Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 3

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


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


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


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


 * yes, ACLU stands for American Civil Liberties Union, but they were founded as a legal organization all but officially connected to the US communist party, the ACLU only serves 1 master, communism, they are notoriously selective in the civil liberties they will defend. --Marcel1975 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


 * Maybe libertarians are just as devided as everyone else... makes sense. I guess I simply tend to think of people I know who are libertarian (like the Free State Project folks), and forget about people on the coasts who I don't know about ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Libertarians are social liberals and right-wing anti-tax, anti-government nuts. It's really quite simple. J. Parker Stone 02:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Now "nut" is a strong word. I certainly think the Greens, Democrats, & Republicans are misguided.  But they're not crazy (well, maybe the neocons are) and neither are we.  There's a difference between anarchists & libertarians.  We're not anti-government, we're limited government.  But at any rate, as you note, we're not really right-wing either.
 * I don't know, some libertarians get up to that fine line, and most of 'em are a little kook when it comes to the issue of taxes. J. Parker Stone 06:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The question is whether it is appropriate to list the U.S. Libertarian Party as one of the right-wing U.S. parties. And I believe we have been slowly coming to consensus that it is not. Trey, I can't tell whether you are disagreeing with that or just letting us know you doubt their sanity. The latter seems off topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:55, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm just blabbing. I always thought libertarians were generally classified as right-wing despite their socially liberal views, because they view modern-day Democrats to be big-government whores. Though there is libertarian socialism, which is something different. J. Parker Stone 09:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The word "libertarian" in "libertarian socialist" is only coincidental with the main U.S. use of "libertarian". I believe it comes through the Spanish (though I could be mistaken), where "libertaria" is a word associated with anarchism, not minarchism. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Very different, those guys are the commies my Libertarian friends worry about when they watch Red dawn ;) . As friendly as we might be, and as much concensus as we might have, Libertarians are generally refered to as right-wing, in my experience. I think the terms left and right are practically worthless of course, but thats what links to political compass and political spectrum are for. if we want to go by the classical definition, libertarians are classical liberals, and would have sat to the left of the King of France, no doubt about it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 12:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree that libertarians have a lot in common with classical liberals, although I think it is going too far to say that they are classical liberals. One can no more be a classical liberal today than one can be a Chartist. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * The Chartism article is pretty good, thanks for mentioning it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Stalin and Mao killed far more leftists than Pinochet ever did, if that is the standard. That is what leftists do, only they have the hubris to think they are doing it out of some higher ideal, that supercedes the right of the individual.  Leftists feel comfortable with centralized planning decisions as long as they are in control and their intentions are good, such as the FDA, delaying access to beta blockers and clot busters and cost over a million lives with the delays.  It makes Timothy McVeigh look like he was playing patty-cake.  I defend my left-right, authoritarian-liberty axis, precisely because it is defensible, and meaningful.  Why defend confusion and meaninglessness, where the only other libertarian contributing, can only say he isn't left or right but not a centrist either.  Fortunately, America has a strong classical liberal rhetoric and allegiance to the constitution and founding fathers among those identified with its conservatives and the right, that makes this axis makes sense.  If you look at the rhetoric and actions of Kemp, Goldwater, Buckley, etc. and groups such as Y.A.F., the John Birch Society, etc. you will see a commitment to the rhetoric and reality of individual liberty.  Of course we've already discussed a number of the more libertarian names.  Both major party candidates in the last election ran to the center, despite depicting each other as extremists.  Bush is admittedly a mixed bag, leftist in his centralization/federalization of education, rightist in his tax and social security reform.  Leftist in his internationalism, rightist in his opposition to mandatory national service and conscription.   The question here is whether the U.S. definition of the axis should get a fair representation or the European spectrum which has no meaning or use other than for propaganda and name calling.--Silverback 07:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not "the U.S. definition". This is the idiosyncratic definition used by a narrow group of U.S. libertarian conservatives. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:36, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Reopened
I see from a recent exchange of edits that this has come up again. I will point out that the web site of their 2004 presidential campaign says, "The closest you can come to charting Libertarians on a one-dimensional left/right spectrum is to plot us directly in the middle of the two extremes." -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is just to start an argument that may get them listened to. It is a criticism of the spectrum that doesn't have an obvious place for them.  To counter the essentially rhetorical position they have taken, is where prominent libertarians have positioned themselves, and that is with the limited government/paleo-conservatives/classical liberals, i.e. on the right.  Look at Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Charles Murray, etc.  When push comes to shove, Libertarians opt for economic affinity over social affinity.  The would be to the right of Bush on taxes, education, welfare, medicare, social security, strict constructionism on the constitution, the environment, etc. Of course, Bush is a bit left of center.--Silverback 15:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "Of course"? I presume you are just trolling.
 * I agree that most libertarians are on the right, but given that their party explicitly rejects the designation, I think it calls for some sort of remark rather than just inclusion in a list. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not trolling, I think it is a defensible proposition. Of course, it depends on what one means by "center", because the center of the US population has shifted to the left over the years, perhaps Bush is to the right of that center, but he is to the left of most past Republican presidents, except possibly Nixon (he of the negative income tax).--Silverback 18:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Affirmative action was a program started by the Nixon administration, and viewed by the Bush administration as horribly leftist. The EPA was also started by the Nixon administration, and viewed by the Bush administration as horribly leftist. I could go on, but right now I haven't the patience. Eisenhower warned America about the military-industrial complex; Bush never met a defense contractor he didn't like. Goldwater found his party's flirtation with the religious right and it's anti-gay campaigns; Bush embraces the former openly, and (judging by the gay marriage issue, admittedly not on the table in Goldwater's lifetime) has little problem with the latter. Etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, re: the (truly ridiculous) accusation above that the ACLU is "Communist": in fact, the ACLU pretty much totally failed to defend American Communists when they were persecuted in the McCarthy era; hence the creation of the National Emergency Committee on Civil Liberties. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * I have an answer, and it's a historically objective one, but I know that people aren't going to find it satisfying. "Right-wing" means nothing more or less than supporting institutional conservatism - or, basically, the rejection of proposals for reform, let alone revolution, regardless of the content of those reforms. This is historically how the word originated, having to do with the French assembly, where those who advocated conservative policies sat in the right wing and those who advocated change sat on the left. This is the necessary meaning of the terms. So, for a while, it really did "mean" monarchism, in the sense that that's the thing that people of a certain generation used the word to refer to. Then it moved on to classical liberalism. Then to modern liberalism. It's a rolling stone.
 * But mere "conservatism" is obviously not the usage that people are most comfortable with today. The contingent uses of the word have changed in ways that don't need to be rehashed here, involving many ideologies, socialism, etc; and an argument can be made that right wing and left wing really are meaningfully tied to certain ideologies and not others, and I just haven't got a counter-argument that trumps that. The point, I think, is that so long as there's this ambiguity, the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" are horribly colloquial and not very scientific. It might be a good idea to abandon them entirely. Lucidish 00:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


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


 * I guess the best way is to say up front that the definition is controversial, and that the "political spectrum" itself is controversial. Then say the strictest way to define it is using historical origin -- right-wing meaning a tendency toward conservation, left-wing meaning a tendency toward reform.
 * Then add a section about how popular understandings, related ideologies, and tendencies form the 'political spectrum' model of this day and age. Ie, various socialisms, social democracy, and social liberalism on the left, and militaristic, theocrats, and minarchisms on the right. Anarchism, or "libertarian socialism", being a part of the radical center; corporate democracy being the maintream center. Then so people get the idea, maybe add a basis for comparison from another where and when. Say, for instance, the French model from way back when, where theocrats were the only folks on the right and just about everybody else was on the left. Lucidish 00:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * Naw, there are plenty of "reform" movements that are usually categorized as "right-wing". In Canada, for example, the "Reform" party; the similar Ross Perot effort not too long back in the States; the libertarians; etc. That shows the problem with the historical formulation -- that though "against reform" is accurate to describe "right wing" in some ways, "reform" isn't at all what people necessarily associate with the phrases 'leftist' or 'right-wing' in modern discussion.
 * I gotta disagree about reform favoring "the left", because reform just means change. Also, I think a conservative should be contrasted with a "Paleo-conservative" - someone who wants to roll back the clock (so to speak) on a lot of frontiers. For example, a theocrat in today's corporate democratic state would be a paleo-con. [merry xmas!] Lucidish 01:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


 * No countries are listed as being left- or right-wing. Parties are listed as being left- or right-wing. Most countries with anything like open political systems have both left- and right-wing parties. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * This list doesn't make sense since it combines parties with very different ideologies, like liberal parties and xenophobic parties, that do not have anyting in common. Electionworld 06:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I think the media is inherently left wing, not necessarily out personal bias, but natural human laziness. It easier to go to a government official and ask what they are going to do about a problem, than to investigate the problem and find out the actual causes.   Government officials don't want to seem uncaring, but all they have at their disposal are liberal command and control solutions, and they don't have the media or rhetorical savvy to take the position that the government has no legitimate role in the issue at hand.  Furthermore, it is more important to be percieved as doing something at the moment, than to really solve the problem, because the media only pays attention when it is a crisis, and will forget about it until it becomes a crisis again.  I have seen just this sort of liberal bias on Fox News, with O'Reilly haranging federal officials to do something about the power blackout or pushing federal officials to use the military on the border with Mexico. (a violation of posse comitatas that no conservative or libertarian would countenance)--Silverback 09:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There is so much perversion of vocabulary in the previous remark that I cannot really respond to it, I can only comment.
 * "liberal command and control solutions" borders on being an oxymoron in the main way that the word "liberal" has been historically used. Apparently, this makes Ivan the Terrible and Hitler "liberals".
 * Conversely, he is using "conservative" to mean only a principled, Burkean conservative. It should be needless to say that the calls for using the military on the border with Mexico have come entirely from the right.
 * Back on the point we were talking about: I think that Fox News is firmly on the right, but I also don't think it is useful to include them here: they are not an overtly ideological organization, and while I think it is useful to discuss their implicit ideology in the article about Fox News, simple inclusion in a list is inappropriate.
 * For those who are interested in why Fox might be characterized as right-wing, these articles from the (openly left-wing) The Nation, might be of help:, (paragraph 2), and especially . -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

Philip 07:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Far more history (autocracy; classical liberalism; emergence of the democratic right in the 19th century onwards; the anti-democratic right (ie fascism and Nazism), including its connection with the anti-democratic left etc.)
 * 2) Clear definitions of the main strands of contemporary right wing thought on a global basis (ie not just the US), which acknowledge the complexities without getting bogged down in them
 * 3) A section on the relationship of different strands of right wing thought to democracy (probably instead of the fascism section)
 * 4) More economics
 * 5) Less on the war on terror
 * 6) Less on Israel-Palestine
 * 7) A reduction in US centrism in any area not already covered.
 * One can no more drop discussion of fascism from an article on right-wing politics than drop a discussion of the communist states from one on left-wing politics. Otherwise, open to this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fascism would still be included, but not as a main heading. No other strand of right-wing politics is a main heading, so the article is currently the equivalent on one about left wing politics which highlighted only communism. Philip 20:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Our current article on Left-wing politics has a section "Leftism and the Soviet Union".
 * I'm not necessarily opposed to where you want to go with this, but if you are planning a major overhaul, you should take a look at Left-wing politics, too. About a year ago I did major overhauls on both (both were much weaker at that time) and tried to make them parallel. They've now had a year to drift apart, and I know that (in particular) MathKnight's additions to Left-wing politics about recent anti-war stuff created an imbalance, and he won't agree to repeated suggestions by myself and others to get that material largely out of there. I think it is important that at least a large portion of these two article remains more-or-less in parallel, and would urge anyone who is planning to overhaul one to make sure they also look at the other and see if there are parallel changes to be made. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The sub-entry needs some major revision; instead of pointing out the fact that fascists considered themselves separate (and opposed to) socialists (and communists), it needs to explain why WE need to distinguish between two political philosophies that the author likens to each other in several important ways, but fails to contrast in necessary detail.
 * - B ( User:24.254.38.89 06:08, 14 Feb 2005)


 * Fine, B, you are advised to introduce references and quotations to authorities within the field of Political Science who hold your point of view.
 * --Johan Magnus 06:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


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

This edit war seems to be continuing with recent edits by User:Pearlg and User:Silverback. My opinion remains what it has been: I think their edits are dead wrong. However, since some of this has to do with the accuracy of a quotation for which I don't have a source in front of me, I am not reverting at this time. Would someone more expert please weigh in? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I searched the quoted reference, and couldn't find the quote. I replaced it with actual quotes relating to "century", there is something in the article about "tending" to the right, but it wasn't a very strong statement, and with the original being in Italian, it is difficult to know whether the original was a left-right distinction or a wrong-right distinction.  The document certainly contained a disavowal of the right wings individualism and liberalism. --Silverback 22:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

I am not trying to put forth some political message but I thought that Right-Wing, as it pertains to business and wealth, was mis-represented in the Fascism section of "Right-Wing". (anon, 18 May 2005)


 * Certainly. Thats because certain lefties define their oppostion as something bad, rather than something reasonable. See false dichotomy. Sam Spade 15:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What period are you talking about? Before their rise, the Nazis did very well with unemployed people from the working class, rather poorly with those who had jobs, moderately well with small business, and not so well with most big business (although they certainly had some wealthy backers). Prior to the Nazis taking power, most big business was uncomfortable with the anti-capitalist aspects of Nazi rhetoric. And, doubtless, there were people in the party who meant this rhetoric. However, once Hitler consolidated power, that was a moot point: a somewhat diverse party was quickly turned into a monolith.


 * After their rise, the Nazis made very strong accommodations with big business (and not just German big business: the Ford Motor Company and the Coca-Cola company&mdash;which invented Fanta for the German market&mdash;were quite pleased with them in the 1930s). Hitler pandered to the more socialist side of the Nazi support base by using socialist rhetoric in attacking Jewish industrialists and Jewish department store owners (and expropriating their businesses), but never acted in this manner toward comparable enterprises owned by ethnic Germans.


 * The best book on this that I've seen is Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939 by David Schoenbaum. Dense, and well researched. He shows how Hitler adopted a few socialist programs (especially welfare programs for the unemployed) and a lot of socialist rhetoric while depressing average wages, pretty much turning the peasants of Prussia back into serfs, etc.


 * BTW, when one talks electoral success: the Nazis peaked with about 33% of the vote. In the last election of the Weimar Republic, they fell to 25%, but once Hitler was appointed chancellor and staged and auto-coup against the republic, that became moot. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Extremly poorly balenced
I think also that this article is very leftist, saying that Nazism, Marxism, and Fasiscm are right-wing politics. If you think that this article should be nominated for the POV warning, sign below:

68.196.86.165Taylorr68.196.86.165


 * Did some transitory state of the article say that Marxism is right wing? Other that that possiblity, this looks like trolling. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:51, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
I'd like to comment on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of the Right-wing Politics article. Please keep in mind that when I use the term Christian, I am referring to those who adhere to the Bible as their primary source for ethics and conduct. While it is true that numerous Christians support Israel because of its democracy, most do not even realize this factor. If it was more widely known that Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East, it would definitely bolster Christians' commitment to Israel. I would say that the majority of Christians support Israel based on the Bible, which declares that it was given to the Jews as the Promised Land. In addition their is a promise, that God's blessing hinges, at least in part, in how we treat Israel (this defense is politically weak in that everyone does not subscribe to the Bible). Another large factor is that the Arabs dominate all the land in the Middle East and this is the only piece of land that the Jews lay claim to, thus they should be able to maintain the land that they have occupied for some thousands of years. The last argument is that Muslims lay claim to several holy sights, in which they have control of, therefore the Jewish Israelis should also reserve the right to control their holy sight, which is Jerusalem. (anon 31 May 2005)

Section of Sociological Classification
This edit is mostly POV of rubbish. Citation leads back to a political activism organization. At the very least, this section needs much more qualification. Personally, I think it should be deleted outright. --Pearlg 01:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I've cut the section. Here is what it said:

"(title:Social Sectors of United States’ Right-wing)"

"Political sociologists have divided the United States’ Right-wing into 3 broad groups: The Secular Right; The Religious Right; and The Xenophobic Right. These groups in turn, can be subdivided into sectors, which can overlap, conflict and not be mutually exclusive. The Secular Right consists of the following sectors: Corporate Internationalists; Business Nationalists; Economic Libertarians; National Security Militarists’ and Neoconservatives. The Religious Right consists of the following sectors: Christian Nationalists and Christian Theocrats. The Xenophobic Right consists of the following sectors: Paleoconservatives; Patriot Movement; White Racial Nationalists; and Extreme Right. A more detailed descriptive chart of United States Right-wing Sectors can be found on the Political Research Associates webpage:http://www.publiceye.org/research/chart_of_sectors.html"

Outside of what this calls the "secular right" this is very judgment-laden (and even that part is not exactly friendly to the right). Clearly, this is less a neutral effort at taxonomy than it is a stick with which to attack the right. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * The xenophobic label would hardly seem exclusive to the right when one considers the trade unionists and and communist anarchists in the anti-globalization movement, etc. The passage overall, seems a work of fantasy.--Silverback 23:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

"The Religious Right consists of the following sectors: Christian Nationalists and Christian Theocrats." - thats certainly not true. I also agree with the removal, and feel we need to be very careful (as all past discussion has shown) with who we label "right", and why. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

larebil.com
Why does this one particular, not terribly famous, U.S. right-wing web site merit inclusion in the external links? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

libertarianism right wing?
This article says that libertarianism is right wing. How could that possibly be? I'd like to see a source for that, otherwise I'm going to take it out. RJII 21:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It should say right-libertarianism or something, as not to confuse it with anarchism. --Tothebarricades 00:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism both share the limited government philosophy of the right, they just take it to a more philosophically consistent limit.--Silverback 00:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting this? My understanding of right wing is restrictions on individual liberty of action, whereas left wing is restriction's free market and private property. A libertarian is nowhere on that statist spectrum --not left, not right, and not centrist. RJII 02:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are using a European spectrum. In the US, conservatism "conserves" the the classical liberal, limited government constitution.   The main intellectual path to libertarianism is through increasingly idealistic application of these constitutional limited government beliefs often through the austrian or chicago school of economics.  Note, the founding of the libertarian party itself was strongly influenced by the split in the Young Americans for Freedom that William F. Buckley founded.  While idealists tend to also be moral, the legislation of morality is relatively new to the right wing of american politics, that was accelerated by the left's legislation of affirmative-action morality that was exploited by the Republican party's "southern strategy".  You are correct that the current single axis spectrum has little meaning, but even still, in american politics, the right is more inclined to limit government, and the left more inclined to propose command and control "solutions" to problems.--Silverback 13:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're equating conservative with right wing --my understanding is that they're two different things. I agree with you that libertarians are conservatives, but they're not right wing. This equating of conservative and right wing is something that's done in the news media sometimes; and, I don't think it's correct unless they say "right wing conservatives" --which is someone who wants to limit civil liberties but likes free markets. I don't think right wing in itself has anything to do with economics. RJII 15:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't think right wing has anything to do with economics, you should ask yourself who would be more likely to cut your taxes (assuming you are in the US), the right wing or the left wing. There really should be at least two axes, one for economic liberty and one for social liberty.  If there is just one axis, I think a good rationalization would  totalitarianism on the left to anarchy on the right, with libertarian just to the left of anarchy.  When you consider the size of government they would implement, you will find that what ever you think of the US right wing's stance on civil liberties, they will end up with less government that those on the left, they will be more limited government and libertarian.   Now communist anarchists will not like this totalitarian->anarchism scale because they feel more affinity with socialism and state communism than with the freedom that results in the market phenomena.  But communist anarchism will have to have such social ostracism to have any chance of persisting, that it would be as coercive and controling as a totalitarian society anyway, so these utopians probably should be allowed to be on the left with their fellow totalitarians.   The traditional European spectrum which has totalitarianism at BOTH ends is a rhetorical trick.  Don't fall for it.--Silverback 00:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like the Political_compass, like at http://politicalcompass.org/

It has right, left, authoritarian and libertarian spectrums. Right is against economic regulation, and libertarian is against social regulation. Its not so different from the Nolan_Chart. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
The current lead paragraph is bad to the point of actively propagating ignorance.

The first sentence has been there for some time, and is perfectly OK:


 * In politics, right-wing, the political right, or simply the Right, are terms which refer, with no particular precision, to the segment of the political spectrum in opposition to left-wing politics.

But then we go off into La-La Land:


 * In political science terms, right-wing usually describes a preference for economic freedom at the cost of equality, as opposed to the left-wing preference for equality at the cost of economic freedom.

This is ridiculous. At best, it is true of certain times and places, and even then mainly if "economic freedom" is understood to mean the rights and privileges of owners of private property. Certainly the original "right", the defenders of the aristocratic and clerical classes, were in no sense advocates of economic freedom &mdash; the original "left", which included the Girondists, had far more claim to that &mdash; but they were the defenders of the rights of property deriving from the Ancien Régime. And, at the risk of being as polemical as the person who wrot this, most people's economic freedom is enhanced by knowing that if they quit their job they will still have a roof over their head and access to medical care, a position far more commonly taken by the left. In short, I guess that if "economic freedom" were replaced here by "the rights of property owners", this would be much closer to the truth; I'm still not at all certain it should be stated (especially without any citation except the weaselly "political science terms") as a definition of right-wing in the second sentence of the article.

From here, we go off to near-total irrelevance:


 * At the extreme left is Communism, where the government is in complete control of the economy and attempts to achieve maximum equality, while at the other end is Anarchism, where government intervention is non-existent.

What on earth is the third sentence of an article on right-wing politics doing contrasting about two political views that are usually counted on the left, and which have common roots in mid-19th century worker-based left politics? What about the right? Isn't that what this article is supposed to be about? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the way I've always thought of the terms: An extreme right winger eliminates civil liberties (drugs, gambling, abortion, etc). An extreme left winger eliminates private property. A totalitarian is the combination of extreme leftism and extreme rightism. An absolute libertarian is the negation of all degrees of leftism and all degrees of rightism. Is that correct or am I off the mark? RJII 05:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Your correct, as best I can tell "La-la land" seems to translate to: "reality" in the above rant ;) See the Nolan chart, discussion above, etc... ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of far-right
I also see that virtually all far-right parties have been removed from the list of parties. If we are doing that, we should be explicit about it: we should specifically indicate what article has a list of far-right parties. I am about to make that edit; I would be equally happy simply to see far-right parties restored to the list here, but the silent omission is actively misleading. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Far-right has such a list. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But then we're making an unnecessary and controversial distinction between right and far-right. All parties and organizations generally considered to be of the right should be listed here. --Tothebarricades 01:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hardly. I advise you to read the two articles, and to change your mind based on the facts. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reactionary
I don't think that reactionary should be included in the list of related topics. Reactionary isnt necessarily a right-wing thing. Wouldn't it be safe to say that the 1991 plotters who attempted to overthrow Gorbachev were "reactionary" It certainly wouldnt be safe to call them right wingers --Henrybaker 04:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm with you. I don't get the "reactionary" label either. RJII 04:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Some people do confuse conservative with reactionary, and example is O'Reilly of the Factor fame on Fox news. His knee jerk reaction is to reach for a government solution to problems.  No conservative would call for the military to man the borders during peacetime, or attack federal regulators who had no operational role for not doing anything during the blackout a couple of years ago.  He is at least a centrist, if not a leftist.--Silverback 05:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful equating right wing with conservativism. Leftists can also be conservatives. It depends on what country you're talking about. In the former U.S.S.R for example, the conservatives were the communists.

Still hammering out definition
I had


 * In recent times, the term always includes conservatism, and those forms of Europeen liberalism that emphasize the free market; it is also applied to more extreme ideologies, such as fascism; some consider it to include libertarianism, though most libertarians reject the left-right dichotomy and favor a two-dimensional political spectrum placing them 90 degrees away from traditional left and right.

User:RJII changed this to


 * In recent times, many associate the term with conservatism, though left-wing politics can also be conservative. It is sometimes associated with liberalism and libertarianism, however, libertarians oppose both left-wing and right-wing politics. It is often applied to authoritarian ideologies, such as fascism, although some totalitarian ideologies can be considered left-wing.

I don't want an edit war; here's my attempt at synthesis:
 * 1) What is meant by "left-wing politics can also be conservative"? I literally can't think of an example, and view this as at least confusing, if not actively misleading.
 * Well, it depends on what political system you're in. In the U.S.S.R for example, the conservatives were the left-wing --the communists. RJII 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This constitutes original research. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it's still not proper to make such bold and paradoxical statements, especially in an introduction, without context. --Tothebarricades 22:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * How is it "original research"? The hardline communists were called conservatives in the U.S.S.R. If you want to stick with the old way of doing things, you're a conservative, no matter what that old way is. Conservatism is not an ideology in itself. I don't see anything "paradoxical." RJII 22:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is little more than a verbal confusion. Yes, it was "conservative" in the sense of "conserving" an existing system, but this has only an etymological relationship to "conservatism", clearly the meaning intended here. We should be trying to clear up verbal confusions in an article like this, not writing in playful paradox. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I don't think there is a universal "conservative" ideology. RJII 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As we discuss (I think well) in our article on conservatism, conservatism is not exactly an ideology, but it is a current of political thought. And it has nothing (except maybe certain visceral instincts against change) in common with those who wished to preserve Soviet Communism. The word "conservatism" covers roughly similar (though by no means identical) politics in almost every electoral democracy in Europe and the Americas, plus Australia, New Zealand and a good number of other places. The fact that there have been a few times and places where it had a different meaning should not prevent us from using a well-understood term. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel that the distinction of free market liberalism from social liberalism and, in particular, American liberalism is important here: the first is generally seen as on the right, the others on the center-left.
 * 2) I don't think it is accurate to say "libertarians oppose both left-wing and right-wing politics". Many libertarians embrace right-wing politics; a handful embrace left-wing politics of a sort. The point is that libertarians reject libertarianism being classified in these terms. Can we perhaps settle on "though most libertarians reject the notion that libertarianism fits along the classic left-right spectrum" or something like that?
 * 3) Libertarians don't oppose the idea of a left/right spectrum, but that they oppose the left and the right. For example, see the Advocates for Self-government chart that libertarians frequently use:  As, you can see, the spectrum is there and it's recognized --it's just that they oppose both those positions because they're both positions that favor government intervention. So they have to illustrate an additional spectrum --libertarianism versus totalitarianism (which is the interventionist aspects of left wing and right wing combined). Sure, you could say "though most libertarianisms reject the notion that libertarianism fits along the classic left-right spectrum" but that accepts for granted that people are calling libertarianism right wing. Are they? Or is it isolated cases? Do we have sources for this claim? RJII 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I have no objection to "although some totalitarian ideologies can be considered left-wing", probably worth noting here. And I don't really mind your smuggling in Jeanne Kirkpatrick's authoritatian/totalitarian distinction, though I personally think it is just so much hot air.
 * I wasn't making any conscious distinction there. Was not aware of Kirkpatrick's position. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are the same thing to me --i was just trying to not be repetitive. RJII 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The distinction is kind of subtle; for instance, a guy like Franco should be called authoritarian, whereas Hitler is totalitarian. It has to do with the purpose of power: toward traditional ends (or as an end in itself) as opposed to a "total" control of the public, 1984 style. --Tothebarricades 22:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * In recent times, the term always includes conservatism and those forms of European liberalism that emphasize the free market. Some consider it to include libertarianism, though most libertarians reject the notion that libertarianism fits along the classic left-right spectrum. It is often applied to authoritarian ideologies such as fascism, although some totalitarian ideologies can be considered left-wing.

Jmabel | Talk 20:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would suggest specifically mentioning Stalinism in the last sentence, since that is the only "left-wing" ideology that is inherently totalitarian. Also, specify that we are talking about capitalist libertarianism in the second sentence. --Tothebarricades 22:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right on "libertarian", I was using it in the U.S. sense, and should be clearer. We can certainly mention Stalinism, but I don't think it is appropriate in this article to to get into subtleties about the left, as to whether any other "left" ideologies are/were totalitarian (Robespierre and Mao both leap to mind). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Trying again:
 * In recent times, the term always includes conservatism and those forms of European liberalism that emphasize the free market. Some consider it to include libertarianism (in the U.S. sense of the word), though most libertarians reject the notion that libertarianism fits along the classic left-right spectrum. It is often applied to authoritarian ideologies such as fascism, although some totalitarian ideologies such as Stalinism can be considered left-wing.

Jmabel | Talk 00:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "European liberalism"? It looks like you're trying to distinguish between traditional and contemporary liberalism. If so, I'd just call it "traditional liberalism" or "classical liberalism." By the way, any source that people are calling libertarianism right wing? I'm sure some do call it that, but I can't imagine it being that common. Maybe I'm wrong. RJII 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * By "European liberalism" I mean the parties in continental Europe that use "liberal" in their name. There are a few similarly named parties with similar politics elsewhere in the world, but for the most part in continental Europe the use of the term is reasonably consistent. Some of these parties focus more on free speech issues, anti-clericalism, etc., and often ally to the left, but the ones that are focused on free markets pretty consistently ally to the right, at least in the last 50 years. "European" was not the operative word, and I'd be willing to drop it; it was there mainly because this is not the way the word is usually used in the U.S., and UK liberals are generally farther left than their continental namesakes.
 * I'd be glad to completely drop all mention of libertarianism from the lead section of the article, but I know it won't stay that way, so I'd rather try for an evenhanded treatment. Libertarianism in this sense is largely a U.S. phenomenon, and is probably the view of some 10% of the U.S. population, but that slice are heavily represented in Wikipedia, as are some of their critics from the left who consider libertarians to be on the right. Again, I'm perfectly happy to drop mention of them here, for now&mdash;I think it's a tangential issue&mdash;but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts (and expression that is losing its force, what with inflation) that within thirty days someone will have reinserted a claim that they are on the right and we'll be all around this again. I'd rather try to say something lucid representing a reasonable consensus that can be defended than to have this in perpetual flux. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about it, and I don't think we are going to get an easy consensus here. I'm stil willing to continue the discussion, but I'm not willing to refrain from editing meanwhile. I'm going to do my best to incorporate where there seems to be agreement (or at least no strong dissent), and I'll hope we don't end up with an edit war. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You can't call fascism, totalitarianism, or even conservatism right or left consistantly. This article needs to accept that left and right mean different things to everyone, so it coan stop saying what is right, and instead say what is called right, by who, and why they called it that. I call myself rightwing because I am, usually, right ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Look. At political spectrum and left-right politics, we talk about the difficulties of this vocabulary, and that it is widely, but not universally accepted. I think we do the matter justice there, but if you don't, then please work on improving those articles. I think it's a total waste of everyone's time to re-argue the issue in every article where the terms arise. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, so lets stop doing it. As I said, say what is called right, by who, and why they called it that. Don't have the narrative voice expressing an opinion on what is and isn't right. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 11:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Within the bulk of the article, I agree, but a lead section needs to be concise and to say how the words are generally used. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * The word isn't used in a consistant way. If you think it is, cite someone saying so, and what their definition is. That would be fine. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

2 recent edits by RJII
RJII, I'm really trying hard to keep this from being an edit war, but you keep editing without prior discussion (and without any more comment than an edit summary that simply asserts the correctness of your edit) in an area where we obviously have substantive disagreement. And I believe both of your recent edit summaries give justifications that are simply wrong.

In this edit (replacing&hellip;


 * Some consider it to include libertarianism (in the U.S. sense of the word), though most libertarians reject the one-dimensional left-right political spectrum and favor a two-dimensional spectrum placing them 90 degrees away from traditional left and right.

&hellip;with&hellip;
 * Some consider it to include libertarianism, though most libertarians conceive of an additional spectrum (libertarianism-totalitarianism) upon which they place themselves which intersects the left-right political spectrum and places them 90 degrees away from traditional left and right.

Your summary says "libertarianism is used the same way throughout the world". This is simply not true. With reference to most Spanish-speaking countries "libertarianism" is an emphatically leftist form of anarchism that rejects all participation in governments. For example, in the period of the Spanish Civil War, the "libertarian" anarchists were those who rejected the decision by the main stream of Spanish anarchism to participate actively in the government of the Republic. (Given that Spain at that time probably had more anarchists percentage-wise than any other country in history, this was no theoretical dispute.) So I believe the rationale for the removal is wrong.
 * Then how do you explain the Costa Rica's "Movimiento Libertario" (Libertarian Movement), Libertarian Society of Iceland, Liberal Democratic Party of Australia (they describe themselves as "libertarian" on their website), Libertarianz Party (New Zealand), Rossiyskoye Libertarianskoye Dvizhenie (Russian Libertarian Movement), Libertarian Party of Canada, Libertarische Partij (The Netherlands), Polish Libertarian Party???  These are all using "libertarian" in the same way as its used in the U.S. --liberal individualism. So, it doesn't make any sense to say it's the U.S. usage. It's the world usage. As far as the Spanish Civil War, that's old news. How words are used changes. Libertarianism used to refer to the doctrine of free will. Also, Encyclopedia Britannic doesn't say it's the "U.S. usage" -"Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty." And looks at this..the Italians use libertarianism in the same way:  Here's a bunch of translated Italian essays using it the same way as the US does as well:  RJII 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This may be "rising usage", so I won't further argue the point: I'm probably a lot older than you. But in an encyclopedia, and in a topic covering a span of about 215 years, "old news" is still part of the story. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just found a contemporary group using "libertarian" in the other sense I was alluding to: International Libertarian Solidarity. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes some people do use "libertarian" in other ways, but my point was that the most common use was not restricted to the U.S., so it didn't make much sense to say "the U.S. meaning" --it's not "the U.S. meaning." (even some people in the U.S. don't use it in the most common way). RJII 13:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I find your wording a bit confusing even in itself:
 * "most libertarians conceive of an additional spectrum (libertarianism-totalitarianism) upon which they place themselves which intersects the left-right political spectrum and places them 90 degrees away from traditional left and right"

Shouldn't that be&hellip;
 * most libertarians conceive of an additional axis [or, if you prefer, dimension]] (libertarianism-totalitarianism) upon which they place themselves which intersects the left-right political spectrum at a right angle, and places them 90 degrees away from traditional left and right".
 * That's fine, but I like "spectrum" better since we're calling left-right a spectrum. RJII 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Then with this edit you turn "conservatism" to "some forms of conservatism". Can you cite an example of a group that subscribes to the political philosophy of conservatism and would not generally be consisdered to be on the right? That seems to me as oxymoronic as saying that the left includes only "some forms" of socialism and communism. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've already given you the example of communist regimes. Here is an article I just came across saying the same thing: Also, the Encyclopedia Britannica article on conservatism says "The conservative temperament may be, but need not be, identical with conservative politics or right-wing economics; it may sometimes accompany left-wing politics or economics."   Lastly, socialism and communism are economic systems. Conservatism is not. So the analogy you tried to make doesn't really work. RJII 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will agree that the sclerotic regime of the late USSR shared "the conservative temperament", but "conservatism" in the political sense is not about a "temperament", it's about a political stance. Conservatism as a political term dates from about the same era as "right wing" as a political term; "conservative" in terms of temperament is a much older word, but not the relevant meaning here. One might as well say that anyone who cares about society is a "socialist". -- Jmabel | Talk 00:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * We're talking about different kinds of conservatism, which is why I said "some forms of conservatism." Maybe we can change it to "reactionary conservatism" or "ideological conservatism." Saying that right-wing equates with "conservatism" is not correct. RJII 03:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, look at what our article conservatism is about. If libertarianism does not need clarification (which I was willing to concede, though I disagree) why should conservatism, a far more common political term, need qualification to indicate that it is referring to the political current, not the "temperament"?
 * It's not just "temperament." If you look at the conservatism article, and the link that I gave you above, conservatism is also a word that refers to a kind of "traditionalism." I'm just concerned that it needs to be clear that we're not talking about traditionalist conservatism, but ideological conservatism. Just saying "conservatism" is not precise. RJII 06:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, "some forms of" is relatively harmless, it just seems to me to be unnecessarily verbose. I won't fight this further. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm also not thrilled (but not appalled) by the recent addition of "much as many anarchists (or "libertarian socialists") avoid placing themselves on the spectrum." True enough, but it's an articel on right-wing politics, and no one ever called anarchists or "libertarian socialists" right-wing. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Redux
RJII has now changed "those forms of liberalism that emphasize the free market more than social equality" to "those forms of liberalism that emphasize the free market more than egalitarianism in wealth". I think this is simply wrong: liberals aren't levelers, not even American liberals. Again: nearly everyone who calls themselves liberal is (at least in theory) in favor of both the free market and social equality (in a broad sense of both terms). What makes them "left" or "right" is which of these (at least potentially) conflicting ideals gets priority. "Egalitarianism in wealth" simply isn't in the picture.

I feel that the current wording simply propagates ignorance. But at this point I've said my piece, reverted more than once, and will not keep reverting if no one else steps in. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * The wording before said "liberalism that emphasizes the free market more than social equality." That statement is not true, as liberalism does indeed advocate social equality --otherwise known as Herbert Spencer's "law of equal freedom." That's why I changed it. They do advocate social equality just as much as they advocate free markets. They do not, however, advocate wealth equality. Individual liberty for all individuals equally is the essence of liberalism, so I don't see how on can say that a free market is emphasized over social equality. That's just not true. My putting in that they don't favor egalitarianism in wealth was the result of my interpretation of what I believed was intended by the claim that they don't emphasize social equality. The only way that could properly said is if what was being referred to was equality in wealth. RJII 03:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone can come up with a better wording here, but the reason that (say) the German liberals generally viewed as "on the (center-)right" is that when it comes to conflicts between social equality and the market, they usually come down on the side of the market, whereas American liberals are usually considered "on the (center-)left" because they tend to go with the social equality. This is not always a matter of even equality of incomes, let alone wealth (the latter would require a confiscatory policy). For example, U.S. liberals have been pretty uniformly on the side of the American Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and of immigrant rights today; post-WWII German liberals do not particularly have a similar history vis a vis Turks in Germany. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Your using a definition of social equality which is not accepted by those not on the left. Many see the free market, or even natural selection as a state of social equality. Many see taxation and regulation as a form of government oppression, benefiting a bureaucratic oligarchy. These ideas are not new, Machiavelli opposed social welfare programs for these reasons, seeing taxation for any reason as a net loss for the people, and a source of their resentment. For every dollar collected in taxes, and later given to a social program, how much is eaten up inbetween by fraud, waste and abuse? Such leftist attempts to involuntarilly "redistribute wealth" end up in Bureaucratic collectivism, perhaps the worst possible fate for the workers, since its nearly identical to feudalism. Sam Spade 14:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, I'm not saying that leftist levelers don't exist. I'm saying that they are not liberals. There is plenty to the left of liberals. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The term "liberal" transcends left-right politics. Same w libertarians. The idea of freedom being the essential value is very different from power/authority as the central value. "Social equality" means extremely different things to different people, and for MANY on the left, it means equality of outcome. These people are sometimes refered to as "liberals" (they certainly arn't conservative!), but then my friends in europe who oppose taxation and govt. regulation are also liberals? The difference is in equality of process, vrs. equality of outcome. Sam Spade 20:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

openDemocracy
openDemocracy, which was recently linked here as an external link, certainly looks like a decent site, but I don't see why it is linked from this article. What, particularly, does it have to do with right-wing politics? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between this article and the "left-wing politics" article
There were some inconsistencies in the format and emphasis of this article in contrast to the article on left-wing politics, which seems strange since these two concepts are roughly symmetrically opposing and meant to be defined against the other. I've tried to incorporate the informal aspects of each article in a rather symmetric introduction. I think this also minimizes potential POV issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.251.6.195 (talk • contribs) 23 Oct 2005


 * About a year and a half ago they were very symmetric, but they haver each grown independently since then. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that the lead has been changed to say "often pejoratively". While true in a sense -- obviously, those on the left use "right" pejoratively and vice versa -- I don't think it is true enough to belong in the lead of the article. Political scientists unhesitatingly use the term, and do not consider it inherently value-laden. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lots of changes
There were just way too many digressions in the article - Franco, Wolfowitz, Hitler, heaven knows what else. I would suggest that these matters be addressed in articles about the specific issues rather than in an article about a very broad and vague term. --Leifern 15:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by JMabel
JMabel's reversion is vandalism because it involves a wholesale reversion without keeping any of the well-intended edits. It is also bad form because the reversion wasn't discussed. Obviously, my major changes can be improved upon, but let's try this structure. The previous version of the article was an "everything but the kitchen sink" article, and since "right-wing politics" is a vague term (see how we dealt with the article on "Palestine" for another example), this article should be concise. I will report another reversion of this kind as vandalism. --Leifern 12:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

More on this article and why it needed drastic change
Just to be clear: everything I write here applies in equal measure to Left-wing politics, which requires exactly the same cleanup.

As it was, this article was a piece of trash. Not because the content was bad, but because it attempted to discuss a whole litany of issues under the umbrella of what has essentially become a euphemism. The article should contain lots of links to articles about all the issues mentioned (and then some), but the text itself should simply help a reader understand what is meant by "right wing politics."

The reasons for this should be self-evident: as a matter of organization, we want wikipedia to avoid redundancy. We also want to avoid clutter for purposes of readability. But more importantly, we want it to be reasonably concise. If you look at the articles that link to this article, it'll become apparent that "right wing parties" in fact are a wildly dissimilar bunch.

As far as POV is concerned, the article as it stood flagrantly committed the fallacy of begging the question, in the following way: "Since some political parties are right wing (by virtue of being characterized this way by those left of them), it is fair to compare them with other parties that are right wing (e.g., fascists), ergo the Christian Democrats in Norway can be compared with Nazi Party of Germany, or the Taliban regime." As such, the article was trash. I am perfectly fine with an article that discusses, for example, whether the Bush administration has fascist tendencies, but that can't be thrown into a general article on right-wing politics.

My version, I am sure, needs a lot of improvement. But let's focus on what can be discernible as fact about right wing politics as the term applies to mainstream politics, not what some people would like it to mean. --Leifern 12:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Two versions

 * Leifern's version
 * Prior version

I feel that Leifern's recent edit amounts to taking a substantive article and turning it into an uncited POV near stub.

Examples of uncited POV:
 * 1) "Right-wing politics are typically biased in favor of free market mechanisms": those free marketeers Louix XVI and Adolf Hitler. Oh, not Hitler because&hellip;
 * 2) &hellip; later in the article the notion that Hitler was right-wing "is rejected by those who hold right-wing views". This is absolutely false. There are those on the right who say "Hitler wasn't really on the right" just like there are those on the left who say "Stalin wasn't really on the left", but most of us have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that some evil people may have some overlap with out politics.
 * 3) "&hellip;right-wing politicians favor globalism as an economic force": Really? I challenge you to find three right-wing economic globalists outside of the English-speaking world before WWII. I suspect you can find three, but it's going to take a lot of looking.

Besides the POV issues, this new version is guilty of extreme ahistoricism. It is as if the views of a certain segment of today's right defined the term.

Leifern accuses me of vandalism (User_talk:Jmabel and this edit summary) for preferring the old version and reverting his. I say that it is not vandalism to prefer a substantive article to an uncited POV near-stub. I'm not saying the old article was perfect, or even excellent, but contrary to his claims, much of it was decent. In general, it did not contain the solipsistic political POV I identified in my examples above, and explained something about how the meaning of the term has shifted over time. It actually engaged (with names of some key figures and citation of at least one first-rate scholar) the tricky question of the relation between fascism and the right, rather than dismissing it out of hand. Conversely, it had far too little about economic and social policy, and it went on at too-great length for this title on "The Right and the War on Terror" but that could be fixed by moving that material to another article, not by deleting it outright.

The question at this point is which of these versions makes a better starting point to move forward. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a wholesale revert with no discussion on the Talk page amounts to vandalism, but let's set that aside for the moment. It may very well be that the initial version had a lot of decent content, but the issue is a) whether that content helps a reader who wants to understand what "right-wing politics" is; and b) whether some of that content belongs in other articles.  Also, there is a difference between a stub and an outline, and the structure I proposed allowed for all the topics in the former version to be reintroduced.  As for the POV, I had absolutely no idea what JMabel is talking about, because he didn't explained what is POV about my version.  --Leifern 17:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the POV accusations, JMabel is begging the question by implying that Hitler and Louis XVI were "right wing politicians." Unless we want to preface this (and the left-wing article) with something along the lines of "left/right wing politicians are accused by their opponents of being similiar to Hitler/Mussolini/Pol Pot/Stalin," etc. (in which case we need an entirely new article to describe what mainstream conservative/social democratic parties stand for) these articles should mostly be about what the mainstream platforms stand for, with only a section on the euphemistic meaning of the term.  --Leifern 17:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call Louis XVI a "politician": he was a hereditary monarch. But the original definition of "right wing" was specifically to refer to his supporters. To say that Louis XVI was not "on the right" is to say that you refuse to use the term. The validity (or otherwise) of the term is discussed at left-right politics and extensively at political spectrum. Though it doubtless deserves mention here, it does not need a lengthy disquisition here: a reader looking up "right-wing" politics presumably wants to learn something about what, according to people who use the term, characterizes politics as right-wing, and how those politics have played out in the world. They are not looking for a near-stub that essentially rejects the concept without even citing sources on the basis for the rejection.


 * As for Hitler, frankly, I have limited patience for claims that Nazis are not on the right, much as I have limited patience for claims that Communists aren't on the left. Such claims pretty much amount to a refusal to use the terms as they are commonly used, and to substitute one's own idiosyncratic definition. Yes, you will find a few scholars (for example, Hayek), who will say that the Nazis were not rightists. But this is the view of a small minority. Please see WP:NPOV. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the history of right-wing vs. left-wing politics is a bit different.       m was originally an ideology, just like communism was.  But whereas the social democratic movement grew out of communism, the Christian Democratic movement did not grow out of       m.  I am all for discussing the charge that       m is on one end of a spectrum that begins with European liberal parties, but let's not make it jumbled.  --Leifern 15:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There seems to be something wrong with your client; you're replacing every instance of "fascism" with "m" and "Hitler" with a blank space. Please don't edit again until you've corrected this, as you're both messing up the article and altering others' talk page comments. It is also bad form to revert an article without indicating so in the edit summary. As for your response above: you're rewriting this article based on your own beliefs, and it is clear you do have a problem with discussing relationships with fascism. If you do not have a problem, why are you editing it out of the article? -- Hadal 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Point of order: Calling an article "trash" and pelting a fellow editor with histrionic (and evidently baseless) charges of vandalism&mdash;over what is clearly a content dispute&mdash;is never helpful. I hate to trot these threadbare links out yet again, but I urge Leifern to review our guidelines on civility and assuming good faith. Whether he means to or not, Leifern's use of such tactics does give a strong impression of mala fides on his part.


 * There is a widespread tendency within Wikipedia for people to look at a new version of an article, decide they dislike it, and then revert to the previous version without further explanation. This, imho, amounts to vandalism; and it is defined as such in the vandalism page.  As it is, I didn't report JMabel's edits as vandalism in progress, because I figured he was well-intended, though ill-considered.  As for characterizing the article as "trash," it is, in the sense that it is a confused, useless article with everything but the kitchen sink thrown it.  My version was intended as a framework for further edits, an outline, if you will.  --Leifern 15:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're being disingenuous here. Nothing Jmabel has done could reasonably be defined as vandalism, and Vandalism clearly defines vandalism as "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". You're assuming bad faith. Don't backpedal by saying you think Jmabel is well-intended; if you think he's vandalizing (which requires malicious intent), report him (and me, if you like). If you concede that he was not acting with malicious intent, it would behoove you to apologize to Jmabel for your baseless accusation. -- Hadal 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Leifern, we understand that you want to improve the article. But I have to agree with Jmabel in that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and that what you're leaving behind is either too generalized, simplified, or offensively biased. It's effectively a whitewash, intended or not. This is a sensitive topic, and because you chose to gut it all on your own&mdash;without discussing your deletions first&mdash;you seem more than a little hypocritical in your complaint of Jmabel's undiscussed revert. Even after making your wholesale (to use your word) redactions, you did not take any time to explain the bulk of your edits. Considering the topic, your bad form alone justified Jmabel's revert. This is one subject area where "Be bold!" isn't the best advice.


 * Offensively biased? You've got to be kidding me! The point, of course, is that a term like "right wing" is used primarily as a euphemism by opponents of anything to the right of them.  And, btw, this is precisely the topic that calls for boldness.  --Leifern 15:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're dismissing a point of view as "political rhetoric" and pigeonholing a large segment of the political spectrum into your worldview. This is bound to offend. If you take issue with the term right-wing itself, that would explain your hostility towards the article's contents. But understand that this is your own problem. This is not a topic suited for boldness: please read Be bold in updating pages This guideline gives helpful advice:


 * If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, it's a good idea first to read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is.


 * If you are unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to either:


 * Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length)
 * List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence)


 * Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.


 * Make sense? -- Hadal 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This article cannot escape generalization, but its inaccuracy is (or was, before your edits) mitigated by its broad treatment and use of contrasts. Instead of defining right-wing politics in vague swathes of the brush (as you do), it reports on various points of view, each with the weight they are due. The alternative you offer us is little better than a skeletal op-ed piece. (Not that op-eds are necessarily bad; they simply have no place here.) From a stylistic angle, you also used at least one loaded idiom ("litmus test"), which is unhelpful to international readers. Your one-line "Religion and politics" section is also garbled.


 * Skeletal, yes; op-ed, absolutely not. --Leifern 15:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your opinion. You've got two people disagreeing with you here. -- Hadal 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The two of you keep saying that it's POV, but you haven't explained yet what's POV about it.--Leifern 22:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (Interpolating) Leifern, I gave three concrete (and blatant) examples above. Search for "Examples of uncited POV". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that, instead of gutting the article in one sitting, you instead work with what's already there, one section at a time? In doing so, try to avoid using dismissive terms like "rhetoric" when discussing POVs you disagree with. Keep in mind that other editors have put honest work into the article, and don't discount this work as "trash". I think it's worth repeating this paragraph from the original revision of this article, which is conspicuously absent from your version:


 * "The values and policy concerns of the right vary in different countries and eras. Also, individual right wing politicians and thinkers often have idiosyncratic priorities. It is not always possible or helpful to try to work out which of two sets of beliefs or policies is more right-wing (see political spectrum)."


 * With that said, I'm reverting to Jmabel. -- Hadal 07:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Since there is nothing in what you wrote that is the least bit persuasive, I'm reverting back. --Leifern 15:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You have offered no serious debate, and have yet to fully explain your objections. Whether you find my replies persuasive or not, you'll have to defend your actions. Please don't revert again without clearly labelling it as such in your edit summary. -- Hadal 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hadal, I really can't help it if you can't be bothered to actually read what I write. --Leifern 22:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)