Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 16

Continued on Next Rock
New Section, just because the old section got too long to edit easily.

Collect: You quote me: "As far as I can see, in every case the Right supports government that increases the wealth and power of those who have the most wealth and power, and most, but not all, standard reference works agree. The Right, like all other major political groups in the modern West, pay lip service to freedom and equality of oportunity, but since everyone does that, that does not distinguish the Right from any other group." and then go on to say "rather strongly implies that you do not favour such a position as you impute to the 'right'."

There is a difference between disliking the people who have wealth and power, which you accused me of saying, and which is not the case, and not wanting the government to act to increase their wealth and power. In any case, I base my edits on cited sources, so my opinion on the subject is beside the point.

ERIDU-DREAMING complains that he is tired of repeating himself. In that case, I suggest he stop. We understand perfectly well what he means by "the Right" and we understand perfectly well the various justifications that people of similar beliefs offer for those beliefs. Whether those justifications are correct is not a subject to be debated here. The subject under discussion here is whether his usage of the phrase "the Right" has any currency outside of very recent American politics and popular media. Please, provide citations to that effect, or move on to another topic.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please emend how your post is worded -- new editors here might not recognize the entire first part of what I said was a direct quote of your own post.  Also note that all governments end up "increasing wealth and power" of someone - the Soviets were, in fact, quite notorious for it.  That did not, AFAICT, make Stalin a "right winger."  My point has been, and remains, that there is no "one size fits all for all places and all times" definition of "right wing" at all.  And no one has provided any sources to contradict that position at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect: Not all governments increase wealth and power. For example, Castro's Cuban government greatly decreased wealth and power of all the Cuban people. Other examples abound. In any case, the point here is not what a government does, but rather why writers use the phrase "right-wing" to describe some governments and not others. Historically they applied the phrase "right-wing" to political groups that served entrenched power structures. The word has, over time, had many meanings. I think the article does a fairly good job of listing some of those meanings. But because the meaning changes with context (as the article properly points out) does not mean that "right-wing" has no meaning at all. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except for those in power! Yes Castro destroyed the Cuban economy utterly - but the ones who were in power suffered much less than the average Cubans did.  Special groups can purchase at "luxury stores" of various types.  Egalitarianism which is non-egalitarian is not "right wing" at all.   And I suggest "serving entrenched power structures" has absolutely no meaning as to "left" or "right" whatever.   By such a claim, Stalin was one of the most "right wing" people ever.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased Rick Norwood that "We" (is that a Royal "We"?) "understand perfectly well what he [Eridu Dreaming] means by 'the Right'...The subject under discussion here is whether his usage...has any currency outside of very recent American politics and popular media" so it should be no problem therefore for you supply the definition of "Right-Wing" to which you object. This will enable me (assuming I recognise and support the definition you supply) to give you evidence which supports its validity.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC))


 * How is it possible to misunderstand a simple statement that this article is about how the phrase "right-wing" is used? The phrase is not used to describe Stalin.  It is used to describe Franco.  You have yet to answer my question: why is it used to describe Franco?


 * ERIDU-DREAMING: By "we" I mean myself, TFD, and all the other editors who are trying to get you to cite sources that describe your beliefs as a primary meaning of the phrase "right-wing", instead of endless arguing in favor of those beliefs.


 * You ask what I think your beliefs are. I think you're a Libertarian, but if I'm wrong, please correct me.  You've said right-wing was used (by her enemies) to describe Maggie Thatcher.  I think by that they meant that Maggie Thatcher was a friend to the upper-class and an enemy of the people.  Whether they were right or wrong is moot -- that is how I understand their use of the word.  Why do you think they called her right-wing?  You said that right-wing is used to describe people who have beliefs based on fact.  Please cite some source, someone who has actually used the phrase right-wing with that meaning.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "right wing"
William F. Buckley in Rumbles left and right: a book about troublesome people and ideas and also in his Collected Speeches specifically self-identifies with the "right wing" and states to Norman Mailer:  "The true meaning of the American right wing, Mr. Mailer, is commitment, a commitment on the basis of which it becomes possible to take measurements. That is true whether in respect of domestic policy or foreign policy."

Lots of other indications that the definition of "right wing" is fully dependent on place and time, and is not a "fixed star" by any means at all. Collect (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I keep saying that I agree that the meaning of right-wing depends on context. As far as I can tell, nobody disagrees.  The article says so.  Why keep bringing it up?


 * Nice Buckley quote.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to restate in response to a rebuke by ERIDU DREAMING, which I want her/him to be aware of. The far right is not simply evaluating people as "superior in a quality" to another person. I may be superior in knowledge at an academic level of left-right politics to someone who does not have such knowledge, but a car mechanic is superior to me in knowledge of mechanics. But the far right is not evaluating qualities of people it is evaluating people as a whole as being superior or inferior. The far right advocates supremacy of people deemed being innately superior people (be it on social class or race, etc). The reactionaries believed that you were born of noble birth - you were automatically superior to someone of non-noble birth. The racist far-right believes that if you are of an ideal racial group - you are automatically superior to someone of a non-ideal racial group.


 * In response to your ERIDU DREAMING's statement on the Soviet Union, Marxist-Leninist communism and hierarchy: Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere faced the problems of all revolutionaries: how to put ideals into practice given the people in charge of the revolution, in a given society with given traits and issues. People like Lenin and Trotsky truly believed that they were going to eventually establish a communist society - they devoted much time to writing their theories and were very committed to their goals, but they were ruthless in their ambition to achieve it. People like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are another case altogether - they were completely Machiavellian, and Stalin and Pol Pot were sociopaths. The main problem with communism in practice is the paranoia of counter-revolution that leads to a police state being created, in the beginning of the Bolshevik rule this was a very real issue because Russia was in civil war between the Red Army versus the White Army. Plus if political theorist Robert Michels' famous theory of the iron law of oligarchy is correct, where he claims that even egalitarian-aiming organizations become inevitably hierarchical out of tactical necessities, then this best describes the Soviet case in the early years. In the latter years the Soviet Union and other communist governments had devolved into institutions with hollow ideology - almost no one took Marxism-Leninism as an ideology seriously by the 1970s and 1980s in Eastern Europe, and claims that today's People's Republic of China is still committed to communism only deserve a response of laughter at such naivety.--R-41 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a wonderful passage in Barry Lyndon in which a character says something like, "We are the best people. We are not the richest people, or the smartest people, or the nobelest people, or the nicest people -- we are simply the best people." Rick Norwood (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a good find, Collect. Here is a link to Buckley's opening speech where he says he speaks for the American Right.  We need a secondary source that analyses the speech because it raises several questions.  Was Buckley claiming that he was right-wing or only on the right in the United States?  The Communist Party of the Soviet Union for example also had a "right-wing", the Right Opposition.  Also, Buckley appears to exclude mainstream Republican leaders from the Right.  TFD (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point you have addressed here TFD. I didn't think of it, but it's true - there was in fact a Right Opposition in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Perhaps this gives more merit to the argument that while the left and right may have general principles, they vary based on political culture of different societies. In the Soviet Union a person could be deemed right-wing or a reactionary if they did not support radical agendas and were more conservative in their approach to their agenda - it was considered the right-leaning element within the Communist society that is far left by global perspective of various left-right movements. In Prussia and Germany until the First World War, the right was predominantly dominated by reactionary militarist aristocracy that were very hesitant on the very idea of democracy. In the United States, the Constitution is based upon classical liberalism, thus the right in the United States is culturally bound to the notions that "all men are created equal" (equal opportunity, equality before the law), democracy, and liberty, though opposing equality of outcome and being socially conservative in its support of traditions such as the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman - this is centre-right by global perspective of various left-right movements.--R-41 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The main thing wrong with communism is the fear of counter revolution? What about the total erosion of economic freedom, making economic coordination through markets impossible and leading to an inefficient use of resources and underproduction of goods and services? Or, in other words: communism results in widespread poverty and starvation. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I never said that Marxism-Leninism works. It was an abject failure and a tyranny in practice. You have misquoted what I said, what I said was that communism becomes a police state in power because of its paranoia of counter-revolution. The Soviet police state was the WORST thing developed from Lenin - the Cheka, NKVD, and KGB were the leading executioners of people the Soviet state opposed - and I would add to your list that the Machiavellians and sociopaths Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed millions of people because of their paranoid anti-social behaviour - and how did they do it, through a police state.--R-41 (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am calm. My point was that it's not just communism's abuses of civil rights and its police state aspect that make it unworkable. It is economically unworkable. Economics is an actual science, and the conclusion that markets are the best way to coordinate productive activity is nearly undisputed within the field of economics. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As best I remember, everyone here agrees that commies are bad, bad, bad. Stop flogging a dead horse. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Communism is a side issue. No serious sources divide the world into communists and right-wingers.  There is a wide range of opinion that stands between these two extremes.  TFD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Does [redacted] Think "Right Wing" means Evil?
To quote the aforementioned editor:

Falconclaw: I just used Google scholar to search for the phrase "right-wing". The top three hits were: Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism B Altemeyer, 1988; The politics of unreason: Right-wing extremism in America, 1790-1977, SM Lipset, 1978; and Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe, HG Betz, 1994. The phrase "right-wing", outside modern US politics, does not mean what you think it means! Rick Norwood (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I rest my case. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This title is very aggressive against another user that is violating Wikipedia civility protocol. I am closing this down for violating WP:CIVIL.

It's not "very aggressive." Rick Norwood denied that he thought that right wing means evil, and there has since been many comments posted in that section, so I just wanted to dispute his claim, and bring attention to that quote of his, which shows where he's coming from. Obviously if he associates right wing with authoritarianism, unreason, and radical populism, he's going to edit the article to make the right wing ideology look morally bankrupt. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I "associate" right-wing with what the sources say "right-wing" is associated with. It is not "morally bankrupt" to cite sources.  Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "dispute his claim".  Dispute my claim that I don't think right-wing means evil?  If so you're mind reading again. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes this is uncivil and aggressive, it is against Wikipedia protocol to post a heading directed towards a user, TFD removed the name, I shut down the section. Directly naming out a user in a headline and putting them on the spot by putting words in their mouth is not constructive, is uncivil, and will lead to a confrontation. Even if what you said is correct, it is none of your business to put a user on the spot to humiliate them, if they are clearly wrong, they are clearly wrong - let it be, because everyone will know that they are clearly wrong. But don't open the outhouse door to show to everyone what they are doing and how horrible it is, because we really are not interested. Move on.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Right versus Left
I notice this definition on Answers.Com

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Left_wing_vs_right_wing

The difference between the Right and Left is:

The right believes in greater personal responsibility with the belief that this freedom will lead to individual success that will open up opportunities for those who are less fortunate. This means that a citizen is responsible for his own life. He must work to earn money. With this money, he can buy food, healthcare, education and consumer items, etc. The government will take a comparatively smaller proportion of this money and with this tax, will use it to pay for key services - law and order, defence, infrastructure etc. The government will interfere as little as possible in the economy, as only the economy can run the economy, and business knows better than politicians.

The left believes in greater State responsibility for the benefit of all citizens, with the goal of a more "equal" society. This means that a citizen will work to earn money, and the government will take a comparatively larger proportion of this. With this tax, the government will pay for more services - law and order, defence, health, education etc. The government takes on a greater responsibility in controlling the economy and in governing people's lives, as the politicians do not allow businesses free reign, and the government sets certain basic standards for all of society.

DOWNSIDES FOR A SOCIETY THAT IS TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT-

- A grass-roots right wing policy is often known as free-market capitalism. This is effectively unhindered capitalism. This has many fatal flaws. The idea of this system is that the rich create jobs and this helps the poor to better themselves. However, this is impractical, as poverty is very hard to break out of, due to all the health provisions that would be required. What you would get is the poor earning money, but in a free market society, they would have to spend all the money on food, healthcare and education. This would mean only the lucky few would break out of poverty.

- With less money to spend, only the government only provides the basic need for society. Things such as health care and education become accessible only to those who have money. Ultimately, this creates a situation in which only the people with adequate financial security can lead healthy lives and meet their full potential.

- Allowing a purely free economy to guide a society means a lot of faith is placed on the people who have the most money, influence and power. With human nature, greed can play a huge role in people's motivations and decisions are often made by the rich that will only benefit themselves at the expense of the poor. This type of greed had, for example, led to the corruption by powerful executives on Wall Street which ultimately played a huge part in the failure of the global economy in late 2008-2009.

- Social equality is diminished in favour of individual rights and freedoms. In a society where everyone is equal with equal power, this would not pose a problem. However, no society has successfully achieved such equality. As a result, survival of the fittest plays a big part and a selfish attitude can begin to thrive.

DOWNSIDES FOR A SOCIETY THAT IS TOO FAR TO THE LEFT-

- Personal responsibility is diminished in favour of social equality. This essentially means taxing the rich and giving to the poor. This can be detrimental as some poorer segments of society may start to feel that society owes them something rather than taking charge of their own lives to improve their situations.

- The left-wing philosophy gives the government more money to spend and, with more money, there's more opportunities to spend irresponsibly. An extreme example currently happening in some European countries is that governments spend larger amounts on social benefits and citizens take advantage or start to develop a sense of entitlement.

- More government control of the private sector means more bureaucracies and more "hoops to jump through", which can increase costs for doing business and thus negatively impact growth.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).


 * This is pointless, Wikipedia cannot self-reference another part of Wikipedia - it is against Wikipedia protocol - that being said if there are references there that can be used, then that is useful. I have moved the issue of the relation between realism and right-wing politics to the bottom, so that users don't forget this topic is still open. Please find referenced, reliable sources, and return to the serious topic of discussion in the topic on whether right-wing means realism.--R-41 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Answers.Com is not Wikipedia. It is an anonymous attempt (better than your effort I would say) to describe the contemporary usage of "Right-Wing" in the sort of language a 10 year old could understand. It uses Right-Wing in the sense in which most people in the Anglosphere encounter it i.e. the belief that there should be lower taxes, less government inteference in our everyday lives, and that people should be encouraged to take greater responsibility for their actions. Note that the entry makes no mention of "hierarchy" only a reference to people who have more money - called "the rich" - and people with less money - called "the poor".

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You could have written that for all we know. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If I had written it I would have said so. Reptile. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No need for personal attacks. Also, some anonymous person is not reliable. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Does right-wing mean realism?
The strongest point thus far that ERIDU-DREAMING has posted is that right-wing means realism and that it is opposed to the left-wing that is based upon idealism and utopianism. So this is where discussion should focus now. Does right-wing mean realism? And what sources are available that say that right-wing means realism?--R-41 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with ERIDU-DREAMING that right-wing means realism. Realism assumes rationalism, not all right-wing movements were based on rationalist principles. For instance, how does realism apply to the Catholic and Protestant religious right that promote Christian ideals and claims there is a utopia in the afterlife? How does realism apply to the original right's defense of aristocracy that believed that people of noble birth were automatically superior to people of non-noble birth? These two major examples present on the original right-wing do not appear to to be based on realism at all. If they are please explain how they are based on realism.--R-41 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to see sources, preferrably ones that explain what is meant by reality. TFD (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong R-41 to assume that realism implies rationalism. On the Right rationalism is generally viewed a form of utopianism. See Michael Oakeshott "Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays". To cite the example of Edmund Burke (who, contrary to the claims of The Four Deuces, is a - indeed some argue that he is the greatest - thinker on the Right) his lexicon of abuse includes "metaphysics" "theory" "abstract" to which he opposes "habit" "tradition" and "prejudice". He asserts that there are limits to the extent to which abstractions can relevantly be brought to bear on politics. This is why the Right are generally sceptical of ideology - on the grounds that it oversimplifies (or is a substitute for) reality.

A typical Right-Wing approach is not "ideological", it seeks to return us back to common experience i.e. to our shared experience of what is the case. The Right of course makes use of theories - such as economic theories - but they are wary of extending them beyond a very specific domain of application. The Right accept that things do not stay the same, but they oppose the assumption that humans are a blank sheet. They assume that politics (for example) is and ought to be a practical business of seeking the good while paying attention to the realities of human nature.

One of these realities is our fallibility. Many of the Right defend a free society (as opposed to a society in which the State seeks to direct everything) on the grounds that (for example) freedom of speech helps us to discover truths. But those on the Right who advocate freedom do not view it as an end in itself. They support freedom because they believe that it contributes to the pursuit of human excellences. Their realism about what it is to be a human being carries with it the implication that not all choices are good. Freedom has therefore has to be accompanied by personal (and institutional) responsibility.

With regard to religion. R -41 you are making assumptions about the non-reality of religious claims. The claim that rewards for making the right choices may not come in this life is a claim about life after death. Some on the Right ground that which is (morally) right and wrong in religious beliefs. These beliefs are claims about the universe. It is sometimes claimed (for example by Eric Vogelin) that religious beliefs which are denied any reality by "scientism" do not disappear, but reappear in a secular guise. For example he claims that Marxism is a gnostic heresy, but this is going off topic.

As for the concept of an aristocracy. You would struggle to find anybody on the Right these days who would seek to defend the concept of an aristocracy (in the strict feudal meaning of the word) and so I am not going to waste my time examining the issue. All I would say is that if you are on the Left you may find the very concept of anybody being superior to you offensive. As a solution to this Leftists have created some of the most unequal societies on Earth, but again, that is another topic.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).

This discussion is quite pointless. It would be difficult to find an ideology that didn't claim it was the realist one, and that all other ideologies are utopian or unrealisable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find plenty of "ideologies" in the modern period which reject "moral realism" and indeed realism itself in the case of the extreme Left. As for "utopianism" you will find many in the modern period who believe that humans can (and should) strive to create a utopia on Earth. One of the features which defines the Right politically is their scepticism about such adventures. It is the conclusions we come to when seeking to balance our conservatism/radicalism which determine our politics. Such judgements only make sense however within a specific context.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is indeed not what defines "the right" at all. You will find ideologies that strives to "to create a utopia on Earth" on both sides of the political spectrum, and besides your personal opinion which is obviously quite biased is quite worthless in connection to improving the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is fun, but totally off topic. I doubt that anyone ever listed to a speaker, decided he was a realist, and as a result called him "right-wing".  Let's stick to sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ERIDU-DREAMING, your essay is original research and therefore has no value to the conversation. You need to provide a source for your claims.  You appear to be confusing conservatism with the Right.  If can provide a source that they are the same thing then your approach should be to merge the article with conservatism.  See what it says at the top of the page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."  I suggest all editors follow that advice.  TFD (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * TFD is correct ERIDU DREAMING. You need sources. As for your claim that rationalism is not connected with realism, here is a book called Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method that puts all three together, see here: . Here is another source that places realism (in the context of international relations) as being inbetween constructivism and rationalism, it rejects what it deems as liberalism's narrow rationalist views. . Then there is such a thing as "realist-rationalism". . Then there is this book that speaks of a realist/rationalist divide.. Then there is another book called Realistic Rationalism that acknowledges a divide, but fuses them. . There is appears to be no clear division between realism and rationalism, only that there appear to be realists who reject rationalism in favour of constructivism, and other realists who accept rationalism. Nevertheless, realism seems very scientific and rationally-based (maybe not "rationalist" by itself), and that does not relate to the spiritual appeals of the Catholic and Protestant religious right. Plus in criminology there is a political analysis from the left of crime that is called left realism.--R-41 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Burke "Reflections on the Revolution in France". A Critical Edition Edited by J.C.D. Clarke (Stanford University Press, 2001).

(It is not my edition but mine is out of print)

Michael Oakeshott "Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays". Methuen (Expanded edition - 1991, by Liberty Fund).

(I believe I mentioned these references already)

By the way I was talking about the anti-theoretic bias of the Right.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).


 * Clarke's edition says nothing about right-wing politics. I do not have a copy of Oakshott's book, but I do not believe he wrote about the Right either, although some of his opponents accused him of being right-wing.  Can you provide any page references?  TFD (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate THE FOUR DEUCES that you believe that Edmund Burke is not a Right-Wing political philosopher, but back in the real world the later writings of Edmund Burke (at least in the English speaking world) are generally viewed as THE paradigm example of a Right-Wing political philosophy. You seem to think that because he died before the epithet "Right-Wing" gained generally currency in England he cannot be Right-Wing. By the same logic he cannot be a conservative political philosopher either, because that description also post-dates Edmund Burke. Michael Oakeshott is slightly more complex. His defence of practice/tradition accords with the anti-theoretical views defended by Burke, and for that reason he is generally regarded as a right-wing political philosopher. But his defence of liberty also means that he is also included in the Classical Liberal tradition. But insofar as the political Right in the English speaking world (notwithstanding the fact that you believe that only a few people in the mountains of Montana call themselves Right-Wing) generally includes a defence of free markets as one of its key components, he is generally described as a Right-Wing political philosopher. As for page references, the anti-theoretic position is one of the central themes themes of both books, which is why I mentioned them, and so it would be as absurd to seek to provide a single page reference for this argument as it would be to ask for the page number in the King James Bible where God says if you do what I say and I shall reward ye!

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Michael Oakeshott on religion, aesthetics, and politics says, "Readers who see him [Oakeshott] as merely a polemicist or right-wing apologist missed something essential in his work." (p. 216) "The New York times labled him a 'right-wing guru".  Still others went so far as to imply that Oakeshott was a crypto-fascist."  (p. 2)  The political philosophy of Michael Oakeshott says, "Careful study of this work serves as a necessary corrective to the view of Oakeshott - based primarily on an exclusive reading of the essays in Rationalism in Politics - as a "Burkean conservative" or a right-wing ideologue".  (p. 3)  It may be that in your imagination there is an ideology called right-wing and you have assembled various writers that you believe support your belief system.  But that is all original research and you are wasting everyone's time.  If you want to present your reality, choose another forum.  TFD (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In other words my above summary is correct. Michael Oakeshott on the basis of his "Rationalism in Politics" collection of essays is viewed as a "Burkean conservative", but, with reference to his other writings, some argue that despite his claim that theories are simply abridgements of practices and traditions, he is more accurately situated within the Classical Liberal tradition. As for the declaration that lack of knowledge of the topic under consideration means that "you are wasting everyone's time. If you want to present your reality, choose another forum." You took the words out of my mouth.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Your essays are unhelpful to improving the article. Articles are not based on original theories presented by editors but on reliable sources.  Nothing you have presented is of any relevance to the article and could you please stop this talk page disruption.  TFD (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "realism" is a dangerous term to use without extreme caution. Even if it is supported in a very specific sense of the term (and I am not saying that it is) the average reader could easily read it in its more general sense and get the impression that if right wing is endorsed as "realism" then left-wing means "away with the faeries". Furthermore, I worry that one could just as easily make the same argument in reverse. I think that all political cliques like to think that they alone have their fingers on the pulse of raw, untainted reality while their opponents are hopelessly deluded blind men stuck in the proverbial ditch. Rhetoric of that type, even if referenced, does nothing to explain actual differences in ideology and I can't see any value in that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was skeptical that realism is only a phenomenon of the right, so I just looked up different possible examples of left-wing realism on Google Books, among them, "Marxist realism" brings up a total of 49 pages of results of books and articles on Google Books search. So realism is not clearly a phenomenon exclusive to the right.--R-41 (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The claim that Marx is a REALIST is very controversial [Lukacs, Kolakowski, and numerous "Critical Marxist" interpretors take him to be an IDEALIST] and to describe him as a MORAL REALIST (my claim if you remember about the Right) is even more controversial (I think than Norman Geras defends this view) but putting this issue to one side, you declare that some on the Left (regardless of whether or not they are correct) describe themselves as "Realists" and so this undermines the value of using ANTI-UTOPIANISM as some sort of identifier of what it is to be on the Right.


 * Of course I am identifying what the Right claims about itself, I am not making a claim about the truth or falsity of that claim. People on the Left say they are concerned with EQUALITY and so this is fine for a Wikipedia definition, but their opponents would argue that the Left seek to increase their wealth (and of course their power) by confiscating and controlling wealth generated by others (whom they envy) even if this has the consequence of decreasing the chances that poor people will escape from poverty. Now it may be accurate, but it would be absurd to offer this as a Wikipedia definition of the Left.


 * To anybody who understands the RIGHT its moral realism and anti-utopianism are far more important than its anti-egalitarianism (indeed the latter is a consequence of the former) but of course only Rick Norwood knows what words mean.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "I am identifying what the Right claims about itself."  Would it be possible to provide any sources for this.  TFD (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I will try if I get time (Wikipedia has to be a low priority) to read some "Right Wing" philosophers (Burke and De Maistre for example) who will supply some examples of the moral realism plus anti-utopianism approach, plus I will try to look at some of the more recent philosophers of the Right. Of course there is a paradoxical element in attempting to locate articulations of the assumption that what is real transcends articulation. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)).


 * You would spend your time better reading reliable secondary sources that possibly support this generalisation of yours. Primary sources are not exactly the best way to support such an outlandish claim as "right-wing means realism and that it is opposed to the left-wing that is based upon idealism and utopianism". You will need secondary sources for this. Providing only primary sources would obviously be WP:SYNTH. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I will read the primary sources. How do you know what is "reliable" until you know what is being talked about - no wonder the Right-Wing politics entry is such a poor effort. It is like discussing a work of literature with somebody and gradually realising that all they have seen the movie. I guess if people are egalitarians they feel excused from the requirement to know about the topic before they contribute to it. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC))


 * I am quite aware of what is being talked about. And I do still insist that you resort to reliable secondary sources for such a claim in Wikipedia. Synthesis or original research is kindly referred to peer reviewed publications. If you succeed with your theories there we may just consider adding the information to the Wikipedia article. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, only Rick Norwood owns a dictionary. As for whether or not the Right claims that realism is its defining characteristic, that doesn't matter, because that doesn't distinguish the Right from all the other groups who claim realism is their defining characteristic. I would imagine that scientologists claim realism is their defining characteristic. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is value realism (plus the situated thus fallible nature of the knower) that is the key, and although I know nothing about Scientology, I am guessing that they are not going to be anti-utopian. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)).


 * As Gauchet's article explains, the terms "left" and "right" did not exist in the 18th century. Find a modern source that backs up your views.  Even the website that formed your opinion would be helpful becaue we could trace where it found its views.  (For example, Glenn Beck has professors on his show who write books sourcing their views.)  TFD (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the Right "to some extent" a response to the Left?
I reverted Spylab's edit. Here's why. The lead says that the Right is to some extent a response to the Left. Therefore the body of the article should expand on that. Either the both the statement in the lead and the subsection should be removed, nor both should be retained. Discussion? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What we are left with is that Big-Endiand do not exist without Little-Endians.  As noted before, since there is no universally applicable definition for what the "political spectrum" represents, we are engaging in counting angels on the heads of pins at best.  The best we can hope for is some groups of definitions applicable to specific countries at specific times. Collect (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * When Swift wrote that, he was comparing the 18th centrury Whigs and Tories. While there may have been no differences between their policies, historically they were different and radicalism, socialism, and communism would provide major challenges to them.  Incidentally in America, the revolutionary "Whigs" presented a challenge to the the "Tories".  Do you think that the dispute was over trivial issues?  TFD (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The "revolutionaries" (not "Whigs") in the US sought to continue the existing self-government here - while the "loyalists" sought to have the locals pay for their own defense against the French, and when the locals demurred, sought to remove their self-government so that the big government could rule them. In a way, the Tories were the "left" and the patriots were the "right" at the time.   And you make no sense whatsover in asserting that "right" and "left" have any continuing meaning acrosss erras and nations at all.   The American Revolution was, in many ways, a profoundly conservative revolution based on over a century of substantial self-rule.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The "patriots" called themselves Whigs. The U.K. Whigs later became called the Liberal Party while the Tories became the Conservatives.  The loyalists organized a political party in Canada called the "Family Compact" which is now called the Conservative Party.  Canadian supporters of the American Revolution organized parties which would later be called the Liberal Party.  Royalism is not considered to be a left-wing ideology.  TFD (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The patriots became Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The use of "Whig" by some patriots was due to the Whigs in the UK favouring different colonial policies from those of the King.  It did not make them "Whigs" except in that sense, and decidedly had no relation to other UK-Whig policies of the time, only sympathy to the "opposition party" at the time of the revolution.  The UK-Whigs were, in fact, known as "anti-Catholic" - something not noted in the Patriot groups, including in Maryland.  Gross over-simplification of American history does not help define "right" v. "left" in any way whatsoever, but it is nice to note that those who believe in gross over-siimplification exist.  Cheers.  See The politics of liberty in England and revolutionary America Collect (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When one reverses the meanings of words, whether liberal and conservative or left and right, then one may conclude that they are meaningless. TFD (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Quod Erat Demonstrandum - the words do not have fixed meanings. Cheers - glad to see you recognize the inherent problems in making any universal statements about the flawed "political spectrum." Collect (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If one redefines war as peace, freedom as slavery, black as white, etc., then words lose meaning. The same applies to all articles.  TFD (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas - it is not I who misdefines any words here, so I fail to see the POINT of your post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the section again because it solely consisted of one economist's opinion and a title "Problems with the term" slapped on top of it. That is undue weight. The section is also misleading because it includes the phrase "Stanford University economist Thomas Sowell and others say", but does not offer any proof that "others" say anything at all. Previously, I merged Sowell's ideas and refererence into an appropriate paragraph in the lead section. At some point, someone reverted that reasonable solution without explanation, and the section that is only about one quote keeps getting re-added without explananation. Regardless of all the discussion above, the bottom line is that one economist's quote does not deserve its own section. Either move the content somewhere else or expand the section with other people's ideas.Spylab (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Spylab. We do not know how notable Sowell's view is.  Also it is preferrable to use academic sources rather than popular writing.  TFD (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We do not know how notable Sowell's view is? Do we know how notable Bobbio's view is? I put the section back in. I don't care about your preference for Marxist academics. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bobbio is not a Marxist, but he is a European Leftist; which is pretty far Left by American standards. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)).


 * "Bobbio" + "left and right" has 1,160 hits on Google scholar. He was the most respected political scientist in Italy, and his book is specifically about the Left and the Right.  sowell +"Intellectuals and Society" gets 32 hits.  Add "right-wing" and it gets 0 hits.  Sowell's writing on the meaning of the Right has attracted no attention which is unsurprising because his book is not scholarly and not about the political spectrum.  Incidentally, unlike Sowell, Bobbio was never a Marxist.  TFD (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, Bobbio is described as a "liberal socialist", "a thinker of the left" (his autobiography), was influenced by "cultura militante", a writer for the "Action Party",  and wrote an essay "Neither With Nor Against Marx." As to your unique assertion that Sowell's work is not academic or "scholarly" (added word "work"), that is the stuff of which loud laughs are caused.  Cheers - now can we use this talk page to improve this rather horrid article? Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect it is disruptive to misrepresent what other editors say. I did not say "Sowell is not an academic or "scholarly"", but "his book is not scholarly".  Do you understand the distinction?  TFD (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When you attack an editor in this manner, it might be a good idea to state exactly what I "misrepresented" in your opinion. Near as I can figure, my position has been absolutely consistent, and in accord with what the sources state - that there is no universally true definition of "right wing" and that, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, my posts have been supportive of my sposition quite consistently.  And that my succinct and consistent posts are disruptive of nothing whatsoever.   Now can we use this talk page in a proper manner?  Collect (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just explained that I did not say "Sowell is not an academic or "scholarly"", but "his book is not scholarly".  I have explained the distinction to you before.  "Public intellectuals" (e.g., Noam Chomsky, Michael Ignatieff, Paul Krugman) typically write books for both scholarly and popular markets, and their popular works are often polemical and often outside their area of expertise.  While their scholarly works enter scholarly discourse, their popular works do not.  Scholars may even write works of fiction - Alice in Wonderland, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Lord of the Rings were all written by academics.  It does not make them "scholarly" works, even though they were impressive books.  TFD (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar shows a slew of "scholarly" uses of Sowell's works. Including this work.   So what exactly do you mean other than "IDONTLIKEIT"?   Seems to me that is the only possible conclusion at this point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular book, unlike his scholarly writings, receives 32 hits on Google scholar, compared with Bobbio's book, which receives 1,160. When one adds the word "right-wing" to the query it receives 0 hits.  (See links above.)  In other words, Sowell's views on the meaning of the Right have been totally ignored.  See also WP:WEIGHT which explains what weight we should provide to views that are totally ignored.  TFD (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And when one adds more words to any search, the number of hits increases?  Um -- I have heard of "google hits" arguments, but this takes the cake!   Did you possibly realize a book issued in 2010  is likely to have fewer people cite it than a book issued in 1996?  That escaped your notice?  Ah well then - I expect you to recognize that recent books are unlikely to have been referred to 15 years ago as a general rule.   And your argument would be that a book issued last year which has only been referred to a few dozen times is thus to be absolutely ignored.  Like Messer-Kruse's book on the Haymarket Affair -- by your "standards", his edits should absolutely be disallowed because the book is not old enough .  Congratulations!  But that does not seem to be the general course of opinion on UT:Jimbo Wales.  Collect (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that current books have fewer references than older books. That is because it may take some time to determine whether something published yesterday will become accepted, while something published 15 years ago has either been accepted or rejected.  But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, until something becomes accepted we cannot guess about how important we personally believe it to be.  Your source has attracted zero attention, which is what it should be assigned by us.  If Sowell's theory on the Right is so widely accepted, one would expect that it would have been described somewhere in the quarter millenium since the term was first used.  Or do you believe that it was only in the past two years that anyone has properly explained it?  TFD (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of times it has been cited is sufficient to say that it is not being a "crystal ball" to assert that it is accepted by others - now. And your "IDONTLIKEIT" is too apparent here - now that it is shown to have a reasonable amount of use in a short time, saying we need to wait another decade is silly.   BTW, WP:CRYSTAL does not refer to acceptance of new scholarly literature at all, and so that argument fails mightily.  See also the discussion on UT:Jimbo about the Haymarket Affair.  Would you have us wait a decade or more to correct a problematic article?  I trust not. Collect (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sowell's views on the political spectrum have been cited zero times. Even Fox News Channel, the National Review, Michael Savage, the Libertarian Party have all ignored it.  There is a difference btw between facts and opinions.  We do not have to wait years to see if facts are true.  TFD (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But you had implied that Sowell's book was cited essentially zero times -- that a specific word in a book is not cited does not have anything at all to do with the price of eggs, and you are now chasing around Robin Hood's Barn for the umpteenth time. The book you so cavalierly dismiss has over thirty hits on GScholar.   The author is one who is cited in the field of economics and politics, and your protestations to the contrary do not affect anything at all.  Using your favourite tool, Google, finds "Thomas Sowell" and "politics" has over 100K hits.  GScholar has over 5K hits on "Thomas Sowell" and "politics".  "Bobbio" and "political spectrum" gets all of 426 total GScholar hits.  So what?  You have markedly failed to show that a 2010 book is not scholarly, that it is not cited by others, and it is clear that you grossly misconstrued the WP:CRYSTAL precept entirely.  Cheers - but IDONTLIKEIT is up to 120 decibels already here. Collect (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not "impl[y] that Sowell's book was cited essentially zero times", I said it "receives 32 hits on Google scholar". Sowell's book is about intellectuals and society, hence the name.  Whether or not it provides a contribution to that subject is of no relevance here, it has had no influence on the study of the political spectrum.  I leave open the possibility that other writings by Sowell have been influential to the study, but one would have to find them.  TFD (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) IOW you reject a quote from a "scholarly" book because no one else has made an issue of the quotation, therefore it is not a "scholarly" quotation, even though you recognize it is a "scholarly" work. Which is absolutely "IDONTLIKEIT" as a reason. Thanks for making this clear. Collect (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not scholarly, but the reason for excluding the quote is that no one has found any reason to mention it. TFD (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a tightened-up version of the Sowell paragraph to the "History and usage of the term" section because it fits under that topic. His quote has relevance, but it didn't deserve its own separate paragraph.Spylab (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
An editor has recently changed the lead to add material which appears not to be supported by the sources and removed some material. Norberto Bobbio is now described as "The Leftist Italian political philospher", the Right is said to be "usually associated with conservatism", and reference to hierarchy is removed. I will therefore reverse these changes and ask other editors to discuss whether these changes are acceptable. TFD (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A Leftist Definition
The claim that Right-Wing politics is GENERALLY defined and accepted by everybody as meaning support of a HIERARCHICAL society justified by an appeal to NATURAL LAW or TRADITION is incorrect. This is to frame the political definition in Leftist terms (i.e. its opposition to egalitarianism) not in its own terms.

Right-Wing politicians in the USA or Right-Wing politicians in the UK (to pick two examples) do not generally define themselves as people who are seeking to support "a hierarchical society based upon social order justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition" as is obvious to anybody with ears and eyes.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The unrevised lede repeats Bobbio's (controversial) claim twice. Once is quite sufficient. I have retained the version where his claim is identified as an opinion and is not simply presented as a generally accepted truth. The deleted sources (which simply repeat his claim) are hardly respected authorities.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes to the article not the subject in general. Your comments are soapboxing and I request that you stop.  TFD (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Right-wing politicans may not define themselves by those exact words but yes, they do generally support the statement. They believe in a society where people must work up a social ladder and are opposed to attempts by the left to redistribute wealth and privilege. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. LittleJerry (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith you do not seem to understand that you are defining the Right in Leftist terms. An unequal society may be the CONSEQUENCE of policies on the Right (the Right would argue it is the consequence of policies on the Left as well but that is another matter) but to be on the Right is not necessarily to DEFINE yourself as being opposed to equality. Opposition to egalitarianism is a CONSEQUENCE of its assumptions - for example if you believe in a free society it is a consequence of THIS belief that if people (for example) are not equally virtuous, if some people are too lazy to work for example, there will be different outcomes i.e. inequality of income. Defending a free society will have this outcome, but this is not the same as defining your position (in this case your defence of a free society) as the pursuit of inequality.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes opposition to egalitarianism is a consequence of supporting a hierarchically ordered society where people have to move their way up. This is the heart of what conservatives and libertarians support. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It still has not gone in has it. Suppose you believe in a free society. Your belief in a free society causes some people to call you Right-Wing. They do this because they assume that you believe in lower taxes, a reduced State, and free markets, with people taking responsibility for their own actions. Suppose that one of the consequences of this free society is that some people (x) make good decisions about their lives whereas other people (y) make bad decisions about their lives. This may have the consequence that in a free society x people live happier and more flourishing lives than y people - who as a result become bitter and unhappy. If some people live happier lives than others this is contrary to the aims of egalitarianism.

If you are an egalitarian you may argue that it is desirable that freedom be taken away from X and Y, in order that politicians (in their benevolence and wisdom) may enforce a more equal society. Because you believe in a free society you may resist this expansion in the role of the State. To say however that you resist it because you believe in a society where some people are happier than others is absurd. That may be a consequence of your belief in a free society, but it is not the reason why you believe in a free society. To frame it in this way is to attempt to define the Right in terms derived from the Left. You got it yet?

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Little Jerry: But conservatives and libertarians pretend that liberals do not also support a society in which people have to work to move up in the world. The overwhelming majority of liberals agree with conservatives and libertarians on that point. It's like saying conservatives and libertarians support truth, justice, and the American way. No doubt they do, but it does not distinguish them from other groups.


 * ERIDU-DREAMING: Please cite even one instance when a person has been called "right-wing" for belief in a free society. I've never seen it, not once, and I read a lot! It is, of course, much easier to argue your case when you don't listen to what the other side says, and pretend they are saying things no sensible people actually say.Rick Norwood 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ERIDU-DREAMING, movements of both the right and left have their own views of "freedom". It is not Wiki's job to determine who's right. You are only giving your personal opinion on what it means to have a free society. You have given no secondary sources that define right-wing as support for freedom. Primary sources are not good enough. Socialist leaders claim to support human rights and a humanitarian society. That doesn't mean that we should define left-wing as such. All you and Falconclaw have done is fill this board with your personal political beliefs and reject any source that disagrees with you as "leftist".


 * And Rick Norwood, American liberals would agree with them on that point. However they do support some limited redistribution and are not considered all that far to the left. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Simon Heffer is regarded as one of the most Right-Wing journalists in the UK today (he thinks the current Conservative led coalition is far too Left Wing) here is his definition of Right-Wing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7737948/Only-a-Tory-without-principles-would-demonise-the-Right.html comment added by ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Simon Heffer says that the term "Right wing" is used as an insult by David Cameron and others, then points out that what Cameron calls the right has historical roots in Gladstonian liberalism, while Cameron's ideology has its roots in 19th century conservatism, which was to the right of liberalism. Heffer does not embrace the term "Right wing" for himself and uses scare quotes.  Right-wing has a clear meaning, and progressives use it ahistorically to tie libertarians, nationalists, "social conservatives", etc., to European authoritarian, hierarchical conservatism.  Why do you want to take on the mantle of being a right-winger and redefine the term, which Heffer does not do?  TFD (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the title again. Notice that Heffer says that what is called the "Right" in the UK is a coalition of Hayekian liberals, Powellite souverainistes and social conservatives. This is pretty much the definition (suitably translated into a British context) that Falconclaw gave in his account of what Right-Wing means in the USA; before that is his quotations got deleted. Sorry to labour the point, but The Four Deuces you really do not know what you are talking about what it comes to defining Right-Wing politics. Why do you contribute to this article? (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)).


 * He says that "Right wing" (which he puts in quotes) is a "label" used by the "centre-Left" to "defin[e]" the "coalition of Hayekian liberals, Powellite souverainistes and social conservatives" as "unpleasant, wrong, or in some cases much worse" and "to seek to have them ridiculed, marginalised, soiled and, eventually, rendered pointless".  He does not object to the meaning of the term right-wing, but to its application to people such as himself.  He also says "a shadow administration [Disraeli's Conservatives] to the "Right" of the coalition [Gladstone Liberals] talked about increasing spending by "sharing the proceeds of growth"", implying that Cameron is the real right-winger.  Incidentally you should read Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative" which explains why he did not consider himself right-wing.   TFD (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Four Deuces. As usual you completely fail to comprehend the material. Heffer is not objecting to being called "Right-Wing". If you do not even understand that it is pointless discussing the article any further with you. Maybe you ought to just stick to trying to get people banned. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)).


 * ERIDU-DREAMING: "you completely fail to comprehend" is not an argument. It is a refusal to respond to reasonable statements, a way of saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I refuse to explain why."  That's a stance you are entitled to take, but it will not impress other people. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that The Four Deuces has failed to comprehend the article. Given that it is a fairly simple article, I think it renders any discussion of it with him rather pointless. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All this Jeremy Beadle stuff is getting pretty boring. TFD (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Four Deuces. Clearly I have to explain the article to you. A well known journalist in the UK called Simon Heffer (no relation to Jeremy Beadle) asks what RIGHT-WING means?

He claims that many in the "Centre-Left" seek to demonize the "RIGHT" (which Heffer takes to mean the socially conservative and economically liberal) and he gives the Tea Party in the USA as an example.

The desire to reduce government borrowing and spending, and oppose wealth redistribution and Statism, is liked with racism i.e. it is asserted that the Tea Party Movement is not REALLY concerned about liberty or prosperity what REALLY concerns them is that President Obama had a black father.

In the UK Heffer claims that the "RIGHT" (which Heffer describes as a coalition of FREE MARKET LIBERAL (Hayek) who want, for example, to reduce taxes, NATIONALIST (Powell) who seek, for example, to limit mass immigration, and SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES, who religious objections, for example, to gay marriage) should not be demonized simply to please the [Centre-Left] Liberal Democrat members of the coalition - there is currently a coalition government in the UK. After all, Gladstone was a liberal and he believed in a small State, reduced borrowing and spending, and lower taxes. Nor (Heffer argues) is it racist to believe in the (in this case British) values of your country, or be an advocate of self-governance.

Simeon Heffer claims that people should have the freedom to have Christian beliefs, support the death penalty, and advocate traditional family values. He claims that the leader of the Conservative Party

"which includes many who endorse all or most of what I have defined the 'Right' as believing in today"

ought to respect the convictions of such people. I think this article gives a pretty clear idea of what Simon Heffer believes "RIGHT_WING" means in contemporary UK politics. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a very imaginative view of Heffer's op-ed. Take what Crick wrote in 1955 and substitute British for American and right-wing for conservative:  "It is more than a mere matter of the different American usage of the word 'conservative': the American democratic-liberal in not having a conservative tradition to attack, so as to explain the contradictions in his own world, is forced to invent one.  What is not interesting is that this tactic has been pursued so successfully that those who were attacked as conservatives are now wearing the false appellation openly and proudly."  Heffer of course has not gone that far, he puts "right-wing" in scare quotes, and ties his belief system to Gladstone and - elsewhere - to Cromwell, i.e., the liberal tradition.  TFD (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are changing the subject but (the Leftist) Bernard Crick is wrong if he is claiming that Americans had no tradition to conserve, because the first few generations of American settlers brought with them (and sought to build upon) an English tradition of liberties. Of course there were cultural differences (the USA has had a different history) but American politics was not a blank sheet. In the UK Simeon Heffer is viewed as (quintessentially) Right-Wing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/3018799.stm

and in the above mentioned article he articulates some of his "Right-Wing" beliefs; explaining why he believes David Cameron should respect them. He puts "Right-Wing" in scare quotes because (as he explains) the Left (in accordance with their usual practice) have sought to demonize the "Right". The example he gives is the Tea Party Movement being smeared as racists. He praises the Tea Party Movement. This is all clearly explained in the article. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I got the quote from F.A. Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative". (Heffer's use of the term Hayekian liberal is a reference to F.A. Hayek.)  The former leftist Heffer and his colleagues have been called a number of things, but they do not come out with articles trying to re-define "bastards", which is what John Major called them.  Notice that "left-wing" writers never use quotes, even when villianized.  Now please find me a source written by someone who calls themself right-wing and explains what it means.  And please do not direct me to a blog.  We have already established that lots of people call themselves right-wing, just not people in the mainstream.  TFD (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was the bias tag removed?
It's overwhelmingly clear that all editors who do not have leftist/liberal political views (there are at least four of us) still view the page as being extraordinarily biased. The version that I have restored is less biased, and includes Thomas Sowell's objection to the term right wing. It is ridiculous for academics who I have never even heard of to be given credence in this article, but for Sowell, who is a more prominent academic than any of these, to be deleted. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He hasn't been deleted and just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't important. The article talks plently about the libertarian right and even keeps the Buckley qoute. What more do you want? LittleJerry (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Articles must be weighted towards mainstream thinking. The fact that you believe you are right-wing (although you are unable to find sources for your preferred definitions) and therefore are an expert is not valid.  It is very offensive btw to describe people according to what you believe their views are.  Neutral editors pay no attention to whether they believe the mainstream view is slanted to the left or right.  We are supposed to report it.  TFD (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your definition is NOT mainstream. That's my objection, and that's Eridu Dreaming's objection, and other editors' objections. It is biased towards the Left. Social inequality and hierarchy are NOT the main aspects of Rightist though - not even close. The only reason you would think they were is if you had Left political views. Whether this is offensive or not, it's the truth. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

After all, do you think it's a coincidence that everyone who thinks the article, as written, is flawed and biased, does not have left-liberal political views, while everyone who thinks that the article is fine, or, as suggested by Little Jerry, is TOO objective, and ought to be more biased, DOES have left-liberal political views? To answer your question: What do I want? To take away the emphasis on inequality and social hierarchy. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is circular thinking. Because mainstream definitions are in your opinion "left-wing", therefore the people who support using them must be left-wing, therefore the definitions must be left-wing.  Please read WP:NPOV to understand how we choose to present sources.  It has nothing to do with your perceptions.  BTW you and ERIDU-DREAMING do not speak for the Right, merely your own opinions of what you think right-wing means.  TFD (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Four Deuces" it would help if you were to you pay close attention to the remarks directed at you by "Collect". Your judgement about which sources are reliable and mainstream seems to be entirely determined by your Leftist political beliefs, which is also Falconclaw's observation. I would add that it is pretty evident that your knowledge of the "Right" is approximately zero. I suggest therefore that you limit your contributions to Left-Wing politics. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)).


 * My son the computer science grad student pointed out to me a logical falacy called "No true Scotsman". It goes something like this.  "No true Scotsman puts sugar in his tea."  "But I'm a Scotsman, and I put sugar in my tea."  "You, sir, are no true Scotsman."  This type of argument is too often used on this talk page.  True right-wingers are always in favor of individual liberty.  But the phrase right-wing is commonly used to describe Franco.  Well, Franco is not a true right-winger."


 * Words mean what they mean. Attempting to change the meaning of words only confuses the issue.  The headline on the current issue of "The Week" magazine is "Too Far to the Right".  Everyone who reads that understands what it means, and it does not mean too much individual liberty, rather the opposite.


 * Also, I note that Falconclaw is mindreading again. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood. What people mean by the phrase "Right-Wing politics" varies according to time and context. Language evolves. The meaning of words is not determined by Rick Norwood. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you believe what you are saying, which makes me wonder why you say things like "The meaning of words is not determined by Rick Norwood". No, the meaning of words is determined by standard reference works, as I have repeatedly said.  So, instead of making personal remarks, why not respond to what I say?  Obviously meaning varies according to time and context.  That does not mean that meaning is infinitely maleable.  Can you cite one single case where someone has been called "right-wing" meaning they were in favor of freedom?  Rick Norwood (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood said: "This type of argument is too often used on this talk page. True right-wingers are always in favor of individual liberty.  But the phrase right-wing is commonly used to describe Franco.  Well, Franco is not a true right-winger."

Let's take your Franco example, and apply it instead to left wing politics. According to the Wikipedia, left wing means supporting egalitarianism. "Stalin killed people due to their ethnicity, which was not very egalitarian on his part. Communists world wide supported Stalin. Therefore, communists are not left wing." Oh, waiiiitttt....

You want to use standard reference works? According to the Oxford English Dictionary: noun (the right wing) 1the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system: a candidate from the right wing of the party http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/right%2Bwing?q=right+wing

In the United States, conservatives do not believe in social hierarchy, but rather believe in economic opportunity, and rail against those who use government, like Solyndra executives, to preserve privilege. So your hierarchy definition desperately needs reworking. Oh, and TFD was always saying how right wing doesn't mean conservative, and then he was saying about how we should use mainstream sources, and now a mainstream source is saying right wing means conservative. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First, your source says "conservative or reactionary", and that the term can be applied to any party, even left-wing parties. Hence we may talk about the right-wing of the Communist Party (the Right Opposition).  Does not mean they are right-wing.  Some people have indeed used the same arguments you use to claim that Stalin was right-wing.  Indeed some aspects of his policies were drawn from the Right, just as some policies of right-wing regimes may be drawn from the Left.  But normally a group's position on the political spectrum is determined by how they are perceived by others.  Hence, the Nazis were assigned seats on the far right of the Reichstag, Communists are seated on the left of the European parliament.  BTW race and nationality were not originally associated with the Right And there is doubt that the American conservatives are real "conservatives", or just a form of liberals, which is what they called themselves before the 1950s.  TFD (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Falconclaw5000, you clearly have a narrow defintion of social hierarchy. It does have to be an aristocracy or caste. It can be a meritocracy. US conservatives believe in a society where people have to work there way up. Even if people are somehow able to keep themselves on the some level, there is still a potential for some to fall under. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "According to the Wikipedia, left wing means supporting egalitarianism. "Stalin killed people due to their ethnicity, which was not very egalitarian on his part. Communists world wide supported Stalin. Therefore, communists are not left wing." Oh, waiiiitttt....". Falconclaw5000, no one is saying that egalitarianism means "good" and hierarchy means "evil", take a look at Somalia - there is no functioning government authority - the people there all have greater equal opportunity in Somalia than any country with has a functioning government, to gain equal access to arms, resources, etc. because there is no state to maintain order, it is everyone for themselves with equal opportunity - but it is equality of violent anarchy, it is a living hell. As for Stalin as used to say that communism does not stand for equality - (1) Stalin was a certifiable psychopath by most historians' accounts, and (2) all revolutionary governments conceived from violent revolution have persecuted people, American history courses often neglects to mention what Canadian history mentions and discusses: that American Revolutionaries persecuted American Loyalists (to Britain) such as by confiscating their property and through deliberate persecutory "anti-Loyalist laws" So Falconclaw does that mean that the American Revolutionaries' classical liberalism that promoted "individual freedom" is false as an ideology as demonstrated by the Revolutionaries' persecution of Loyalists through stealing Loyalists' property and persecuting Loyalists through the "anti-Loyalist laws"? Just as you claim that communism that promotes "equality" is false as an ideology because of Stalin?--R-41 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Falconclaw5000: You duck my question about Franco. I will not duck your question about Stalin.  Stalin, Hitler, and Ashsurbanipal were all mass murderers.  Only Stalin is called a left-wing mass murderer.  He is not called left-wing because he was a mass murderer, he was called left-wing because he was a communist.  The stated goal of communists was egalitarian.  The outcome was not egalitarian, but the stated goal was egalitarian.  Communism was a failed attempt to achieve egalitarian goals.  It arose in response to the extreme concentration of wealth and power in a hierarchal society.  All communists are called left-wing, but not all left-wingers are communist.  Back to Franco.  Franco was called right-wing because he was a dictator.  He favored a hierarchy, with himself at the top.  Why do you think he was called right-wing?


 * Your quote from the OED just says that "right-wing" means conservative or reactionary, or the right-wing of a party. That doesn't help unless you follow up by checking the meaning of conservative and the meaning of reactionary.  Instead, you once again assert that everyone should use words the way you use them, without any references.  As for your comment to TFD, you omit the part about "reactionary".  There is a great deal of overlap between conservatives and right-wingers, but if the two words were synonyms, then the frequent mention of the right-wing of the conservative movement, or even the right-wing of the communist movement, which the OED allows, would have no meaning.  That's the problem with looking at the world along a one-dimensional axis.  It makes it hard to understand how someone can be a reactionary communist.  But in real life, that sort of thing happens all the time.  The world is not one-dimensional.  Even communists can long for a return to the good old days.


 * When commentators talk about the right-wing of the Republican party, they are talking about people like Rick Santorum, who want their religious views enacted into law. They never describe Ron Paul as being on the right-wing of the party.  But if "right-wing" really meant what you think it means, all the right-wingers would be voting for Dr. Paul.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, Rick, don't go on the path that appears to be saying that all right-wing politics = dictatorship like Francisco Franco, it's wrong and will give fuel to the fire of those saying that this is POV. If you think that the entire right-wing leans towards dictatorship, I urge you to re-evaluate your opinion. The problem here with Falconclaw on left-wing dictators and apparently you Rick on right-wing dictators is that you two are associating politics caused by mental illness with ideology, many powerful tyrants and dictators have had serious mental illnesses that influenced their political behaviour - Julius Caesar was a megalomaniac pathological liar (his personal military accounts are filled with lies, exaggerations, and falsifications all to make him a hero), Attila the Hun was a psychopath, Louis XIV was a megalomaniac (e.g. "I am the state"), Hitler was psychotic, Mussolini had bipolar disorder, and Stalin was a psychopath. Psychopathy that Attila and Stalin had is different from psychosis that Hitler had - psychopaths feel little to no genuine emotion, while psychotics typically have extreme irrational emotions. Tyrants and dictators are the way they are because they are insecure narcissistic people who need the feeling of control, order, and monopoly of power to offset their paranoia of someone backstabbing them (for Caesar, his ironically became literally true), it has nothing to do with someone being left-wing, right-wing, or centrist - it is the result of psychology and not ideology. Everyone to a degree desires some degree of control and power over themselves, but insecure narcissistic people desire strong or total power - especially over others.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You are completely wrong on Somalia, Rick Norwood. The place is run by warlords - it's practically a feudalist system. The children of these warlords obviously have much greater opportunity to gain access to resources than the starving peasants. This IS POV. You guys can remove the bias tag all you want, but I'm only gonna put it back in until we've actually addressed the relevant issues. 149.125.189.91 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is getting off topic. Could the dynamic IP please explain what issue they have with the neutrality of the article and please provide external sources.  TFD (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

149.125.189.91: Since I have never written anything about Somalia, it is hard to see how I can be completely wrong.

R-41: I did not say that right-wing = dictatorship like Francisco Franco, only provided sources which use right-wing to describe Franco. It would be really, really nice if people could actually respond to what I say, instead of putting words in my mouth and then responding to that. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The same way I can find plenty of sources to describe Stalin as being left wing. 149.125.178.158 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is it so hard for you to focus on the question at hand. Nobody denies that Stalin is left-wing, but rather than deal with the subject of this article, you make up positions, pretend that somebody on the other side has taken that position.  Then -- since it is a position you made up yourself -- it is an easy one for you to answer.  Why not try the harder task of answering what other people say, instead of only answering questions you make up yourself? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what exactly is your question? And you're right about Somalia, I meant to address that to R41. 128.226.161.139 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian elements in right wing philosophy
Nobody would define libertarianism as preserving privilege, but the Old Right in the United States was essentially libertarian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.178.158 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is interested in your original research. Take it to a blog.  TFD (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it original research? I'm linking to another Wikipedia article. Nobody is interested in your leftist circular logic. Take it to some Marxist site. 128.226.161.139 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles... are not reliable sources for any purpose." Your interpretation of the term "Old Right" is by the way wrong - I don' know if that is because you have misread the article or it is incorrectly written. TFD (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that your question deserves a response, 128.226.161.139. A major leader of the Right, in the days before the current hypocrisy took over the movement, was Clinton Rossiter, who explains very well the beliefs of the American Right, in an article for American Heritage magazine.  He wrote, "The Right of these freewheeling decades was a genuine Right: it was led by the rich and well-placed; it was skeptical of popular government; it was opposed to all parties, unions, leagues, or other movements that sought to invade its positions of power and profit..."  Support of the social hierarchy, in those days, was not something you had to hide, but something to be proud of.  But it was hardly libertarian. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Social scientists at the time distinguished between a "responsible right" and a "radical right". See Plotke's introduction to The Radical Right, p. xxvi.  The term New Right was coined to contrast them with the New Left and the term Old Right was used retrospectively to refer to the immediate antecedents of the New Right.  It does not mean necessarily that they were right-wing as Norman Barry explains in the preface to the New Right.  TFD (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened to your question about Franco, Rick Norwood? I'll tell you what happened to it. You were trying to argue that Right Wing isn't really about individual freedom and small government, since Franco is considered right wing and didn't believe in these things. Well, I made the rather excellent (if I don't say so myself) retort that Stalin is even more widely considered left wing, and he didn't believe in egalitarianism, so by that metric, left wing politics isn't about egalitarianism. So, I would either like you to reply, and ask what you wanted to ask about Franco, or admit that you were wrong to emphasize Franco, and you were just trying to tarnish the Right with a negative association. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never even heard of this Rossiter character, and I know a great deal about the history of the Right in the United States, so he was hardly a major leader. I think you're just calling him a major leader because his view fits yours. Major leaders of the Right in the USA were people like Senator Robert Taft, William F. Buckley, Frank Meyer, and Bill Rusher. I'm sure these leaders - who were much more famous, much more important, and much more influential - had very different views of the Right. I'd quote them if you guys would accept that as a relevant sources, but apparently you have a prohibition on primary sources, and only want "academic" sources. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "This Rossiter character" (Clinton Rossiter) was, along with Kirk and Viereck, one of the foremost historians of U.S. conservatism, known for his book Conservatism in America. Check out Conservatism in the United States.  By your reasoning one could argue that since some judges are corrupt that judges do not believe in justice.  Stalin's writings and statements do in fact support egalitarianism, while Franco's oppose it.  TFD (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are we talking about statements or policies? Republican rhetoric - giving every an opportunity to become wealthy - is also quite egalitarian. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed the Republicans do not call themselves right-wing. TFD (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous
The lede keeps being overloaded with information that belongs in the body, for no reason. I plan on getting this pages locked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to edit war though, this is a topic which is highly sensitive as may people have diverse opinions about the subject. You need to discuss the changes you feel should be made here and gain consensus.  Puffin  Let's talk! 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The burden is on the editor who keeps overloading the lede to give reasons. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is false (how many times does this have to be pointed out to you?) that the Right "GENERALLY" means "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society based upon a social order justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition." This is true of SOME on the Right, but it is not true of others. It is therefore false to say that Right is "GENERALLY" used in this way - that this is its GENERALLY accepted meaning. Yet you keep on returning this claim to the lede; to the summary of the article. Why? On the basis of a couple of quotes from some sociologists who use Right in this sense? No doubt you would like it to be true, but this claim should be discussed in the main body of the article - if accuracy rather than ideological masturbation is your intention. It is not as straightforward as you seem to think.

It ignores the Classical Liberal sense of Right-Wing. You seem to be obsessed with the world HIERARCHY. Asserting that hierarchy is just another name for inequality is disingenuous. Pretty much every society is hierarchical in that sense. How could a teacher teach? How could an army fight? How could a politician rule? To DEFINE the Right as those who seek to uphold social hierarchy is only accurate if you ignore the way in which "Right-Wing" is also used (indeed is very commonly used) to mean those who want to limit the power of government. Such people argue against the Left PRECISELY BECAUSE they view the Left (excluding the Anarchists) as SUPPORTERS of hierarchical societies i.e. arrangements in which some people (a ruling political elite) are given too much power over the lives of everyday citizens. To be on the Right in this sense is to say **** *** telling me how to live my life!

Claiming that "Right" is "GENERALLY" used in the (now archaic) sense of "support for hierarchy" - the sense in which it was used during the French Revolution - is at best misleading, and at worst it borders on a deliberate lie. This is putting aside the question of whether or not defining the Right in Leftist terms (i.e. as reducible to a pro or anti egalitarianism issue) is a helpful way of defining what it means to be on the Right politically. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is ridiculous, but not because editors are trying to fix the definition to remove the emphasis on hierarchy, but rather because you keep reverting these changes on the false basis of not "overloading" the lede. Would you accept a lede that was as short as the current one, but removed the emphasis on inequality, and instead emphasized the differing nature of the Right in different countries, including the extremely significant fact that the Right in the Anglosphere is defined by a support for economic freedom? I can write that in five sentences. 128.226.161.139 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again this is not a blog and you need sources to support your views. TFD (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly this is going nowhere. As I keep saying, over and over again, the hierarchy defintion can apply to US conservatives and libertarians. They do support a society where people have to work there way up a social ladder. It is not merely a consequence of their policies. Objectivist Gary Hull stated that Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak... Does this sound like someone who is anti-hierarchy? And despite what Falconclaw and ERIDU-DREAMING state, support for freedom and liberty is not considered a inherently "right-wing" position. Movements of the right and left have their own ideas of what constitutes freedom. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, defining the Right as anti-egalitarian is not merely a leftist thing. The Right acknowledges it too. This Objectivist post explains that what unites conservatives, libertarians and Objectivists is anti-egalitarianism. LittleJerry (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think some of these editors have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Instead of arguing about the meaning of term "right-wing", they should question whether it is correctly applied to groups commonly described as extreme right or new right.  TFD (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "conservative or reactionary" about Objectivists. Objectivists are NOT right wing. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen - Ayn Rand is considered right-wing, but William F. Buckley Jr. isn't! The two of them would have been amazed! 149.125.176.118 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)