Oh, hi. To be honest, I don't really remember what I said. But I don't believe I have any special insights, so it's no great loss
Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 11:58 am
I don't really agree, and to make my point, I'll try to reconstruct Ares Land's old point from memory:
That's indeed more or less what I think, and probably what I'd written back then. I'd state things a bit differently now, so here goes.
Being right-wing is the belief that the culture one lives in, the way it runs its economy, the way it handles matters such as sex, gender, social hierarchies, politeness, language, ownership follows a natural law, a product of human nature or biology, or perhaps even granted directly by God. It should not be questioned. Left-wingers mistakenly believe they can deviate from that natural law; more worryingly, they already have implemented several deviations -- which can only lead to disaster.
Being left-wing is the belief that the culture one lives in is largely arbitrary, that everything about it should be questioned and that when it is unfair -- and it is -- it can and should be changed by human effort, concerted decision-making, informed by reason. Right-wingers benefit from the current unfair arrangement -- privilege and worryingly resist or even overturn attempts at improvement.
Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 1:51 pm
In general this is probably it, but one should consider the existence of
revolutionary right-wing ideologies, e.g. fascism, which seek to create a New Order of one sort or another rather than uphold a traditional order.
I think fascists fit the definition above -- it's the belief that the deviations from the natural order are so severe that they justify violence -- because the wrong kind of people have taken over.
Ditto with left authoritarians... if you believe the opposition is so strong it prevents all effective change... violence and dictatorship start to feel justified.
zompist wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 3:44 pm
I think it'd be more predictive to say that right-wingers don't favor old institutions, they favor old hierarchies, in particular the ones they feel they belong to.
True, though these days right-wingers simply deny hierarchies. Right-wingers don't insist that patriarchy is good -- they'll tell you feminists are imagining things, or maybe that men and women have complementary roles.
zompist wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 3:44 pmEven more predictive is that the right is on the side of Money; everything else is theater. This explains a lot better why (for instance) Trump passed tax cuts but was unable to pass the anti-left reforms the conservatives wanted.
Also a very good definition tbh when it comes to the politicians. Perhaps harder for voters; or when explaining the difference between the far-right and the regular one.
There is something about the political compass too. There's in fact no reason why free-market fanatics shouldn't be liberal on other issues, for instance -- and that was the whole pretense of the libertarian party... but it just doesn't happen, or it isn't very stable over time.
It may be different in Europe, but in the US right-wingers are distrustful of academics, science, the federal government, mainstream Protestant denominations, the mainstream media, and these days, NATO. (They always disliked the UN.) But arguably this is because extremists took over the GOP; establishmentarian conservatives used to exist.
I think right-wingers are more attached to cultures and unspoken social conventions than actual formal institutions. One important bit is the natural antagonism between left and right; both sides define themselves in reaction to the other; an important part of fascism is the belief that the 'Wrong People' have taken over.