Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Left, right, liberal, conservative

The cover story on today's Wikipedia has the following quote:

"The reign of Frederick III is considered a potential turning point in German history; many historians believe that if Frederick had succeeded to the throne sooner, he would have transformed Germany into a liberal state. They argue this would have averted the events preceding World War I. Other historians contend that Frederick's influence and political leanings were greatly exaggerated, noting that he tended to defer to his father and Bismarck when confronted, and would not have dared to challenge their conservatism even as ruler."

I would be interested in brief comments from both sides on what "liberal" and "conservatism" mean in this context. Would the paragraph have the same meaning if the words "left" and "right" had been used? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In context - the term refers to "19th century liberalism" as opposed to "strong monarchism". In many cities today, the issue of "strong mayor" v. "weak mayor" charters is quite akin to the debate over "strong monarch" v. "weak monarch" government. I doubt anything would have averted WW I as one major subtext was control of the oil fields in eastern Europe at a time when demand for oil was extremely high (in current dollars, the price of oil is well below that found in the early 20th century with crude at $20/bbl in 1899 - roughly the equivalent of $200/bbl oil today). The other factor sometimes overlooked was the demise of the Ottoman Empire (by 1908 and the rise of the "Young Turks", the "empire" was basically dead). In world history, power vacuums result in war a great percentage of the time. Bismarck was not so much a monarchist as he was a believer in that fact - Europe had power vacuums when he ascended to chancellor, and he took advantage of it, more as a chess player than as a political belief system. Pragmatism trumps "political spectrums" quite often. Collect (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the words liberal and conservative are much better defined, although liberal has several distinct meanings, and both are, to some extent, relative. 'left' and 'right' are much more vague and so much dependent on context that makes them almost meaningless (except maybe in a relative sense). However I know next to nothing about German history of that period. - BorisG (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In this context conservatism refers to the policies persued by the German Conservative Party, which was dominated by Junkers and wealthy businessmen and supported militarism and monopolism (and the welfare state), while the "liberals", represented by the German Progress Party, supported free trade, free markets and equality before the law. If the term right-wing were used, it would include Conservatives and the National Liberal Party (Germany). The term "left-wing" would refer to the Social Democratic Party of Germany. The Progressives and Christian democrats would be considered centrist. TFD (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

On a loosely related matter, I am curious as to any examples where 'liberal' was considered right-wing. Apart from the Liberal Party of Australia - BorisG (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In states that lack a conservative, christian democratic or similar historic right-wing party, the space on the Right is normally taken by a liberal party. Modern examples include the Republican Party (United States), the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), and the provincial liberal parties in Quebec and British Columbia. Also, the Radical Party (France) is part of Sarkozy's coalition and the Venstre (Denmark) is the major partner in a right-wing coalition. In the UK, the Liberal Unionist Party merged with the Conservatives, and in NZ, liberals merged with conservatives to form the New Zealand National Party. Historically, the Girondists became the Right in the Convention, and the Italian Liberal Party was called the "Historical Right". TFD (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IOW, "left" and "right" are variable terms without a specific general meaning overall. Collect (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Which explains my comments to the effect that talking about what the words "should" mean is meaningless. The usage has changed dramatically in my lifetime. When I was young (back in the days just after World War II), the Right meant fascist and the Left meant communist and they were always terms of insult. Americans were liberals, neither on the Right nor on the Left, and proud of it. This first started to change, as best I remember, during the Reagan administration, when the small government libertarians joined with the conservative Christians in the uneasy alliance we see today, in which the Right doesn't want a nanny state that advises women to breast feed their babies, but does want a nanny state that forbids anyone under 18 to see The King's Speech. The Right want a strict construction of the Constitution that forbids the government to require people to pay for health insurance, and a strict construction of the Constitution that rules that corporations are people. When I read a US newspaper, Right means Republican and Left means Democrat, and the terms Right and Republican are used interchangably. But when I read a book written before 1980, or a book about World War II even if it is written after 1980, Right still means fascist and Left still means communist. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, what does this suggest in terms of how the lead should be written? How can we write something meaningful that reflects this transient nature of this term in space and time? - BorisG (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, the Right has a specific meaning - it is defined as opposition to the Left. Rick Norwood, that is not entirely accurate - reactionary conservatives were also called "right-wing", e.g., Franco, Vichy France, Latin American dictators, while socialists were also called left-wing. Although in the U.S. there has been a tendency to call the two parties liberal and conservative, left and right, even there it reflects the original meaning of the terms, although it is exaggerated. The Republicans are more conservative than the Democrats, while the Democrats are more left-wing than the Republicans. But the terminology is not entirely inaccurate, the two parties have a rough parallel for example with the British Labour and Tory parties, which in turn have a rough parallel with the historical continental parties of the Left and Right. TFD (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? "Right is opposition to left" is utterly meaningless. It is identical to "Left is opposition to right." In short - there is absolutely no definition, other than your tautological one, which is universally true about "left" and "right." And since the definition is based on a tautology, it is of zero value in any encyclopedia article. Collect (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Logically, if left-wing were clearly defined, then it would be ok to define right-wing as opposition to left-wing. But I agree with Collect here. The definition of left-wing is not clear enough to use in our definition of right-wing. Also, it isn't always true that the right is defined by opposition to the left. As an example, I gave the quote above describing the racist government of South Africa as right-wing because of its racism. There was no left-wing opposition, unless you consider anti-aparthied to be left-wing, which doesn't seem to fit. Another objection to describing the Right by its opposition to the Left: the Right has positive values, it isn't just reactionary. It favors a stable upper class to provide culture and order, a strong religion, nationalism, and patriotic fervor to meet the emotional needs of the lower classes, and an active business community, to produce material wealth.

The lede, however, should not reflect my opinion, nor Collect's, nor TFD's. It should be based on standard academic sources which consider and describe the way the words have changed over time. There are quotes above, of which the OED is the most authoritative, that provide a beginning. I'm willing to do more research. But I'm waiting on the arbitration, which is hanging fire. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I can not find a source which defines "right" in that manner at all. What the Oxford def does is specifically state that there is no absolute definition. Decidely "upper class" is not a defining position for "right" as most "rightists" nowadays are definitely not "upper class." Nor do I find "racism" to be defining, as such exists in just about every society on earth, and in every form of government on earth. In other words- orthogonal to political position on any spectrum yet devised. As for tautological definitions - they are "right out." Collect (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is not just about the modern Right, but if it it true that most "rightists" nowadays are definitely not "upper class", then why are virtually all television sets in the waiting rooms of banks and doctor's offices tuned to Fox News? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Most docs I know are "middle class" so that solves that. And perhaps the fact that Fox News ratings are greater than the sum of thier competitors makes a difference? In fact, if a majority of tv sets in any category were not tuned into something with such a ratings lead, I would be amazed. Collect (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Defining the Right as opposition to the Left is not tautological, and in fact examples have been given of this definition. The The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics for example says that the Right is opposition to socialism and communism. Excluding modern American common usage, the term Left is clearly identified. Just type in "the Left" at google books.[1] The vast majority of the hits are for socialism and/or communism. The National Party (South Africa) was certainly anti-leftist - it imprisoned Nelson Mandela and opposed the left-wing African National Congress. The identification of the Right with the elites is historical and there is empirical evidence for it. It is an anomoly that the radical right, from the Anti-masonic party to the Tea Party has been anti-elitist, and some writers have therefore questioned whether they are right-wing at all. See for example, Lipset's "Fascism - Left, Right and Center" or various other writings that claim the radical right (not just fascists) are middle class and therefore centrist. In the end, most scholars grouped them with the right because of their opposition to equality and because their actions rather than their words were supportive of established elites.

Writers also point out that although the parties of the Right were mostly established by elites in order to persue their interests, that democracy has required them to broaden their appeal to other classes. Conversely the moderate Left has also broadened its class appeal. This has lead to English Conservatives and Labour often following the same policies and squeezing out the centrist Liberals. Yet Lords continue to vote conservative and labour leaders continue to support Labour.

TFD (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Collect, when articles refer to the center-right coaltions in Germany[2] or the UK,[3] is there confusion in your mind what they are talking about? Any fears in your mind that a book about the modern Left in the US would be about the Tea Party or a book about the American Right would be about the American Communist Party? TFD (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Centre-right" in the UK has a meaning with respect only to the political positions in the UK. Not a general "left-right dichotomy" in any absolute terms. "Center right' in Germany only has relevance within German politics not an absolute statement of position. Defining "Right is the opposite of left" is precisely as useful as defining "up is the opposite of down" or "in is the opposite of out." Thus I doubt sincerely that "right" in Russia is anything near "right" in Switzerland at all. And a tautological definition is worth precisely nothing. Collect (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The center-right coalition in Germany is between the CDU and the Free Democrats. The center right coaltion in the UK is between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. "Right" refers to the CDU and the Conservatives, both of which are members of the International Democrat Union. The center refers to the two parties that are members of the Liberal International. In both cases a reasonably informed reader would have no doubts that perhaps Labour or the SDP, both members of the Socialist International were members of the coalition, because they would have a general understanding of what the terms "left" and "right" mean. If someone were to say they expect the Left to win the next election in the uk, would you ask them whether they meant the Tories or Labour? And saying the definition of Right is a tautology is only correct if the Left were defined as the opposite of Right, which it is not, any more than Communist is defined as the opposite of anti-Communist, or Jewish is defined as the opposite of Gentile. In Russia btw the Communists are called "left" and in Switzerland, the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland, a member of the Socialist International is the main left-wing party. Their opponents are called the "Right". The fact that the mix of right-wing parties may be different is irrelevant TFD (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In short - there is absolutely no definition of "right" other than on the basis of situations in individual nations or eras. When you say "the mix ... may be different" and than add "irrelevant" your position is exceeding weak. Collect (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Right" merely means the opposition to the Left. What do you find difficult by this concept? You argued for example that Democracy Now! should be called "left-wing", saying "You said it was "fringe" to call DM "left wing." I pointed out that, since we have found precisely zero sources calling it "right wing" and a fair number calling it "left wing" that your use of "fringe" was errant." Do you normally argue so passionately for applying descriptions that you consider meaningless? TFD (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what my position is. Where reliable sources say something (as is the case for Democracy Now) , then WP must use what they say. That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim here that "right is opposite of left" which has no absolute meaning at all. The way WP works is by using reliable sources not by insinuating our own opinions into any matter. And my position on this is precisely the same for any person or group. Now might you cease misrepresenting my position? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You should be consistent on your use of sources. You Google mine for obscure sources that support fringe views, then ignore views accepted by mainstream consensus. TFD (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For G-d's sake - please AGF and do not accuse anyone of promoting "fringe views" when they are actually promoting mainstream views found in a majority of sources. You assert a "mainstream consensus" which does not exist, contrary to WP policy and guidelines. Saying something is "fringe" when it is actually the majority view is a fairly poor method of discussion. Collect (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TFD, you stated above when discussing liberalism that liberals may be right or not depending whether the country has a significant conservative party. Doesn't it demonstrate that the only meaning of the word right is relative, and that attempts to define it in terms of policy is futile (except in relative sense)? - BorisG (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. TFD (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A final process

Before making a mediation assessment, I'd like to engage in a final exercise. To do so, I'd like four editors to nominate themselves to participate, two from the "oppose" camp and two from the "include" camp.

If there are more than two volunteers per camp, then decide amongst yourself who is the most "passionate".

I will disclose the nature of the exercise after the volunteers have been selected. I assure all potential volunteers that there will be no (involuntary) nudity involved. Manning (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do it provided it isn't hideously time-consuming. But I'll defer to anyone else who also wants to do it. Editors in the include camp should be aware that, on the question of including "racism" in the lead, whilst I tend to think it is appropriate, it is not necessarily a cause for which I would lay down my life. --FormerIP (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that the most passionate editors are the ones that you want? siafu (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Siafu - quite sure. The more inflamed the better. Manning (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Although interested in this debate, I am hardly passionate about this issue. In my view, the whole thing will not solve anything, because even if we agree about these two words, this will resolve a tiny portion of the whole article. Althogh intrigued, I rule myself out of the exercise. - BorisG (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's an appealing idea, but that no involuntary nudity thing is a pretty big letdown.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You could limit it to two editors, which would make the process faster. TFD (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Different political interpretations of the world cannot be settled by a committee, or even by a Wikipedia editor. Even what is taken to be a fact is going to be disputed. All a Wikipedia article can do is acknowledge the existence of a dispute i.e. that some scholars deny that it is accurate to describe Fascism as "Right-Wing". What is deemed to be the facts of the matter are currently being disputed by historians and political philosophers. It is not going to be settled on a TalkPage on Wikipedia. It may never be settled. Including Fascism as part of the definition of Right-Wing simply begs the question. It is a controversial issue that can only be properly discussed in the body of the article. The other disputed issue (or should I say word) is racism. Most of the governments around the world which describe themselves as the "Socialist Republic of ...." are strongly nationalistic. This nationalism is sometimes racist. Some deny that these governments are “Left-Wing” on the grounds that to be racist is by definition to be "Right-Wing". Again this is disputed. This dispute of course is linked with the previous issue of whether or not is it accurate to describe Fascism as "Right-Wing. Therefore exactly the same consideration applies. The question of whether or not it is accurate to describe racism as "Right-Wing" is best identified as a controversial topic in the body of the article. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — ERIDU-DREAMING (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

eridu - I'm not quite sure why you posted your comment in this section. Did you mean to post it elsewhere? Manning (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I posted it here is because it is a direct response to your suggestion that "oppose" and "include" advocates engage in a debate. I am suggesting that the opposing viewpoints derive from different political interpretations, and therefore adjudicating between them becomes a political decision. In order to avoid this, I am suggesting that the body of the article acknowledges the existence of these different interpretations. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You are pre-supposing I intended to involve the participants in a debate. I said nothing of the sort and that was never my intention. Manning (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Boris G. said that although "interested in this debate" he is not "passionate" about the issue. Thank you for clarifying that it is not your intention to involve the participants in a debate. Since it remains unclear what you expect the participants to do, laziness cautions me not to volunteer. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been more than enough debate, and it seems clear that a consensus is unlikely to be achieved via that means. I have a fairly different activity in mind. Your unwillingness to participate in this alternative exercise is noted, without judgement. Manning (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that additional debate isn't likely to help achieve consensus, but I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed that you've not replied to some of the specific questions that have been raised by a few editors here ( myself among them ) who've been trying hard to understand the criteria you intend to use for deciding whether mention of racism belongs in the lede. Most important of those questions, imo, is how the occurrence of race-based oppression in countries like the former U.S,S.R. or in China bears on the question. For example, it's pretty clear to me from the reading I've completed that in post-1945 English-speaking countries, and in post-1945 western Europe, politicized racism has been an almost exclusively right-wing phenomenon, and that the question becomes much more arguable by far outside those parameters. Not the least slight intended, of course, but lack of discussion about this, specifically, seems to me an unfortunate omission. Since this process appears to be moving slowly, would you object to my creating another section, above this one, where that specific question can be addressed for the next day or so? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Curiously enough, "race based oppression" is "racism." Euphemisms do not make China and Russia less racist. Nor does it make Zimbabwe less racist. Nor does it make a number of Latin American nations less racist. Nor does it make Eastern European oppression of Romani less racist. In fact, the extensive reading I have done indicates that racism is orthogonal to any political spectrum, and is more closely allied with nationalism, especially where the concept of "nation" is allied with that of "race." Collect (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, perhaps not, Collect, but this isn't the place to address the question. Let's wait and see what Manning has to say about creating a new section for the purpose, please. Btw, you seem to have strong opinions about this, and you're certainly well-informed and willing to dig up sources, as it seems to me. What about accepting Manning's offer? I know we'd all be very grateful to you for that help in resolving this longstanding conflict. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh? My "strong opinion" is that the first sentence of the definition may belong in the lede, but full discussions about various definitions do not - that the rest of the "definition" belongs in a separate section from the lede. In fact my only "strong opinion" is that WP policies and guidelines be adhered to, and that those affecting living people be especially well adhered to. Collect (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll retract "strong opinion", if that sounded pejorative at all; I didn't mean it so. But you are arguably one of the best informed editors here about these matters, and I think whatever resolution results will have a much more substantial basis with your participation in whatever Manning has in mind to try to help us all progress on this admittedly complex issue. Btw, despite having had some unpleasantness between ourselves here, I do want you to know that, as is nearly always the case when we debate, I've learned a quite a lot through the process, and I appreciate the part you've played in that. Always good to be challenged in one's beliefs; helps one stay on one's toes, and all that. Anyway, please do consider stepping up for Manning's exercise. I don't think there's anyone on the "oppose" side of the question who'd be better qualified. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Manning's comment - Ohiostandard, my failure to ask any further questions or provide additional clarity was because it became apparent to me that that particularly approach was not resolving the issue and only creating more KBs for the server. That's why I am changing tactics. Manning (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I respect that. The flexibility to change one's approach is valuable when it's not working. I guess my request is influenced in part by my treating this as perhaps more of an educational opportunity than an especially serious bloodsport. I think your having brought up Lenin, and Collect's remarks about other communist dictatorships ( or however he'd characterize them ), were very much to the point of the question, and I'm disappointed not to see those specific observations get (imo) adequate "air time" here for that reason. On another note, I think it's pretty discriminatory to exclude Janet Jackson from your exercise just for that one unfortunate event. Hey, AGF!  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If no one else offers ( kudos to FormerIP, btw ) what about entertaining nominations, with the understanding that no one would be strictly compelled to accept, but we'd all feel they'd deserve well of the republic, and all that? I imagine it wouldn't be hard for us all to agree as to which editors have most passionately advocated on either side. So what if each of us were to nominate one editor on each side of the question, and see if that might nudge those who get the most nominations to volunteer to help this process along? Or if that seems inefficient, what about using your benevolent, community-conferred status in this matter to yourself ask those you think have been most passionate to engage in the planned exercise?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm game for any "exercise" that will help clarify the situation, including exercise after the fashion of the ancient Greeks. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Including killing the losers? "Winning the race was vital because it was the custom of Oenomaus to execute the losers to prevent the fulfillment of an oracle’s prophecy that he would die at the hands of his son-in-law. Thirteen suitors raced off with Hippodameia and each lost his life because the king had the fastest steeds." [4] Origin of the Olympics. Collect (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dang, Collect! I don't think I've ever heard you make any sort of joke here before, and that was a really funny one, too, with references, no less. Well done.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My reference was to the "no (involuntary) nudity" clause. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, can we go talk more about this 'killing the losers' idea? That has potential merit... Manning (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. What about killing the losers with involuntary exposure to nudity? Depending on their political persuasion we could force them to look at naked pictures of Sarah Palin or Arianna Huffington. Or would Rush Limbaugh and Wolf Blitzer would be quicker, do you think?  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, and with no one volunteering on the "oppose" side, I nominate Collect as the strongest candidate. ( C'mon, Collect: don't hide your light under a bushel! You can't be afraid of Arianna Huffington, can you? ;) And although I'm really grateful to FormerIP for stepping up, and would have absolute and enormous confidence in his participation, it's my impression that TFD might be a better candidate for this particular purpose, to complement Rick Norwood (thanks, Rick!). I don't know who should complement Collect on the oppose side, though; I think BorisG would have been my first choice, had he not already withdrawn from this phase of the attempted resolution. I think Eridu-Dreaming would be our best nominee on the "oppose" side, to complement Collect.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC) ( revised 14:08 , 28 February, 2011 UTC )

I await with bated breath to hear what Manning has in mind. My hope is that he will have the two sides dress up in top hat and tails and hold a tag-team dancing competition a la Bollywood in order to settle the question. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good on you, Rick, for stepping up. I have a few guesses too, but won't air them publicly for fear of letting the cat out of the bag. If it's a Bollywood-style dance thing, can we get video? And you're not alone with the breath thing, either. Mr. Whiskers, my girlfriend's cat is purring beside me, and wants everyone to know that she's waiting with baited breath. She's had a treat, of kippered herring, she wants me to explain. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for Manning

Working on this article has sensitized me to the phrase "right-wing". This from my morning reading: "(Netanyahu) succeeded in forming a government by piecing together a coalition of right-wing and religious Parties..." I submit that, contra Collect, everybody who reads this paragraph understands what "right-wing" means in this context and that, contra TFD, it does not mean the opposite of "left-wing", since Netanyahu's predecessor, Peres, was not called "left-wing". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that "right wing" may have a specific meaning in Israeli politics - but my position is that the meaning there is not a "universal meaning" at all - that no "universal meaning" of "right wing" exists. This is quite different from a claim that I say "right wing" has no meaning in specific contexts. Collect (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Likud "was formed by an alliance of several right wing parties" in opposition to the Israeli Labor Party, which is a member of the Socialist International. Kadima developed as a centrist party drawing together former members of likud and Labor. But even if Israel had never developed a left-wing party, Likud would still be seen as right-wing, because the parties that made it up would be seen as similar to right-wing parties in Europe. We would be surprised indeed if journalists began describing Labor as the right. See this article in the Financial Times for and example of the use of the terms. TFD (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Collect here. right-wing is clearly understood in specific contexts but does not have a universal meaning. Someimes it describes conservatives, sometimes liberals, sometimes monarchists, sometimes populists, sometimes religious fundamentalists etc. This is why defining it using many reliable sources is impossible, unless the said sources give a worldwide view of the subject. As an aside, Shimon Peres is widely considered left-wing, as our own article says Peres and Moshe Dayan left Mapai with David Ben-Gurion to form a new party, Rafi, which reconciled with Mapai and joined the Alignment (a left-wing alliance) in 1968.- BorisG (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Although Peres was a member of Rafi (political party), which became part of the Labor Party, he left to join kadima, which is described as a centrist party, i.e., standing between Labor on the Left and Likud on the Right. The fact that opposition to the Left comes from liberals, monarchists, populists and religious fundamentalists does not invalidate that it has a universal meaning, that it is defined in terms of opposition to the Left. What else do you think it could mean, or do you think that it is a nonsense word, like brillig or borogove. TFD (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I thought we agreed that it has a relative meaning. I don't like a definition based on opposition to left-wing, because if we define right as opposing left, and define left as opposing right, we have a circular definition. - BorisG (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Left is not identified as opposition to the Right, and is composed of groups and ideologies that have a shared history, and still maintain some shared values, cooperate internationally and use similar names for their parties. Notice that there are thousands of books that have been written about the Left, but we are having trouble finding a single book written about the Right, other than books than are specific to nations. The Right is defined relatively, but relatively to the Left. TFD (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

IOW, there is no "one size fits all" definition. Which, if I recall correctly, has been my position through all of this. Collect (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine that continued debate is likely to accomplish anything at this point. Re "waiting for Manning", though, what does anyone expect he can do without cooperation? He tried to resolve this dispute one way, and came to the opinion that wasn't going anywhere. Then he proposed another method, and no one from the side opposed to the Oxford quotation that SlimVirgin framed the RfC around would step up to cooperate with that, possibly because they didn't like the interim results he posted. Without cooperation from the "oppose" side, though, all he could do at this point would be to come in and render a decision by fiat. Maybe that's what it'll have to come down to, but I think we'll all get a better result if we can give his most recent proposal a chance to work. Is no one really willing to step up from the "oppose" side to try to follow through on the dispute resolution process we all agreed to support?  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you call the "oppose side"? I favor inclusion of the first part of the cite - while others wish to only start after the part which makes clear that there is no "one size fits all" definition. Collect (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur (with Collect).

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We had an RfC that didn't give us a clear result. Manning offered to help us resolve the specific problem it posed, and we all accepted that offer. Trying to reframe the question away from its original statement at this late stage in the debate, after it has appeared that one side might not get everthing it wanted doesn't strike me as extraordinarily good faith. The "oppose" side is, of course, the side that !voted "oppose" on the RfC. So Collect, Eridu, are you both going to volunteer, or are you going to abandon your support for the dispute resolution process we agreed to?  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never objected to the definition that "in liberal democracies the term [right-wing] has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism (in the European sense of the word), libertarianism, and nationalism." My objection has been to fascism and racism being included in the definition of Right-Wing, since these claims (unlike the first sentence) are far from uncontroversial, and would therefore be better discussed in the main body of the article. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists, they came to power in coalition with the Right and the pro-fascist governments of the inter-war period were mostly coalitions of fascists and other right-wing parties, and no one calls Franco, Salazar, etc. left-wing. The successor parties of fascism, including the more moderate Italian Social Movement and the wrongly named Social Democratic Party (Portugal) were always considered right-wing. Neo-nazi and neo-fascist parties are always called "far right", and the dividing line between neo-fascism and right-wing populism has often been difficult to draw, as with the Poujadistes in France. You might be correct about racism however - it is not an essential component of the Rightm and other attributes which are not mentioned may be more prominent. I question too the use of the term "in the European sense of the word". Not only is it vague but there is no reason to indicate this is what the writers meant. The German National Liberal party and the American Republican party were historically opposed to liberalism in the European sense, and in the modern U.S. sense as well, yet were still considered right-wing. TFD (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It becomes more and more clear that debate will not settle this, but I do want to mention that the book I'm reading and quoted above, "A History of the Twentieth Century" by Martin Gilbert, is for a general audience, and does not assume any special familiarity with Israeli politics. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Many concepts now associated with the Right derive from liberalism - capitalism, imperialism, nationalism, slavery, racism, populism, and many of these concepts have been adopted by some on the Left. But we do not say Tony Blair is left-wing because he is pro-capitalist, George Bernard Shaw was left-wing because he was an imperialist, the IRA is left-wing because it is nationalist, Jefferson was left-wing because he owned slaves, Pol Pot was left-wing because he was racist or Hugo Chavez is left-wing because he is populist. We see those as accidental attributes more commonly associated with the Right. TFD (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, it is clear that you take your political premises to be truths. I am not persuaded that you are UNAWARE that they are controversial, because (putting aside the rather unfortunate episode of you systematically deleting or hiding all my contributions on this matter) these (and previous) pages demonstrate that some people (other than myself) have gone out of their way to make you aware of this fact. I very much doubt that "Collect" or "Martin" (for example) have done this from any conviction that you are going to CHANGE your political assumptions, they have merely sought (as I read them) to make you aware of the fact that your premises about racism and fascism (if you look at the scholarly literature) are not as uncontroversial as you seem to think. As an aside, I notice that George Watson in his book "The English Ideology" (1973) observes that "Right-Wing" was very rarely used in Nineteenth Century British politics (it was viewed as a term appropriate to Continental politics) although of course this changed in the Twentieth Century. I do not know if this is also the case in American politics. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It makes far more sense, rather than straining at gnats saying Chavez is "not left wing" or the like, to simply acknowledge that many of the attributes you know are "right wing" are actually nicely orthogonal to any political spectrum. Clearly we have shown this to be true, but you seem to think that the hundreds of examples and sources saying this are not what you know to be true. Collect (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to european sense of the word because it is not in the source but gives an impression that it is. - BorisG (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reason "liberalism" is in there at all is that it is in one source. How if we replaced "liberalism" with "libertarianism"? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, these are not political premises, and are not controversial in academic writing. Watson, who is a literary scholar, is btw correct about the use of the terms left and right wing. They came to be used to describe political ideology only in the early 20th century. At that time, the socialists sat on the left in European parliaments and their ideology came to be called left-wing, while the ideology of their opponents came to be called right-wing. When the Nazis arrived in the Reichstag, they were seated on the far right, and came to power with the support of the conservatives. Collect, while none of these attributes are essential qualities of the Right, their association has been observed. The two attributes today that most accurately predict position on a left-right scale are economic liberalism and social conservatism. (Links provided because these terms have more than one meaning.) That is not to say that they define the left-right divide, merely that they most accurately describe it, at least as it exists today. TFD (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

THE FOUR DEUCES. I am grateful, given that George Watson is a mere literary scholar who seeks to return us back to original texts, that you have given your assent to his claim that "Right Wing" was very rarely used in political discourse in the Victorian period. I believe however you should be more cautious about talking about Right-Wing "ideologies", because one of the characteristic features of many on the "Right" is that "ideologies" are precisely what they are against i.e. they seek to reject the (Leftist) assumption that politics can (or at least should) be reduced to ideologies. It is a subtle point but something that anybody seeking to contribute to an article about "Right Wing" politics ought to be familiar. It is an example (if I may say so) of one of your assumptions about which you seem to be unaware. Your declaration that "Right Wing" reduces to where you sit in a political assembly however is a claim whose inadequacy as a definition of what it is to be "Right Wing" has been pointed out to you several times before, although I see that this has not stopped you from repeating it. Forgive me if I do not review (yet again) your assumption that "racism" and "fascism" [and imperialism and slavery] are "right wing", I merely point out that it is controversial. I refer you to the replies which have already been given you by "Martin" and "Collect". ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say libertarian, and the liberals most commonly described as right-wing would probably not be libertarian. In countries where there is no historical conservative or christian democratic party, the Right is liberal. TFD (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We cannot replace liberalism with libertarianism because if I remember correctly, libertarianism is already there. Of course, libertarianism is as confusing as liberalism, because there is left-libertarianism as well as right-libertarianism. And at any rate, we can't replace anything in a quote. What we can do is add a clarification after the quote. - BorisG (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, Marcel Gauchet's essay "Right and Left" provides a much better source for the history of use of the term "Right". But you are incorrect that the Right is against ideology. More correctly (as you say) they are against left-wing ideology. The definition of being against ideology applies to conservatives only and not other groups on the Right. Even then, the claim is not supported by most academics. TFD (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

THE FOUR DEUCES. As you know, I did not say that EVERYBODY who can be described as on the political Right opposes reducing politics into "ideologies", I simply pointed out that MANY on the political Right reject what they take to be the "Leftist" assumption that all political views can be reduced to "ideologies"; and therefore if you seek to frame politics in these terms you are already making a questionable political assumption. I am not sure why you feel the need to share the information that you do not agree with this assumption, or indeed that you believe that most academics in university politics departments (especially no doubt those who earn their living reducing politics to "ideologies") would agree with you, what is being pointed out is that your political assumptions on this matter are very evident. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not recommend reflecting the views of political scientists in articles because I happen to agree with them, but because it is required by neutrality. Anyway, if you agree that the Right is defined as opposition to the Left, then what are you arguing about? TFD (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

???? ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note from Manning - Sorry guys: I had a massive work-related drama and I suddenly find myself in Los Angeles (a long(!) way from home - I'm Australian). I'll try to get caught up on what been happening here. Manning (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

How dare you have a life! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This article seems injust and dated.

Right Wing in the modern sense means traditional. Left Wing in the modern sense means no-traditional. Each country is different but some have influenced each other as we see with economics.

Example: The US Right Wing means Politically: Constitutional Republicanism Socially: Religious, Moral, Family-oriented, and Self-Responsibility Fiscally: Limited tax collecting and spending. Balanced budgets. Economically: Free Market Limited Democratic Capitalism Civilly: Individualism, Equality before the Law, and Tough on Crime. The reason why these are right wing in the US is because these are the traditions of the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing in its long-held sense is support of the existence of social hierarchy and hierarchical institutions such as a hierarchical state, religious institutions, the existence in variation of wealth among people, the support of order above other issues, and the rejection of imposed egalitarianism; traditionalism is typically invoked to support these views. This article is NOT exclusively about the U.S. right-wing, and besides the U.S. right-wing generally supports the issues described above. Your description of "Religious, Moral, Family-oriented, and Self-Responsibility" could describe left-wing religious people. There can be such thing as traditionalist left-wing religious people, so traditionalism is not the right-wing's exclusive base, the context of the traditionalism is the issue. And typically the context of the invoked traditionalism by the right-wing is that that emphasizes support for the existence of social hierarchy and social order over that of the progressivism invoked by the left-wing that emphasizes support for the creation of social equality and social development, even if such development causes disorder in the process. These are the issues involved in the dynamics of left-wing vs. right-wing politics.--R-41 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, prior to the entrenchment of capitalism, the right-wing was opposed to individualism, laissez-faire economics, and the free market, especially amongst the noble aristocrats who supported feudalism or mercantilism over capitalism. Indeed capitalism and individualism were on the political left to feudalism and religious collectivism that were on the political right, and in fact this was the original political right. There are still extreme right-wing movements that are anti-capitalist and anti-indvidualist, so capitalism and individualism do not necessarily belong to the right-wing.--R-41 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fall of the Soviet Union

The following quote contained within the entry is a joke: "the conservative governments of Ronald Reagan in the United States, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and Brian Mulroney in Canada followed a clearly anti-Soviet foreign policy that is credited by their supporters as a major factor in the fall of the Soviet Union." The notion that only the "supporters" of the aforementioned individuals believe they played a major role in the downfall of the Soviet Union is a ludicrous, to say the least. Mikhail Gorbachev himself has stated that the policies of the Reagan Administration, particularly the Strategic Defense Initiative, played a major role in the fall of the Soviet Union. Claiming that only supporters of Reagan believe he played a major role in the downfall of the Soviet Union is as ahistorical as it is petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 24 July 2011

It is unsourced and there other issues, for example whether all these people were right-wing or pursued anti-Soviet foreign policies. I will take it out. TFD (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a source for the Gorbachev quote. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

An editor has posted a POV tag on the "Positions" section, which states, "Please see the discussion on the talk page".[5] Since there is no current discussion on the talk, I will remove it. Please do not restore the tag without explaining what POV issues exist. TFD (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A libertarian view

In the section "The left-right dichotomy" of his book Intellectuals and society, Thomas Sowell writes

Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the left and the right is that only the former has even a rough definition. What is called "the right" are simply the various and disparate opponents of the left. These opponents of the left may share no particular principle, much less a common agenda, and they can range from free-market libertarians to advocates of monarchy, theocracy, military dictatorship or innumerable other principles, systems and agendas.... The usual image of the political spectrum among the intelligentsia extends from the Communists on the extreme left to less extreme left-wing radicals, more moderate liberals, centrists, conservatives, hard right-wingers, and ultimately Fascists."[6]

Note that Sowell does not argue that these terms have no meaning or are tautological, although he obviously does not like them, because he resents being grouped with ideologies that may have nothing in common with his own. I see no reason why we cannot explain how the term "the Right" is used. TFD (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Note how liberals here are left of centre. - BorisG (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is missing the forest for the trees. In the U.S., the Democrats are the "liberals", while the Republicans are the "conservatives" and Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter are the center. Yet all fall within liberalism. In Europe, the conservatives were the Right, while the liberals were the Left and the Christian Democrats were called the Center. The center will vary depending on time and place. TFD (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are conservative, moderate amd liberal Democrats; conservative, moderate and liberal Republicans as neither party has a litmus test determining who can be rigistered in that party. Percentages of each group may differ, but that is a far cry from making any assertion of any sort that the Dems are "liberal" and the GOP is "conservative" as a blanket statement. The US party system does not conform to a neat "exact position on political spectrum" analysis. Never has. Likely never will. Collect (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? TFD (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sowells views seems to be nothing more than the idea, common especially amongst many American conservatives and libertarians, that conservatism is the absence of ideology and is only a pragmatic view of things as they occur. See for example here (second definition of conservatism]. It is certainly noteworthy that such an idea exists on the right wing, but it should not be taken literally. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tea Party especially often claim to be opposed to both parties, but can anyone name any case where anyone on the Right has ever supported anything against the interests of the rich? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can. Just last week the Australian Labor Party has introduced the carbon tax, and their right-of-centre opponents claim that ordinary people will pay more for everything. Hitler (if we agree he was right-wing) introduced cars for the people, and reduced (or claimed to have reduced) unemployment. Examples are infinite. Whether these claims are valid is matter of opinion, of course. We won't resolve this on Wikipedia. More generally, if right-wing parties did not claim to represent ordinary people, they would never get elected (in democracies), because the rich are always a small minority. Of course, it again depends on the definition of right-wing :) - BorisG (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

sure if you can prove Marxist theory is right wing because that is what Hitler based fascism on. Later he just became a dictator though which isn't any group.

--OxAO (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

All of your examples are examples of conservatives either claiming that the left will hurt working people or claiming that the right help working people. None are examples of conservatives supporting something that is against the interests of the rich. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my bad, I (somehow) misread your question. I will think of examples. Or maybe you are right. - BorisG (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rick, since coming to Wikipedia, I have read a lot about the extreme right and have benefited from discussions with people who call themselves right wing. Like you, I assumed that they were like conservatives, only more extreme, but my opinion has changed. They do not think that they support the elites, but believe that they oppose them. They group disadvantaged minorities with the elites and believe that the elites and the minorities conspire against them, They have been perceived as a threat to the elites and in most countries elites have opposed them. TFD (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Groups that are to the right of mainstream conservativism, whether anti-masons, fascists, poujadists, or the Tea Party, have always attacked the elites. But once in power, they generally purge their left-wing eleements and align with the elites,(Here is a link to an early explanation of right-wing populism.) TFD (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your article from he book "History of Alberta" doesn't describe what a right wing populist is. He uses left wing Socialists such as Ernesto Laclau member of the Socialist Party of the National Left as an example of right wing populist. That article isn't helpful at all

--OxAO (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, he does not. TFD (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Political Dichotomy - Right vs. Left & Self-Government vs. Statism.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/entry.php?5-Political-Dichotomy-Right-vs.-Left-Self-Government-vs.-Statism.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Empirical studies have shown that there is a rough correlation between views on economic policy, social control and other attitudes and position on the political spectrum (e.g., Von Beyme, Bobbio, Altemeyer). But all these studies begin with how the various ideologies are perceived to sit in the political spectrum. And that is most clearly demonstated by how the various political families choose to arrange themselves in European legislatures, and also by seeing which parties are most likely to form coaltions. For example, liberals (of all types) are more likely to form coalitions with conservatives or socialists, than conservatives and socialists are likely to form coaltions with each other. Fascists were more likely to form coaltions with conservatives, while communists were more likely to form coalitions with socialists. TFD (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is quotes like the following that make any attempt to arrive at consensus a completely pointless exercise: "The Tea Party especially often claim to be opposed to both parties, but can anyone name any case where anyone on the Right has ever supported anything against the interests of the rich?" Yes, you are so right. In the entire history of the American right, not one proposal has ever been offered that would be against the interests of the so-called "rich"(which according to relatively recents statments by prominent Democrats would include those making $75,000/year). What are you going to do next, challenge us to "disprove" the notion that "Republicans hate poor people"? Statements as stupid as the one I quote remind me of people who claim that the Republicans and the right are just a bunch of rich elites, while at the same time claiming they are just a bunch of inbred rednecks. The attempt by another poster to rebut the asinine sentence I quote is met with an "argument" along the lines of "I don't think those things go against the interest of the rich"; boy, that is a really persuasive rejoinder. You sure showed him. In keeping with the moronic style of argumentation I have quoted, I would ask the following: name one piece of legislation proposed by the left that would actually help small businesses or small business owners, the people who employ the vast majority of workers in the United States? Or how about this one: name one piece of economic legislation proposed by the left that didn't involve class warfare and demonization of a large portion of the American populace?

No-one claims that the Republicans and the Right are rich élites and inbred rednecks at the same time. Their voters are both, with the rednecks vastly outnumbering the élites, of course; but you'll find few actual rednecks in positions of power, which is why the rednecks are criticised by the Left for being intellectually inert, or less politely speaking, irredeemably stupid (for example here): They keep stubbornly voting for exactly the party who acts against their own interests (and in fact, against everyone's interests, because in a society with a healthy middle class and no rich/poor gap, even the rich are better off, compare this). As for the final question posed, true: that is a moronic question; I suspect that's why no-one has even bothered to reply. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Good response, Florian Blaschke. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rich Norwood your question is very poorly asked. Let me repeat it in your own words
"can anyone name any case where anyone on the Right has ever supported anything against the interests of the rich?"
If you changed the words "anything against the interests of the rich" to "equal rights for all" it would hurt the rich. The rich in general support large government for the projects and contracts the government dolls out to the rich. In essence large government takes from the people to give to the selected rich and the tea party is against that.
Note: how the left which enjoys large government unwillingly creates an environment of selecting rich fat cats or i call simply corruption.
--OxAO (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading the exchange above, is there any doubt about how hate-filled "those on the left" are? TodKarlson (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't hate anyone because of their politics, and I don't hate rich people. I still have yet to see an example where the Right supports anything against the interests of the rich. The Tea Party claims to favor small government, but have they ever voted to cut any program that gives free money to the rich, or have they only voted for programs that cut taxes for the rich and cut benefits for everybody else?

An insult is not an example.

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead

This edit to the lead, which is sourced to a National Review editorial is an obvious violation of rs and POV and therefore I will reverse it. TFD (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems quite fair and accurate, as well as being a perfectly reliable source. How ironic that this should be removed immediately but a tendentious definition from a Marxist sociologist be allowed to take pride of place in the lead and sit there for many months no questions asked. Jprw (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between a description of how a term is understood by the academic community written in a book from academic publishers that underwent fact-checking and a columnist's explanation of how he understands a term. Can you explain why you believe that Buckley's opinions represent academic consensus or even the consensus of National Review editors? TFD (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

William F. Buckley, Jr. was, in America in the 1950s, a defining force in the modern American Conservative movement. However this article is about Right-wing politics throughout history and around the world, and the in-many-ways-unique American view of the Right does not belong in the lead. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Scope of the article

There was an earlier discussion on the scope of the article, which has now grown cold, and I wonder if other editors would care to comment on it. My view is that there is no general topic in reliable sources about "the Right", but rather sources define the Right as opposition to the Left, and say that the term may be used to refer to a variety of unrelated ideologies. It is usually considered to be pejorative (except perhaps in the United States) and therefore rarely used as a term of self-identification. There are also a number of terms that use the word right, e.g., New Right,far right, etc., but disagreement over whether these groups are actually right-wing. (Writers who use these terms do so because they are the descriptions most generally understood.)

My suggestion is that this article should just explain how the term is used. The left-right dichotomy is already explained in political spectra articles and there are articles about the various ideologies that have been called "right-wing". Any attempt to combine various uses of the term "right" to develop an article is synthesis.

TFD (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the problem, it is one which really annoys me. In life I try to avoid using the terms left, right and centre in the political sense everyone I meet appears to define them differently. Regardless, WP must have articles on them, giving the broadest possible definition. It is a very tricky problem to deal with.--Matt Downey (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we delete the article, just that it should limit its scope to the meaning of the term. When one does a search on Google books for "history of the left", it returns a number of books that see the Left the results show that there is a general understanding of what groups are left-wing and a body of literature that describes commonality of history, beliefs, symbolism etc.[7] But a search for "history of the right" returns nothing about right-wing politics.[8] Can you find a book or article that could serve as an example of how this article could be written? TFD (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a general defintion of right-wing (as the sources show), so the lead sentence should be kept. However you are right in that, when in comes to specifics, it is a more loosely used term than left-wing and the article should reflect that. LittleJerry (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What about beyond the lead? TFD (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, you can add more info on the looseness of the term. LittleJerry (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "right-wing" being more loosely used that "left-wing". I've heard right-wing used to describe everybody from Adolph Hitler to George Washington, and left-wing used to describe everybody from Adolph Hitler to Barack Obama. The historical usage seems to have almost vanished, at least in the United States. The right-wing press in the US uses "right-wing" to mean "good" and "left-wing" to mean "evil". The mainstream press in the US uses the phrases as synonyms for the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, regardless of the issues being discussed. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Google book search shows books that use the term "Left" to include a group of political movements existing in different countries in different periods of time. Examples from the first page: The left in history: revolution and reform in the twentieth century, The history of the left from Marx to the present, What's left: radical politics in the postcommunist era. There are no similar books describing right-wing politics. And even if the Left is not a meaningful universal concept but specific to a time and place, it would mean the left-wing politics was OR. TFD (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD: what does your proposal mean in practice? Does it mean pruning back the "history of the term" section, or are there other changes you would like to see? --FormerIP (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It would mean trimming the article to a dictionary definition. TFD (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should reduce the article to a stub. LittleJerry (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a book (any book, even from the fringe) about the Right that provides guidance about what this article should be about? It seems that all we have is an invitation to original research. TFD (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this?

Most of the article is about the left-right political spectrum. It does however refer to a theory of the right proposed by Eatwell and Sullivan in The Nature of the right: American and European politics and political thought since 1789 (1989).[9] It cites their book, saying the Right "is ‘most helpfully conceived as a variety of responses to the left.’" (p. 24) "The successive phases of the right can be seen as responding to and interacting with these developments on the left. Eatwell and O’Sullivan (1989) have helpfully discerned five such incarnations of the right." (1) "the ‘reactionary right’" (deMaistre) (2) "the 'moderate' right" (Burke), (3) "the 'radical'" (e.g, fascism), (4) "the 'extreme' right" (e.g., anti-immigration, racist parties) and (5) "the 'neo-liberal' right" (e.g., Reagan, Thatcher). (pp. 30 ff.) I suppose we could include this in the article. TFD (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Right as reaction to the Left is helpful. The reactions have always been in a particular direction, in the direction of tradition and preservation of a class structure. This suggests a self-contained definition is better than a definition that depends on what the Left is. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that? It seems not to be accurate unless you have a narrow definition ot the Right. Neoliberalism is a good example. Thatcherism for example came into conflict with the established church, aristocracy, traditional businesses, local government, schools and historic regiments. Goldwater conservatives had no interest in preserving the "Eastern liberal establishment" or the traditional churches. TFD (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems defining the Right as opposition to the Left is circular. We could also define the Left as opposition to the Right too. I think it is a bit more than that, as Rick states. In its most basic terms, the Right is associated with conserving the status quo while the Left is associated with changing the status quo. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It would only be circular if the Left were defined as opposition to the Right, which it is not. And the Right does not always support the status quo, it may wish to return to the status quo ante, it may advocate sweeping change or it may even be revolutionary, as in Eastern Europe. Regardless, we need sources, and you have provided none. TFD (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bonapartism

Bonapartism strictly speaking means supporters of the Bonaparte family. In this narrow sense it has no place in an article about what it is to be on the Right. It is also sometimes used as a general political term describing those who advocate a centralised State led by a strongman. As such it has no particular association with the Right, it depends on the politics of the strong man! The issue of whether or not Napoleon Bonaparte extended or reversed the French Revolution is very controversial, and therefore unless it has a section all of its own, it is best left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERIDU-DREAMING (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 September 2011

Here is a link to your edit. It is quite clear that the reference is to the politics of France rather than bonapartism (which means rule by strongman) in general. Bonapartism is considered to be part of the French Right, not because Napoleon I reversed the more extreme actions of the French revolution but because sinistrisme forced the supporters of Napoleon III to the Right, just as the orleanists were forced to the Right. Orleanist and bonapartist parties would develop into the modern Right, i.e., the party of Sarkozy. TFD (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The original text in the "History of the Term" said

"On the right, the Legitimists and Ultra-royalists held counter-revolutionary views and rejected any compromise with modern ideologies while the Orleanists hoped to create a constitutional monarchy, under their preferred branch of the royal family, a brief reality after the 1830 July Revolution. The Bonapartists advocated the idea of a strong and centralized state, based on popular support. Since then the term right-wing has come to be associated with preserving the status quo in the form of institutions and traditions."

It now reads

"On the right, the Legitimists and Ultra-royalists held counter-revolutionary views, while the Orleanists hoped to create a constitutional monarchy under their preferred branch of the royal family, a brief reality after the 1830 July Revolution."

Bonapartism is a topic in its own right. Strictly speaking it means supporters of the Bonaparte family. It is also sometimes used as a general political term describing those who advocate a centralised State led by a strongman. As such (in either sense) it is not a definition of what it is to be on the Right, unless you assume that "strong men", and Napoleon Bonaparte in particular, equals being on the Right. As I explained, the issue of whether or not Napoleon Bonaparte is on the Right or Left politically (in this context whether he extended or reversed the French Revolution) is not as uncontroversial as you seem to think. You mention Napoleon III. He defined "Bonapartism" as “a system which is not the pale imitation of the English or American constitutions, but rather the governmental formulation of the principles of the revolution: the hierarchy within democracy, the equality in front of the Law, the recompense of the patriotic merit” (1838). In other words he saw it as a continuation of the French Revolution. Yet again you are making contributions to articles while not only knowing very little about the topic, but also seeking to impose your own political opinions on what should be a politically neutral account.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)).

The original Right of 1789 of course did not include orleanists either. The fact remains that bonapartism became part of the Right. TFD (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Politics = Class

The association between class and politics is a valid discussion in an article about Left and Right politics, but (if it is to avoid political partisanship) the article should avoid making dogmatic statements. I have slightly changed the wording to reflect the fact that politics = class is a topic about which people have different opinions. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

In fact they do not, that is how the political spectrum is defined. A possible exception is the "Extreme Right", a broad category that includes such groups as UKIP, the Norwegian Progess Party, etc. These parties reject class politics. But most hereditary peers in the UK were Tories, while most labour unions supported labour. TFD (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting in asserting what ain't so. A large number of peers were either Labour, Liberal, or Cross-bench. Most of the "hereditary peers", in fact, seldom if ever showed up for Parliament, making the effective counts very difficult to ascertain. Which means a majority of peers total were not Tories. Labour unions, who formed the financial backbone of the Labour Party, did in fact support Labour. Tautological assertions. Most current peers are, interestingly enough, Labour. [10] shows Tory hereditary peers to be under half of all hereditary peers. [11] shows that a minority of peers ever (about 400) showed up for sessions. [12] shows actually lower attendance rates for Tories than for Labour. As I noted - interesting. Hope this corrects your misapprehensions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your source shows that in 1999, there were 297 Conservative peers compared with 18 Labour peers (by succession).[13] That was during a period when Labour enjoyed more popular support than the Conservatives. Not interested in your sophist arguments. TFD (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I fear you ignore cross-bench and others which amounted to 343 -- and 297 < 361. Really. And you seem to not actually look at the actual number participating in Parliament. As for your name-calling, I fear that such arguments hold little weight here - I presented facts and your response does not deal with the facts presented. Cheers - but your post seems to confirm WP:KNOW. Collect (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You deny that politics = class is a topic about which people have different opinions. In other words you think that everybody thinks that political beliefs are reducible to class. That if you earn X you vote Y.

An opponent of that view would point out that (for example) in the 2008 American presidential election 52 percent of voters who make $250,000 a year or more voted for Barack Obama.

I am not going to waste my time trying to get you to understand alternative views (you tried to ban me from contributing to Wikipedia - that went well didn't it- so I am assuming listening to alternative views does not come easily to you) I am simply pointing out that (contrary to what you say above) there is more than one view on this topic, and this should be reflected in the Wikipedia article.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)).

We are supposed to follow what sources say rather than conduct original research. Collect's comments are so obviously absurd there is no reason to comment on them. ERIDU-DREAMING, Class is not the only driver for voting merely the major drvier. Education is the next most important driver and it education correlates with income. The more education one has, the less likely one is to vote right, which explains the anomoly of wealther middle class voters choosing the Democrats in 2008. But upper middle class voters (which the Americans call "upper class") were still more likely to vote Republican. Similarly the least educated Americans were more likely to vote Democratic because they also happened to be the poorest citizens. Age, ethnicity and psychology are also factors in voting. If class were the only driver, then there would be no Conservative parties. As it happens, most Conservative parties died out as the franchise was extended and they were unable to expand their voting base beyond the upper classes. TFD (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Again (as usual) this is you telling us your political opinions. I am not interested in your political opinions, and neither is anybody else. I (slightly) re-wrote the Wikipedia article so that the assertion that political views reduce to class interest becomes an opinion rather than a statement of fact. Read what you wrote, and you will discover that even you deny that political opinions reduce to class interest, and so stop wasting everybodies time.(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)).

No that is not my opinion but the opinion of political scientists. If you believe that they are wrong then please find sources that support your view of the world. TFD (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Read what you wrote, and you will discover that even you deny that political opinions reduce to class interest, and so stop wasting everybodies time" (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)).

During the time leading up to the French Revolution, when the terms Left and Right originated, many in the upper class supported the revolution. And FDR, loathed by the Right at the time as a "traitor to his class", was born to the upper class. Conversely, during the time leading up to the French Revolution, many of the lower class supported the monarchy because of their Roman Catholic faith, which taught that Kings ruled by Divine Right. And today many poor whites vote Republican because many pastors in the American South tell them the Republicans support Christianity and that the Democrats are trying to outlaw Christianity.

During the time leading up to the French Revolution, the Left stood for liberty, equality, and fraternity, while the Right stood the King, the aristocracy, and the Roman Catholic church. Today there have been some changes, but not that many.

The biggest change in the Left and the Right is that, originally, patriotism was a watchword of the Left. Vive la France! After the revolution the church declined, democracy spread, and the upper class needed a new ideal to hold out before the lower class to win their support. They turned to patriotism. This introduced a hypocrisy into the debate that had not existed before, because the Left really were anti-Catholic, but they were not anti-France. Still, the Right claimed patriotism as their exclusive property.

Today, except for the Libertarians, who do not really fit comfortably into the left/right spectrum, the Left is still for liberty, equality, and fraternity, but now the Right claims to stand for God and country, but always votes the interest of the upper class.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"During the time leading up to the French Revolution, the Left stood for liberty, equality, and fraternity, while the Right stood the King, the aristocracy, and the Roman Catholic church. Today there have been some changes, but not that many."

To be on the Right in the USA means that you are a monarchist, a supporter of aristocrats, and a Roman Catholic? Who knew. Here was me thinking that the biggest political party on the Right in the USA called themselves Republicans, that they promoted free market capitalism not feudalism, and that most Catholics in the USA vote Democrat. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)).

I would like to see ERIDU-DREAMING present a source, rather than an argument. I am surprised that he would take this view as it contradicts the views of writers he normally defends. TFD (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My political beliefs are irrelevant. You still have not grasped that point. But for the benefit of THE FOUR DEUCES here is an article (picked at RANDOM from a Google search) undermining the assumption that how individuals vote reduces to their level of income. It is only one of many factors.

http://andrewgelman.com/2006/12/redblue_for_loc/

"We find that income matters more in “red America” than in “blue America.” In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states...income has a very low correlation with vote preference."

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)).

You have now changed your position from saying that mention of the relation between class and voting was "partisan" and "dogmatic" to claiming that it is one of many factors (as indeed I had agreed). In fact it is the main factor even, as your example shows, in the United States, which as you pointed out does not even have kings and queens and aristocrats. TFD (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that bloke who said at the beginning of this section that "The association between class and politics is a valid discussion in an article about Left and Right politics, but (if it is to avoid political partisanship) the article should avoid making dogmatic statements." The claim that politics is reducible to economics is disputed. It should not simply be assumed as a fact. Some people claim that elections are determined by all sorts of factors.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)).

For someone who knows the difference between Eridu and Inkidu, you seem to be being deliberately obtuse. I explained the difference between the original usage and the modern usage; you pretended like I had claimed that the two were the same. I explained that Libertarians do not easily fit into the left/right description of politics; you ignored that.

I agree that not all politics can be reduced to economics. In times of crisis, people unite to support their leaders. But left/right politics is essentially an economic description of political alignment, with the exception noted by TFD above that in the case of the far-right, jingoism sometimes replaces class interest.

Please note that I am talking about the actions of politicians in power on the Left and the Right, not about the socio-economic status of voters. Voters usually vote for whoever their friends are voting for.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Left/Right politics is essentially an economic description of political alignment"

Wrong. It is two contrasting ways of looking at the world. Your opinion is that this contrast reduces to economics. It may be shocking news to you, but not everybody agrees with this analysis. Some people, for example, view the contrast between Right and Left in theological terms. They argue that it is based on two different conceptions of the universe. Some believe that it turns on two different conception of what is possible. Some are outraged that the world is not better than it is, and others are thankful that it is so good. Some believe that political convictions are age or experience related. That as people grow up or learn more about the world they change their political views. Other people have psychological explanations. That we have different personality types that are attracted to particular ways of understanding politics. I am not arguing for or against any of these claims, I am simply saying that reducing Right/Left politics to economics is just one analysis, one of many, and it should be treated as such.

"the Left is still for liberty, equality, and fraternity, but now the Right claims to stand for God and country, but always votes the interest of the upper class."

In your country there is a party on the Right called the Republican Party. As I understand it they talk a lot about the importance of liberty (they even use that word) and fraternity. There are also plenty of Republicans who do not claim to be religious. The above contrast is therefore a false one. I notice you say that people on the Left ARE for liberty and fraternity, but that people on the Right CLAIM to be religious and patriotic. This is just silly bigotry. As by the way is your claim that people on the Right always vote in the interests of the upper class. This is a political opinion. No doubt it gets a pat on the back from your friends. But I could equally well say that politicians on the Left prefer a system where the poor are kept powerless so that they can be managed by an elite (themselves) who reward themselves by redistributing power and wealth (created by others) to themselves. This article is not (or should not be) about your political opinions.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)).

Words don't mean anything you want them to mean. They don't mean what politicians want them to mean. A Republican might claim that the Right believes in God and the Left believes in Satan, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, it seems to me that the Right is trying to redefine words to make political discussion impossible. Unless we agree on what words mean, discussion is impossible.

One solution is to avoid the terms Left and Right entirely, but here our task is to make sense of those words without taking sides. That means using the words the way scholarly sources use them to inform, rather than the way politicians use them to win votes.

In the paragraph above that begins "Wrong." you confuse two things. You confuse what a person believes (God is great!) with why a person believes it (they're old or young or rich or poor). While this article may certainly address the question of what influences a person to be on the Left or on the Right, such a discussion only makes sense after we tell the reader how these words are used, not in the know-nothing atmosphere of the blogosphere, but in reasoned discourse.

It is not bigotry to observe differences between what people say and what they do. Also, note that I have no problem with the statement that people on the right tend to be religious and patriotic. Most people are. I have a problem with the idea that people on the Left are not just as religious and patriotic as people on the Right. You can't define the Right as "people who like baseball" when just as many people on the Left like baseball. The Right has made a conscious effort to define the Right as religious and patriotic, but that's just to win votes, and to prevent a serious discussion.

The only way to determine what words mean is to look at how they are used by thoughtful people. This is why TFD keeps asking you for references. Without references, we may as well go along with Humpty Dumpty. "It's all a question of who's the master, you or the word."

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"You confuse what a person believes...with why a person believes it".

I fully appreciate that you think that the Right/Left distinction reduces to economics; that an economic explanation is the true meaning of these words. That in your opinion being on the Right politically means x, and that being on the Left politically means y, and that x and y should be defined in economic terms. What you have (still) not grasped is that this is only ONE way of understanding what is is to be on the Right or the Left.

You ask me to provide you with evidence of these alternative views. I point you in the direction of a library. Go to the politics section. Pick a selection of books at random. Unless you live in North Korea you will discover a diversity of views about politics. Some of these views you will be pleased to learn coincide with your own. There was a German bloke called Marx for example, who was very influenced by some British Political Economists. He believed that economics is the key to understanding human history. He thought that political CLAIMS about X are REALLY a product of reality Y - where Y is a particular economic arrangement. He liked to see his approach as a Young Hegelian rejection of theology. Some people however - Kolakowski for example in his history of Marxism - claim that Marxism is a theology, and is not about economics. You could provide an economic explanation of why Marx had the views he had (he was a journalist who borrowed money off his family and his factory owning friends and disliked the idea of having to work for a living) but as Kolakowski demonstrated this is only one way of understanding his politics.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)).

I've read a lot of good books. They all say that the origin of the left/right divide was in France, and that the conflict was between the upper class, supported by the church, and the middle class. Yes, many upper class liberals joined with the working class to support the interests of the working class, and many of the poor joined in support of the church, and supporting the church meant supporting the upper class. But every book I've read on French history has assigned the right to the upper class and the left to the working class.

You seem to claim that now the meaning of the words has changed completely. All I ask is a scholarly source that supports your view. You have yet to provide one, instead suggesting that I read all the books in the library looking for one, not a practical suggestion.

Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Close trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did Karl Marx write this article? This should be redone. How is equality of opportunity, the basis of the right wing not mentioned? Why are the Girondins not listed in the historical terms listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC) There is nothing in the Girondins article that says they were right wing so I have removed it. If there is genuine academic consensus for that then it should go in that article first and then it can be re-added here. As for equality of opportunity, that is certainly not a traditional aspect of the right. In fact it is 100% the opposite of the early right's hierarchical view of society. I don't dispute that some on the right might now believe in it but it has nothing to do with the definition of what is right wing. Oh, and you might find you get taken more seriously if you avoid silly section headings in future. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Girondin constitutional project that was presented to the French National Convention in 1793. In it’s Declaration of Rights section, it says that man has a right to property. Which means they were not socialist or Marxist which makes them right wing. --OxAO (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC) DanielRigal said, "As for equality of opportunity, that is certainly not a traditional aspect of the right. In fact it is 100% the opposite..." What a bias, incorrect and inflammatory statement to make and you are the editor of this article? name one! or go away. I have to agree with SineBot is the editor of this article a Marxist? This really is a valid question at this point. --OxAO (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC) I am not "the editor of the article". There are no nominated editors of articles on Wikipeda. If you don't understand about how Wikipedia works then maybe you should add that to the list of things you need to read up on. None the less, I will accept your point that the Girondins were not Marxists although I fear that your victory on this point is muted very slightly by the fact that absolutely nobody has ever said that they were. There is nothing in reliable sources to suggest that they were either time travellers or clairvoyants so it can reasonably be assumed, without any accusation of original research, that they had no knowledge of Marx. The article on the Girondins does not say that they were either right or left wing, never mind Marxists, so you can relax on that account. You also ask me to "name one" but you failed to say what you wanted one of named. I would like to help here but I am afraid I have no idea what you want of me. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC) The header of this discussion thread is trolling and I will therefore close it. TFD (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)