Tenets of the political right?

While researching for another thread on right wing libertarianism I was struck by how many definitions of ‘right winger’ seemed to come down to –

“Belief in or support of the tenets of the political right”

But what are these ‘tenets’ (principles, doctrines, dogmas)? Well they never seem to be explained. And Googling “tenets of the political right” didn’t help either.

So it got me thinking and here are a few musings

 

Conservatism

One problem is the mistaken belief that if you are a right winger you must be a conservative.

Conservatism conserves, it is about tradition, continuity, the upholding of existing institutions and customs. It desires stability and therefore is suspicious of the new or radical seeing it as a threat to that stability.

The thing is that the meaning of conservatism can change from place to place and from time to time.

So you can have a Christian conservative in the American mid-west, a Muslim conservative in Saudi Arabia, or a socialist conservative in Cuba. And in one age a conservative would upholding the custom of oligarchic government, while in another age extols the virtues of democracy.

This makes conservative the natural ally of the established order but once the established order changes?

Seeking stability a conservative will bring about reform if its is believe the alternative is radical change. In the 19th century many conservatives brought in social programmes because they feared socialist revolution (see Bismarck’s reforms in Germany). By seeking to lessen the impact of economic change the hoped to lessen the call for revolutionary change (Disraeli’s reaction to industrialisation). And later the so called ‘welfare state’ system (or the American ‘New Deal’) came to be supported by conservative political parties as part of a consensus.

But in most places suppression of ‘radical elements’ came before (or during) the compromise, for example Bismarck brought in laws that closed down socialist papers, broke up their meetings and banished leftist leaders, while at the same time proposing or bringing in welfare legislation that while not going as far as the left wanted did placate many in the population who wanted change.

So conservatism is not about liberty or rights but stability, it will change but only if opposed and even then has a tendency to suppression before compromise, it will champion liberty and peoples rights if that is the tradition, but will happily limit them if the system itself seems under attack (the un-American purges in the US of the 40-50’s and the recent Patriot Act).

There are conservatives in the US and they act like conservatives but many people there who seem to call themselves ‘Conservatives’ because they see themselves as upholding American political traditions, don’t seem to realise that the foundations of those traditions was radical at the time and not based on conservative thought but much more on those of classical liberalism.

 

Right wing Liberalism

There is a division in liberalism between what I’d call the ‘soft’ liberalism based on social justice and a ‘hard’ liberalism based on property and the free market.

Normally these are termed ‘classical liberalism’ and ‘modern liberalism’ although seen by many as ‘right leaning’ and ‘left leaning’ liberalism. One can see why, because although both are supporters of capitalism one wants it unhindered by regulation, red in tooth and nail, the other wants it caged by regulation, its nails clipped and teeth blunted by social programmes.

Now this isn’t strictly black and white there are many shades in the spectrum of just how far the free market should be free and how much it needs controlling but –

Right wing/Classical liberalism definitely has an emphasis on property rights and laissez-faire/free market economics, while modern liberalism stress the need for social programmes (education, healthcare) as a means for people to gain relief, and freedom from, the detrimental effects of free market policies.

One believes that government is a hindrance to individual freedom the other that government is essential for promoting and protecting individual freedom.

The thing is that Classical liberalism is attractive - in a monetary based system - to established wealth. And it is not surprising that in the US many wealth founded and wealth financed think tanks and lobby groups promote classical liberalism.

And I have given my reasons why they do this in the thread –

Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

*

 

Right up to the Second World War the suppression of the left was commonplace in US and European spheres of influence. But the reaction to the threat of growing left wing influence in Conservative and Liberal circles was to blunt that influence with watered down but still progressive legislation.

A dramatic example of that are the measures adopted under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt normally referred to as the ‘New Deal’.

After 1945 in Europe the suppression of the left lessened (as many vbut it continued unabated in the US (McCarthyism, the Un-American commissions, loyalty legislation)
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=253937&f=36

But in many places right wing liberalism was superseded by a liberalism that adopted left wing ideas because of the perceived threat from the left.

But what happens if the threat is perceived to have lessened or gone away?

Would it be felt that the ‘soft’ measures taken up out of expediency could be dropped?

Classical liberalism never went away it just lost support because people on the left highlighted is faults. In places were those criticisms were heard and highlighted classical liberalism was kept in check.

When there were a number of economic crisis in the 70’s neoliberals claimed it was the fault of ‘modern’ liberalist policies and economics and started pushing hard for the re-introduction of classical liberalist ideas.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union were seen by some on the right as the victory of ‘the market’ over the ideas of the left, of the ‘free’ market over a regulated one, the end of history.

 

What are the tenets of the right – it depends on the right you’re talking about.

Conservatives and right wing liberals when opposed by persuasive forces from the left, temper their ideas with left leaning policies. And in areas where the right has influence some on the left adopt right wing ideas (the Democrats in the US, New Labour in the UK).

The thing is that where the right are not opposed by persuasive forces from the left they see little point in temper their ideas with left leaning policies.

But there is one thing -

Conservative’s natural ally is the established order and in a system where wealth equates to influence and power, wealth is usually the established order.

And

Classical liberalism is attractive - in a monetary based system - to established wealth.

So it’s not that surprising that these two groups found each other and in many cases melded together.

So in the US, at this time, there is conservatism (religious and moral traditionalists), liberal based conservatism (individual rights, constitutional reverence and deregulation) and right wing liberalism, what is often termed libertarianism in the US (the free market and limited government).

*

 

you guys are way off..




being a conservative means the belief in a small central government and free market

 

Is there such a thing as a truly free market? If so why do they have to spend so much on lobbying?

I don't see Wall St. turning down TARP funds, or denying a need for the individual mandate on health care. Not a really free market in my estimation when citizens are forced to buy for profit insurance instruments.

Not a truly free market when individuals have to abide by a different set of bankruptcy laws from corporations, or pay taxes based on different statutes from corporations.

I don't see conservatives jumping on the small central government bandwagon when it comes to governing regular citizens against corporations. I see them spending huge bundles of money on lobbying against the rights of individuals over those of corporations.

 

Actually more democrats voted for TARP then Republicans, but it doesn't matter, most Republicans are social conservatives only and freakin insane, they put out a new 10 point list and suggested any member running who breaks more then 3 of the ideals shouldn't get funding from the national party, and Reagan himself it seems wouldn't make the cut.

But really, you'd take money too if you're business was about go under, the free market means nothing when you've ruined your business.

 

If you believe in the free market as a principle it does...

As I understand it, the tenets of the Right are small government, personal liberty, low taxation, free market, etc., etc. This resembles today's Right about as much as Athenian democracy resembles the democracies of today.

 

Best summary eva

But for the free market, most people don't give a damn about their principles once their job and business is on the line.

 

You're absolutely right about that.

 

true. But the fact is it works, and while there may not be a truly free market to showcase,


China is a perfect example. When they opened their market to private enterprise, they showed remarkable growth.

Correct me if im wrong, but the percentage of Chinese that made a dollar of less a day went from 50% to 1%.

Too bad today's conservatives are bought and sold as commodities.

 

To me a conservative in the USA is a person who believes in limited government. The less laws the better. Humble foreign policy, no policing the world, staying out of wars. Sarah Palin is trying to project herself as a conservative no real conservative that I know would even think of voting for her.

Conservatism has been associated with the Republican party. But the republicans and the democrats are the same now they are both socialist and want complete control over every phase of our lives.

Too many people think the free market is what is causing the crash. It is the over regulation and government involvement in crushing certain markets so the Big Corporations can crush out the small business owner. Look at Monsanto taking over the farming industry and trying to make it illegal to use any other seeds other than their poison GMOs that even farm animals don't want to eat. Big Pharma is trying their dammedest to make herbs and vitamins impotent and/or illegal. They crush the free market by going and paying the government officials to make laws against the little guy who makes the free market work. These same people made pot illegal and intend to keep it illegal because they do not want the competition getting any kind of hold in the market. Our market is not free.

If the average person in the USA truly understood what is going on I think there would have already been a revolution and Monsanto and the pharmacuticle industry would have been knock back to the stone age. People ought to be terribly alarmed about what is happening to our food but everyone is so dumbed down from not having enough nutrition and watching too much TV. We are loosing a whole generation of thinkers.

If you want pot to be legal, the war to end, and to not have to get chipped you better get behind Ron Paul because he is the only person in goivernment that really addresses these things.

 

well yeah it works. any system works.
and there's other things to take into account than how much money they're making, or how much "growth" they made. "growth" in this term is market climbing.
good demonstration of american materialism

and being conservative isn't believing in small government cuz that's made on a generalization. being conservative is supporting the way things are or were. if you look at republicans, they're only half-way right-sided. they say freedom to the businesses but not drugs or gays. and if you check out the drug sections you'll find that that debate is blown out of the water with stupidity of what the conservatives have done. So if someone believed in freedom, it's definitely neither democrat or republican. Libertarians have the right idea but i suggest research the resource-based economy with an open mind. and message me if u have question or think its bs. i'm more than glad to discus it with you

 

Republicans are republicans, not too be confused with conservatives.

I respectfully disagree that every system works.

The fact is that 400 Million Chinese were raised from making a dollar a day, to ten times that. That is what a system is designed to do, in my humble opinion.

 

It looks like you are calling todays republicans conservative the real conservatives would legalize pot and would not stand in the way of gay marriage it that is what they want. A real conservative wants to mind their own business and help when needed but, not meddle in other peoples affairs.

"Mr. Conservative" William F. Buckley thought drugs should be legal. Here is a link to the 1st part of 3 videos watch all 3 and listen to the voice of real conservatism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDWpdLEbc1s

Many christians are very confused about what it is to be conservative while calling them selves so. It is clearly insane to try and control someones morals and even the most conservative person knows this because true conservatism is logical. A real conservative believes you can live your life any way you see fit as long as you do not infringe on my right to live my life the way I see fit and as long as you are not harming my family or property or other people's family or property.

 

every system works in terms of playing out. what people argue about is how to make it better. and if you think a system that makes people make money is better, i just don't know what to do but pity you. sorry if thats harsh. i think you should reconsider money. the definition of economy is how to organize resources. money is the process of organizing. its not what saves lives. with money, people should realize that when there is cash in your hand, there is it's debt somewhere else. Debt and the amount u have is parallel. so it's funny to see politicians and such that are gonna "get rid of debt". thats impossible if theres people like them. well it's possible but youre just transferring the debt to a different force.

i didnt mean to say the true conservative is republican, i was meaning to compliment the true conservative in saying they are not a republican. i guess i was just saying that republicans thining they are conservative are lame and that's already covered since before the original post. so nvm sorry

 

sadhu

You either didn’t read what I said or didn’t understand it (and it is just me I don’t know what you mean by “you guys”).

As I said there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what a ‘conservative’ is.

In the old soviet Russia there were what was termed conservatives and reformists within the ruling communist party and similarly today in Iran there are what are termed conservatives and reformists amongst the ruling Islamists.

And so to some modern Americans, conservatism means the belief in a small central government and the free market, but that is just an interpretation and seems in fact to be based on the flawed ideas of classical liberalism.

 

Again as I said it depends on what you mean by ‘the right’.

*

 

This is something that’s been commented on before in these forums – the way some free marketeer’s seem more interested in having a ‘free market’ government than having ‘good’ governance.

For example it is said that the free marketeer’s failed experiments in Chile could never have been possible without the suppression of Pinochet’s bloody handed dictatorship.

Also the thing is that the ‘reforms’ in China have produced a lot of civil unrest, with people complaining at the corruption, crime, employment conditions and there have been numerous strikes that have been reported and hints that other actions are taking place that we don’t hear about.

Things were pretty badly run in China by the old guard so that just an improvement in administration would probably have achieved similar results. But even then I wouldn’t have called it good governance.

*