Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 2

Cleaned up US Political Party List

I cleaned up the list of right-wing political parties for the USA. It may be true that the groups I deleted might be "right-wing", but NONE OF THEM AT ALL were actual political parties. Either they are merely a faction within a political party (Log-Cabin Republicanc) or they are not political parties at all (all the rest). They may be politial PRESSURE GROUPS, but they are not political parties. They do not field candidates for office, and in the USA, THAT is what primarily distinguishes a political party from any other organization that happens to have a political slant. Dogface 15:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed split

This article has already grown in size considerabely, and I was thinking that it might be a good idea to take the "Political groups on the Right" section and make it into a separate (list-)article. - Mihnea Tudoreanu

• Concur, easy piece to factor out. Jmabel 17:38, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

War support

The war has been, and still is, generally supported by Americans [1]. I agree that support has declined, but it is not a one sided issue. If it were, we'd probably have Howard Dean or someone even farther left as the democratic candidate, not Kerry. Sam [Spade] 19:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this page is a complete mess, because it's trying to deal with an extremely vague and complex issue in a simplistic way. It isn't taking account of differences in political spectrum from country to country - what is 'right wing' in one country is 'left wing' in another. It also isn't taking into account that people and organisations hold a variety of views and defy easy categorisation. Where do you place an organisation that advocates big spending on third world aid but a ban on abortion? Why the article chooses to focus on the war on terror as a defining issue is completely beyond me. If, as the author claims, there is widespread support for the war on terror, then it isn't a left/right separating issue. How about picking something more traditional like taxation or deregulation? Or social policy? Any why, why, why is the Natural Law Party considered a right wing organisation, but only in Taiwan?

As for the breezy passage that says that right-wingers see it as their duty to free foreigners from regimes that violate human rights - where was the author of that during the years the US was supporting dictatorships across the world? DJ Clayworth 20:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns generally, but would explain most of what your complaining about as based in an excessive focus on current events. Sometimes it is easier to focus on the news of the day (in your local newspaper) than the larger, meta-picture. IMO the large, meta-picture is that the left-right axis is a flase dicotomy, providing more confusion that it releives. Unfortunately, we are in the business of cataloging information, not scripting the way people think and speak, so there is clearly a need for an article on "right wing", as useless a the concept is IMO. In conclusion, be bold! Sam [Spade] 21:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

War on terror

Sam Spade today changed "George W. Bush's War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom have been generally supported by Americans on the right..." back to "George W. Bush's War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom have been generally supported by Americans...", citing [2]. The cited article shows Americans almost evenly divided on the matter. That hardly substantiates the change; if anything, it refutes it. I don't want an edit war here, and the clobbered phrase "...on the right..." was mine, so I'm probably not the one to change this back, but I hope someone else will follow through on this. -- Jmabel 00:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

55% in favor, 38% opposed is "evenly divided"? I'm sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. Maybe it needs worded differently, but the suggestion the only americans on the right support it, or that americans are evenly divided is simply wrong. Sam [Spade] 03:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at the recent history of surveys on this subject. [3].

Sam [Spade] 05:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me the broad concept of the war on terror is supported more generally than the war on Iraq. Perhaps that could be indicated in some way. "George W. Bush's War on Terrorism has been generally supported by the American people. But public opinion has been less unified when it comes to the War on Iraq" or something to that effect. Just a suggestion. -- Spleeman 06:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think Spleeman is on the right track here. Generally supported hides a lot of ambivalence. However, less unified could be cashed out a bit. VV 10:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even on Sam's particular chosen survey (which is one of the most favorable to Bush that I've seen)

• 55-38 in June on military action having been the right decision (the numbers Sam quotes)
• 51-42 (only half as much of a gap) in April/May on the same question.
• 57-39 in June on whether things are going well
• 51-46 the opposite direction in April/May on the same question
• 48-46 choosing Bush over Kerry in June
• 50-45 the opposite direction in April/May on the same question

In short, Bush took an upswing right after the formation of the new government in Iraq. Also, he seems (according to the same article) to have gotten a boost from the Reagan funeral. Clearly these are short-term swings. An encyclopedia should not need to change on the basis of numbers that are obviously fluctuating month-to-month. The statement about "Americans generally" is far afield of the ostensible topic of this article, liable to change month-to-month, etc. A similar statement about the American right is one that has clearly sustained its truth over some time now and is strongly related to the topic of the article. -- Jmabel 17:16, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that when it comes to support for the war on terror, we should focus specifically on conservatives rather than broader categories like "Americans" or "the public", since this article is about right-wing groups. I also think a distinction should be made between "paleo-conservatives", such as Pat Buchanan and even Robert Novak, who were against the war on Iraq, and neo-conservatives, who are already mentioned. The implication that everyone on the right is pro-war is false and misleading. Finally, does anyone else have an issue with the phrase, "Israeli war against Palestinian terrorism"? It seems rather POV to me. -- Spleeman 18:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I certainly have an issue with it, but again, I'm duking out a bunch of this stuff with MathKnight at [left-wing politics]] and I don't want to spill too much of that NPOV debate over to other pages. -- Jmabel 20:19, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Here are my proposed changes, for now (this section needs a lot of work IMO):

In today's political world, foreign policy differences have become at least as important as economics in defining the Left-Right dichotomy. Examples include the U.S.-led "War on Terror" and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. While right-wing movements, such as the American neoconservatives, are generally hawkish and support military operations against states said to be "terror-sponsoring", emphasizing the need to oppose Islamist terrorism (by which they mean Al-Qaida, Hamas and even Arab dictatorships), left wing movements in the United States tend to be dovish and oppose preemptive military action, which they see as violation of human rights and international law (see also: Left wing and the anti-war movement).

The broad concept of George W. Bush's "War on Terror" has been generally supported by the American people, while the debate over "Operation Iraqi Freedom" been more contentious [4]. Both campaigns have enjoyed wide support among Americans on the right.

Notes/Remaining issues:

• Another possibility I thought of for the last sentence was: "Many on the right view the latter as an integral part of the former, and both campaigns have enjoyed their wide support".
• The info in the second sentence probably needs to tie into the rest of the paragraph better.
• The third sentence still seems long and unwieldy.
• "The need" seems POV -- something along the lines of "perceived need" might be better.
• The terms "hawkish" and "dovish" strike me as rather unsophisticated (and unnecessary).
• Movements and individuals on the left oppose preemptive war for a variety of reasons, not just the two given.
• Oh, and was there a reason "neoconservatives" is in bold?

Feel free to ruthlessly tear apart this draft! -- Spleeman 03:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Far-right

This article needs to discuss more coherenatly the "Far-right", and also needs more international information. Its very Americentric. Sam [Spade] 22:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

moved from article

A common justification to the military operations is the beliefe that that it is not enough to enhance security checks on the borders, and that the only way to reduce terrorist threats are to hit the terrorists in their own territory. Since many terrorists group recieve funding, weapons, trainings and shelter in foreign countries (mainly in the Middle East and northern Africa) it is essential to damage their logistic infrastructure and attack them in their "save haven". The military campaign - which include a military ground assult or air bombing over a foreign country - is accompanied by legal measures in order to stop terror's funding from civilians in friendly states.

This is actually a good paragraph, but I think its not needed in this article. How about you merge it into "war on terror", or some such? Sam [Spade] 16:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Needing citations

Mihnea, I agree with the substance of your recent edits, but for some citations would really be in order. Otherwise, we are basically smuggling POV into the article. There are three places that concern me in this respect; italics in the following are mine, highlighting this issue:

• "some thinkers, both of the left and the right, see this as a worrying tendency"
• "Critics argue that it is inappropriate to equate every dictator in the world with Hitler..."
• "Many groups on the left agree with the ideal of spreading democracy and freedom, but disagree with the methods employed by the right."

Jmabel 23:04, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for stepping into the midst of the War on Terror fight, but the phrasing seemed awkward so I thought I'd give it a shot.Drernie 21:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edited the entrance for Finland

There was a statement in the part of the text dealing with Finland that said:

 "Finland doesn't have any right-wing parties. Some right-wing minorities can be found in the National   Coalition Party"

I altered this part of the text to be more realistic. Of course Finland has many right-wing parties and groups as does any other multiparty democracy. Anyone can easily find the facts from the Eduskunta website or check websites of the parties in order to see their idealistic statements and their popularity procentages. (unsigned)

There has been a bunch of recent back-and-forth in the section about Finland. Can I suggest that, as for other countries, you can just do a list of parties here? Then start a separate article Right-wing politics in Finland where you can go into tons of detail. The start of the Finland section here would then have a notice See main article Right-wing politics in Finland. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:27, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Libertarians on the right?

Someone recently added the United States Libertarian Party to the list of parties. My understanding is that there are both right and left libertarians; some of the latter seem to me to be very much on the left in most respects, I've worked with them on anti-war stuff. Some of them even believe in a sort of cooperativism that isn't far from anarchist. I'm not going to revert this on my own -- the bulk of small-l and capital-L U.S. libertarians are certainly on the right, and the party is dominated nationally by its right wing -- but here in the Pacific Northwest (and, I gather, in Alaska) the local party is not particularly on the right. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

"anti-war" stuff would not be a left/right category. Where they would classify themselves probably depends on whether they focus on economic or social issues. If the adopt Karl Marx's reasoning, "It's the economy stupid." (or was that somebody else?), then they would identify with the right, and be relatively comfortable with the limited government classical liberals who want to lower taxes and avoid foreign entanglements. The anarcho-capitalists that would be among them aren't that far from anarchists, although I'm not sure what you mean by cooperativism.--Silverback 06:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cooperative. No passive shareholders. And in their vision for this, no limited liability.

Looks like someone deleted, someone else restored. I'm skipping this battle, but there are a lot of libertarians working on Wikipedia, what do they think of this. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:10, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Silverback's recent edits

Silverback made two recent additions that I really disagree with. Rather than an edit war, I'm hoping we can discuss. The added material is bolded in the following quotation:

Tradition, the means of preserving individual rights, free markets and constitutional constraints on government (also called "classical liberals" in the United States), or in Europe the means of preserving wealth and power in the hands that have traditionally held them, social stability, and national solidarity and ambition are among the concerns typically associated with the right wing of the political spectrum. Those on the right are sometimes called "reactionary" by their opponents, a term that first arose to refer to those whose politics was formed in reaction against the French Revolution. In the United States, reactionary refers to those who oppose the centralized command and control proposals of the left, so the meaning is anti-authoritarian, nearly the opposite of its original French monarchist/authoritarian meaning.

The term "classical liberal" is almost unknown in American political discourse, outside of very limited academic circles and certain very narrow parts of the political right (mostly either libertarians or close associates of Jack Kemp), so I think that is an obfuscation rather than a clarification here.

I hope you don't mind if I interleave my responses. I think you are unfamiliar with the US right, classical liberal was almost univerally used in the old right of the 50s thru 80s, including Goldwater republicans, John Bircher's and the Young American's for Freedom (which eventually underwent a libertarian/traditionalist split, both sides opposed the draft and would identify as classical liberals). Goldwater, Kemp, Patrick Buchanan, William F. Buckley and Newt Gingrich would happily identify as classical liberals and consider that equivilent to conservatives in the U.S.A. The more modern "social conservative" movement in the U.S.A is not in the intellectual leadership of the right, which still turns to the austrian and chicago schools of economics, Bastiat and von Hayek, etc. There have not been many libertarians in U.S. political positions of power, Ron Paul, currently in the House of Representatives is one, but he runs as a "conservative" republican, and in the past Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon who co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968 with Senator Barry Goldwater. Other prominent persons rumored to be libertarians are Milton Friedman, Nathaniel Greenspan, and George Soros. --Silverback 08:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goldwater, Birchers, YAF, Kemp, Buckley, etc. Yes, this is exactly the portion (I'm inclined to say sliver) of the right who would use this term this way. I gave a shorter list (below, you've interspersed), but we are talking about the same people: I can't see why you are charging me with ignorance. It's fine to say that such a group exists, but wrong to equate it with the entire right. And then you yourself shift to "libertarian", which is certainly not interchangeable with "right-wing" (although Ron Paul is certainly a right libertarian). Soros, in particular, makes nearly all of his political alliances left of center. And many on the right (especially the religious right) despise libertarianism. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Also, I haven't seen any indication that conservatives as a group weigh in on one side or the other of "individual rights" in general. Property rights, sure, but certainly not as a group the biggest advocates of (for example) a woman's right to abortion or the right of African Americans to vote or even to live wherever they choose (it sure isn't American liberals maintaining the color line in lily white suburbs). Similarly, "constitutional constraints on government" isn't a left-right issue, it's a matter of which constraints. I haven't seen the right-wing out in front of the battle against the USA PATRIOT Act (although to give credit where it's due, some of them have been in the fray).

Conservatives were at the forefront of ending the draft, questioning the Patriot act, opposition to gun control, opposition to the regulation supplements, investigating and curbing the abuses of the Internal Revenue Service, speeding drug approvals by the F.D.A and limiting its power to restrict speech, investigating the Waco and Ruby Ridge federal abuses, and the moves to lower taxes.--Silverback 08:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Opposition to gun control, certainly. IRS abuses: generally true, although in many cases I would have to suspect this was not so much a matter of concern with abuses as finding any available stick with which to beat the IRS. Regulation of supplements (I assume you mean food supplements), certainly (although arguably part and parcel for many of them with opposition to thorough inspection of meat and agricultural products as well. Be that as it may, the supplements thing is one of the few times I ever found myself on the same side of an issue as Orrin Hatch.) Ending the draft? Yes, there were conservatives (and especially libertarians) involved in that fight, but that was very much a "both ends against the middle" struggle: it's not like the U.S. left loved the draft, viz. the anti-Vietnam-War movement. Patriot Act? Again, a "both ends against the middle" struggle. "Speeding drug approvals by the F.D.A." is a double-edged sword: the right to use undertested drugs. Yes, I suppose the right was mostly behind that, and welcome to it. Waco and Ruby Ridge: well, Ruby Ridge resonated more with the right because the victims were far-right, just like (for the same reason) the firebombing of the MOVE headquarters in Philadelphia resonated more with the left. I don't see that as a greater commitment to rights by one or the other. Waco is again "both ends against the middle" and made for unlikely bedfellows on both sides, it was not a left-right issue. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

"...centralized command and control proposals of the left" is sheer political rhetoric, unless you are so far right that you consider George W. Bush to be on the left.

Bush is to the left on issues like federal involvement in education, the medicare prescription plan (which I support), abortion and the war on drugs. In terms of his administration's accomplishments he is to the left of every Republican president this century, although I think personally he is to the right of his father and Nixon, who came from the left wing of the party.--Silverback 08:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So are you saying that we only count principled right-wingers (or maybe only principled secular right-wingers) as part of the right? I'm sorry, just like we on the left are stuck with our SOBs, you are stuck with yours. G.W. Bush is (with the possible exception of Reagan) the farthest right president at least since McKinley. A definition of the U.S. right that doesn't encompass G.W. Bush is sophistry. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like what you are describing characterizes a narrow piece of the right (libertarians, John McCain, Jack Kemp, maybe the late Barry Goldwater, doubtless others), but not the bulk of the American right, certainly not George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney. To suggest that this is what right-wing in the U.S. typically means is actively misleading. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is a strong libertarian strain within U.S. conservatives, although the social conservatives are not well educated on it. Dick Cheney is an interventionist in foreign policy, but there are rumors that he or some of his cronies in the neocon movement who came over from the Democratic party, favor legalization of drugs (I'm not sure which, so I am unwilling to categorize them). Within fundamentalist christians, you would be surprised at how anti-government they can be, refusing to display American flags (you cannot serve two masters), opposing government involvement and licensing of marriage, and government restrictions on non-profits, etc. Since wikipedia is visible to the European and world community, it is important not to let the American right be charactertured (sp?) by leftist rhetoric, especially since the terms right and conservative have such different, almost opposite, meanings here than in the rest of the world.--Silverback 08:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But it's also important to convey the breadth of the American right, not to single out the most principled strain and act like that stood for the entire right. It's as if one presented the American left strictly in terms of Victor Navasky, Michael Albert, and Howard Zinn. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree very much with Jmabel on this. Silverback seems to believe that George W. Bush is actually a liberal, see Talk:Media bias. Also, I have never, ever heard the word reactionary used to mean anti-authoritarian with regards to the U.S. -- where have you seen this usage? Words have meanings defined by common usage, this is not the place to redefine the meaning to suit your tastes. Wolfman 16:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

George Bush is DEFINITELY a liberal, in every sense of the word. I am frankly horrified w what he is doing w our economy. I mean, I'm a bit of a keynesian myself, but not that much! If you ask me, between Bush and Kerry (or democrats and republicans generally), its a bout a dimes worth of difference.... and a thin dime at that! [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My recent edits

I cleaned up the section in question, and while I think it needs more work, describing the wide divide between paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, and libertarians, I would like to think I left it better than I found it. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I certainly find this an improvement. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Complete list of objections

No political science textbook would do the following:

Refer to traditional values as “reactionary.” They are referred to as traditional values. Using the word “reactionary” implies a negative connotation that traditional values are only based in relation to change, which is false. For example a society will often return to more traditional values after finding that a replacement has returned undesired results. Societies will also sometimes choose traditional values over other values after analyzing the experiences of other societies. Left-wing values can be reactionary as well and this is why the word is seldom used by political analysts. It is really no different than referring to left-wing values as myopic.

Libertarians are considered by political scientists to be on the right because of their strong economic positions.

The “right and the war on terror” is more of an editorial and should not be the largest entry.

This statement is false: There are also many Far-right groups and militias in the United States who vigorously oppose any assistance towards Israel, and go so far as to call the United States government a Zionist-Occupied Government.

There are no active groups that have any influence, no American could name a single one. This would not be in an encyclopedia because it is not representational of right-wing groups in America. It is disconcerting that there is more on fascism and racism rather than what actually sets the majority of right-wing groups apart from left-wing groups: economics.

The political parties section should not contain groups that are inactive, groups that do not run members for politics, groups that have no links, and groups that are nothing more than a web page. If these requirements are ignored one can simply pick and choose from a myriad of parties to give a negative impression instead of a more representational one.

The KKK is not a right-wing group, it is a racist organization. There are no political requirements, a person of any political identity can join.

The NRA is pro-gun group and nothing else, again a person can have any political identity as long as that person is pro-gun.

The same goes for the abortion groups as well. A communist can join an anti-abortion group without any contradictions.

Genocide is not a right-wing characteristic, it is a characteristic of people that commit genocide. Communists like Pol-Pot and the Khmar Rouge are a good example of this. The opposite equivalent would be the linking of forced labor with left-wing because of Stalin and China.

The same goes for sexism and racism. One can have any political identity and be either. No political science text would add these as footnotes to a right-wing definition. The opposite equivalent would be having a footnote on naivety and envy in the left-wing definition. Completely subjective associations that are used as political smear.

The generally accepted political definition of a right-winger should also be given:

In political science terms, right-wing usually describes a preference for economic freedom at the cost of equality, as opposed to the left-wing preference for equality at the cost of economic freedom. At the extreme left is Communism, where the government is in complete control of the economy and attempts to achieve maximum equality, while at the other end is Anarchism, where government intervention is non-existent.

The entire entry on right-wing needs to be close to what would be found in a political science textbook, not random entries as to what comes to mind for some people, especially from those that are either pro or anti right-wing. The entry should mainly help people understand what it means to be right-wing by comparing it to other political positions and giving a proportional representation of right-wing parties.

Article reeks of bias

The "neo-confederate" parties that were listed did not have links, are basically non-existent, and more importantly are as irrelevant as any other obscure 10 person party you could find trolling the web. There is not such thing as a "neo-confederate" in the U.S.

Why is the nazi party listed? Nazi is short for National Socialist Party. It should not be categorized as simply right or left. Moreso, the list contains active parties.

Why is the kkk listed? The kkk is basically non-existent and is not a political party. Disgusting smear.

The NRA is a pro-gun organization, not a right-wing party. Same goes for the abortion groups.

Why is genocide listed? Should genocide be listed under left-wing because of Pol-Pot? More smear, removing.

The "nationalist party" only links to a wikipedia article about a nationalist organization that has a newsletter. A nationalist party can be either right or left.

Why is sexism listed as a link? Would you find that in a professional encyclopedia? No, you wouldn't. Sexism is an unrelated issue. This is supposed to be a political definition, not a collection of pop-culture induced associations.

The "Christian Phalange" movement links to another wikipedia article on an obscure movement from the 1930's. More smear.

Why is the "right and the war on terror" on of the first entries? That belongs in an editorial, not an encyclopedia. In fact the article on fascism and the "war on terror" take up far more space than the actual description of "right-wing."

It's shocking how often I have seen this article quoted on other websites. Any political science professor would be appalled.

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)