every scientific organization in the world. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this alleged opposition expressed in any other manner than an POV manner? No -- which is why the correct way for the Wikipedia to present this as originating with the critics of the right. patsw (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No. This link from the article, [28], for example, says nothing at all about the Right, only about what scientists world-wide believe. It is the Right that calls evolution and global warming "left-wing". The many scientist who fight against this disinformation are not on the Left. As professionals, they only oppose the Right when the Right lies about science. Here is yet another reference which I've added to the article: [Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press, 1992, ISBN: 9780309043861]. Would a hundred such references convince you? A thousand? Or would you tag the section "disputed" as long as there is one right-wing commentator who disputes what is and is not science. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Below is the passage that describes De Maistre's attitude toward science. This is clearly what people who call themselves "right-wing" think.

De Maistre accused the savants, scientists, and such, who, like some cabal, collude together to deny that anyone might acquire greater knowledge than their own, and by different methods. "They dismiss as irrational a time in which men saw cause and effect clearly, but they display the mentality of our current age, in which men can only with difficulty penetrate from effects to causes, and tend to say that it is worthless to concern oneself with causes, or hardly to know anymore what a cause is." He adds : "They propound innumerable clichés concerning the ignorance of the ancients, who saw spirits everywhere : it appears to me that they are much more foolish than these ancients were, because they fail to see any spiritual factors whatever. We always hear talk of physical causes. But what, in the final analysis, is a physical cause?"

For him the axiom, "No physical event in the life of man can have a higher cause," is inauspicious and likely to promote a fundamental superficiality. He rejects the idea of progress. The idea of involution appears rather more plausible to him. De Maistre notes that numerous traditions attest that "Men began already in possession of science, but a science different from ours, and superior to it, because it started from a higher point, which also made it more dangerous. And this explains to us how science, at its beginning, was always mysterious, and was restricted to the temples, where ultimately it burned itself out, when its flame could no longer serve except to burn."[29]

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To Rick Norwood, your citation, "Evolution:Introduction". National Academies., doesn't make the partisan point you want to make. So if that article is not about Right-wing politics, why mention it in the article? You make the case for deleting the section from the article. Is this article to be a WP:COATRACK or WP:FORK for characterizing the global warming debate or the evolution debate? patsw (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To The Four Deuces, I don't believe De Maistre's comments you wrote above are particularly relevant to the political matter at hand, Right-wing politics, but more to different broad telelogical views of the world, a philosophical matter. The accuracy of his generalization to the present day is arguable in any case. patsw (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, any balanced "Science" section would have to first demonstrate a consensus held among people in Right-wing politics towards "Science" before it is attacked. patsw (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument for "Intelligent Design" is a teleological argument. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Patsw: So, if a source mentions the disagreement within the Right over science, it is obviously political, and shouldn't be cited. And if a source doesn't mention the disagreement within the Right over science, then it is irrelevant and shouldn't be cited. So, major voices on the Right do dispute mainstream science, but any attempt to say so is either biased or irrelevant. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

life, liberty, and property

In the original usage, the right to property was a liberal ideal. Liberalism objected to the idea that a King could seize property without due process. During the American Revolution, this was applied in particular to the seizure and confiscation, by ships flying the flag of King George III, of American shipping on the high seas.

In my reading, I have not seen any use of "right-wing" to mean private property rights in books or articles written before the 20th Century, and even then the usage is rare. When the press uses the phrase "right-wing" it is usually in the context of "right-wing death squads" or "right-wing religious extremists".

A claim was made that the use of "right-wing" to mean "private property rights" goes back as far as the 19th Century. If so, it should be in that section of the article and be referenced.

Finally, will the person who keeps deleting the quote by Pierson please explain why they want the reference without the context.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"In the original usage, the right to property was a liberal ideal. Liberalism objected to the idea that a King could seize property without due process."

If by liberalism you mean the classic liberal ideals that opposed the power of the state in favor of respect for private property, liberty and the end of royal monopolies you are right.

Liberalism under that context was a right-wing philosophy.

I couldnt tell you about "right-wing death squads" or "right-wing religious extremists", frankly such characterizations make me laugh. Agrofelipe (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"In my reading, I have not seen any use of "right-wing" to mean private property rights in books or articles written before the 20th Century, and even then the usage is rare. When the press uses the phrase "right-wing" it is usually in the context of "right-wing death squads" or "right-wing religious extremists"."

Right-wing death squads... hmm. So that means left-wing death squads should be referenced in the press as an all-encompassing element of left-wing philosophy as well? Let me put it this way, Rick, simple logic: the aristocracy during the French Revolution stood for a modern version of today's upper class and private property supporters, while the revolutionaries that stormed Bastille stood for the proclamation of a democratic republic and a more communitarian form of private property (i.e. social liberalism). Which one of those two reflects today's right-wingers? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by steadily debating established historical theories concerning the left and the right, and I'm not going to push it because I've pushed it in the past with no avail, but I just wanted to make a slight amendment to this discussion. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises from exactly how valid is a comparison between the french aristocracy, that was based on class privileges, and the entrepreneurs and capital investors of today, that acquire their property on the base of savings and merits.

Also it would be good to specify how "communitarian" was the ideal of the french republicans, because equality under the law is very different from equality of property. Agrofelipe (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

'Left Wing Death Squads', I like it, I must ensure that the liberal media in my country apply that term as widely as they like to apply similar terms to 'right wing' nastiness.82.8.176.38 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Its such a pitty that the term liberal was stolen from the classic liberals, now true liberals in other countries have to play with a number of denominations just to make clear it what they defend. Agrofelipe (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Whats exactly is s reactionary?

It seems to me that any member of an established political power would be a reactionary under the condition defined here, a marxist could be a reactionary to free markets and individual liberty. Agrofelipe (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats exactly is a conservative? It seems to me that any member of an established political power would be a conservative under the condition defined here, a marxist could be a conservative against free markets and individual liberty. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Reactionary" and conservative ideals are rooted in the feudalistic middle ages, specifically the monarchists, aristocrats and factions that supported those social classes - because, well, back then the only political way of running a state was through a king or some kind of leader originating from an elitist family. That was until the English Civil War and other conflicts in Europe gave rise to progressivist ideals like democratic parliamentarism and more extreme forms of progressivism later on, like Marxism. I guess the only common thread that unites modern conservatives, after all the changes that have been taking place, is the opposition to progressivism they've been advocating since the 17th century. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please dont get me started on "progressivism", you would have to be really cynical to use the term marxism and progress in the same sentence.

Classical liberalism and in a broader sense libertarianism, are not enemies of progress, in fact they have been fighting against socialist reactionaries since the XVIII century. Agrofelipe (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also historical continuity between the conservatives and the Right of today (especially in the UK and France) and those of the past. The Tories originally supported absolute monarchy. Over time their party became home to liberal aristocrats and capitalists so that by the time of Margaret Thatcher they had become almost entirely liberal in ideology. This process is explained in the article sinistrisme and was written about by Herbert Spencer in "The New Toryism" and Friedrich Hayek in "Why I am not a conservative". As UNSC Trooper noted "the only common thread...is the opposition to progressivism". The Four Deuces (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Conservatism" comes from classical liberalism (moderate Whig) in the first place, but its rather a more cautious liberalism which looked at the French Revolution and was horrified. Conservatism is very different from the original principles of Toryism. The term reactionary is a tough one, because it hasn't been reclaimed entirely yet and is mostly used as a term of abuse by utopianist collectivist radicals, its a political heresy to come out and say "I am an unrepentant reactionary". The term traditionalist tends to be the prefered term, which of course is Medievalist and in its most potent form Thomist. Carlism could be a good example of authentic reactionary I suppose. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that is all very interesting but during the 19th century classical liberals belonged to the Liberal Party. It was not called the "classical liberal party" of course. "Conservatism is very different from the original principles of Toryism." Then why is the "Conservative Party of the UK" and Canada's Progressive Conservative parties called "Tories"? And how does "moderate Whig" equate to "classical liberal"? By the way, I love reading these theories and ask that you provide some source for them. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Whigs became Hanoverian Tories. Understand now, how they play both sides of the fence? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)