Jump to content

Right-wing politics

Checked
Page protected with pending changes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from The right)
"Right-wing", "Political right", and "The Right" redirect here. For the term used in sport, see Winger (sports). For political freedoms, see Civil and political rights. For other uses, see Right (disambiguation).

Part of the Politics series
Party politics
Political spectrum
Left-wing
Centre
Right-wing
Major ideologies
Types
Leaders and organization
Internal elections
Party discipline
Party systems
Coalitions between parties
Lists of political parties
icon Politics portal

Right-wing politics is the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property, religion, or tradition.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences[11][12] or competition in market economies.[13][14][15]

Right-wing politics are considered the counterpart to left-wing politics, and the left–right political spectrum is the most common political spectrum.[16] The right includes social conservatives and fiscal conservatives,[17][18][19] as well as right-libertarians. "Right" and "right-wing" have been variously used as compliments and pejoratives describing neoliberal, conservative, and fascist economic and social ideas.[20]

Positions

[edit]

The following positions are typically associated with right-wing politics.

Anti-communism

[edit]

Early communists used the term "right-wing" in reference to conservatives, placing the conservatives on the right, the liberals in the centre and the communists on the left. Both the conservatives and the liberals were strongly anti-communist, although conservatives' anti-communism is much stronger than liberals'. The history of the use of the term right-wing about anti-communism is a complicated one.[21]

Early Marxist movements were at odds with the traditional monarchies that ruled over much of the European continent at the time. Many European monarchies outlawed the public expression of communist views and the Communist Manifesto, which began "[a] spectre [that] is haunting Europe", and stated that monarchs feared for their thrones. Advocacy of communism was illegal in the Russian Empire, the German Empire, and Austria-Hungary, the three most powerful monarchies in continental Europe before World War I. Many monarchists (except constitutional monarchists) viewed inequality in wealth and political power as resulting from a divine natural order. The struggle between monarchists and communists was often described as a struggle between the Right and the Left.

Anti-communist propaganda poster depicting the White movement which says "For a united Russia", 1919

By World War I, in most European monarchies the divine right of kings had become discredited and was replaced by liberal and nationalist movements. Most European monarchs became figureheads, or they yielded some power to elected governments. The most conservative European monarchy, the Russian Empire, was replaced by the communist Soviet Union. The Russian Revolution inspired a series of other communist revolutions across Europe in the years 1917–1923. Many of these, such as the German Revolution, were defeated by nationalist and monarchist military units. During this period, nationalism began to be considered right-wing, especially when it opposed the internationalism of the communists.

The 1920s and 1930s saw the decline of traditional right-wing politics. The mantle of conservative anti-communism was taken up by the rising fascist movements on the one hand and by American-inspired liberal conservatives on the other. When communist groups and political parties began appearing around the world, their opponents were usually colonial authorities and the term right-wing came to be applied to colonialism.

After World War II, communism became a global phenomenon and anti-communism became an integral part of the domestic and foreign policies of the United States and its NATO allies. Conservatism in the post-war era abandoned its monarchist and aristocratic roots, focusing instead on patriotism, religious values, and nationalism. Throughout the Cold War, postcolonial governments in Asia, Africa, and Latin America turned to the United States for political and economic support. Communists were also enemies of capitalism, portraying Wall Street as the oppressor of the masses. The United States made anti-communism the top priority of its foreign policy, and many American conservatives sought to combat what they saw as communist influence at home. This led to the adoption of several domestic policies that are collectively known under the term McCarthyism. While both liberals and conservatives were anti-communist, the followers of Senator McCarthy were called right-wing and those on the right called liberals who favored free speech, even for communists, leftist.[22]

Economics

[edit]
Main articles: Capitalism and Corporatism
Plato (left) and Aristotle (right)

Early forms of corporatism would be developed in Classical Greece and used in Ancient Rome. Plato would develop the ideas of totalitarian and communitarian corporatist systems of natural based classes and social hierarchies that would be organized based on function, such that groups would cooperate to achieve social harmony by emphasizing collectives interests over individual interests.[23][24] Corporatism as a political ideology advocates the organization of society by corporate groups—such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations—based on their common interests.[25][26]

After the decline of the Western Roman Empire corporatism became limited to religious orders and to the idea of Christian brotherhood, especially in the context of economic transactions.[24] From the High Middle Ages onwards corporatist organizations became increasingly common in Europe, including such groups as religious orders, monasteries, fraternities, military orders such as the Knights Templar and the Teutonic Order, educational organizations such as the emerging universities and learned societies, the chartered towns and cities, and most notably the guild system which dominated the economics of population centers in Europe.[24]

In post-revolutionary France, the Right fought against the rising power of those who had grown rich through commerce, and sought to preserve the rights of the hereditary nobility. They were uncomfortable with capitalism, the Enlightenment, individualism, and industrialism, and fought to retain traditional social hierarchies and institutions.[27][28] In Europe's history, there have been strong collectivist right-wing movements, such as in the social Catholic right, that have exhibited hostility to all forms of liberalism (including economic liberalism) and have historically advocated for paternalist class harmony involving an organic-hierarchical society where workers are protected while class hierarchy remains.[29]

In the nineteenth century, the Right had shifted to support the newly rich in some European countries (particularly Britain) and instead of favouring the nobility over industrialists, favoured capitalists over the working class. Other right-wing movements—such as Carlism in Spain and nationalist movements in France, Germany, and Russia—remained hostile to capitalism and industrialism. Nevertheless, a few right-wing movements—notably the French Nouvelle Droite, CasaPound, and American paleoconservatism—are often in opposition to capitalist ethics and the effects they have on society. These forces see capitalism and industrialism as infringing upon or causing the decay of social traditions or hierarchies that are essential for social order.[30]

In modern times, "right-wing" is sometimes used to describe laissez-faire capitalism. In Europe, capitalists formed alliances with the Right during their conflicts with workers after 1848. In France, the Right's support of capitalism can be traced to the late nineteenth century.[31] The so-called neoliberal Right, popularised by US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, combines support for free markets, privatisation, and deregulation with traditional right-wing support for social conformity.[9] Right-wing libertarianism (sometimes known as libertarian conservatism or conservative libertarianism) supports a decentralised economy based on economic freedom and holds property rights, free markets, and free trade to be the most important kinds of freedom. Political theorist Russell Kirk believed that freedom and property rights were interlinked.[32]

Nationalism

[edit]
Main articles: Nationalism and Neo-nationalism

In France, nationalism was originally a left-wing and republican ideology.[33] After the period of boulangisme and the Dreyfus affair, nationalism became a trait of the right-wing.[34] Right-wing nationalists sought to define and defend a "true" national identity from elements which they believed were corrupting that identity.[31] Some were supremacists, who in accordance with scientific racism and social Darwinism applied the concept of "survival of the fittest" to nations and races.[35]

Right-wing nationalism was influenced by Romantic nationalism in which the state derives its political legitimacy from the organic unity of those who it governs. This generally includes the language, race, culture, religion, and customs of the nation, all of which were "born" within its culture. Linked with right-wing nationalism is cultural conservatism, which supports the preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture and often sees deviations from cultural norms as an existential threat.[36][page needed]

In the 21st century, neo-nationalism came to prominence after the Cold War in the Western world. It is typically associated with cultural conservatism, populism, anti-globalization, and nativism and is opposed to immigration. The ideology takes historical association in determining membership in a nation, rather than racial concepts.[37][38]

Natural law and traditionalism

[edit]

Right-wing politics typically justifies a hierarchical society based on natural law or tradition.[6][7][8][9][10][39]

Traditionalism was advocated by a group of United States university professors (labelled the "New Conservatives" by the popular press) who rejected the concepts of individualism, liberalism, modernity, and social progress, seeking instead to promote what they identified as cultural and educational renewal[40] and a revived interest in concepts perceived by traditionalists as truths that endure from age to age alongside basic institutions of western society such as the church, the family, the state, and business.

Populism

[edit]
Main article: Right-wing populism
Tea Party protesters walk towards the United States Capitol during the Taxpayer March on Washington, 12 September 2009.

Right-wing populism is a combination of civic-nationalism, cultural-nationalism and sometimes ethno-nationalism, localism, along with anti-elitism, using populist rhetoric to provide a critique of existing political institutions.[41] According to Margaret Canovan, a right-wing populist is "a charismatic leader, using the tactics of politicians' populism to go past the politicians and intellectual elite and appeal to the reactionary sentiments of the populace, often buttressing his claim to speak for the people by the use of referendums".[42][page needed]

In Europe, right-wing populism often takes the form of distrust of the European Union, and of politicians in general, combined with anti-immigrant rhetoric and a call for a return to traditional, national values.[43] Daniel Stockemer states, the radical right is, "Targeting immigrants as a threat to employment, security and cultural cohesion."[44]

In the United States, the Tea Party movement stated that the core beliefs for membership were the primacy of individual liberties as defined by the Constitution of the United States, preference for a small federal government, and respect for the rule of law. Some policy positions included opposition to illegal immigration and support for a strong national military force, the right to individual gun ownership, cutting taxes, reducing government spending, and balancing the budget.[45]

In Indonesia, Islamic populism has a significant impact on right-wing politics.[46] This is largely due to the historical context which Islamic organizations had during the 1960s in destroying the Indonesian Communist Party.[46] Whilst the party is adopting democratic processes with neo-liberal market economies, socially pluralist positions aren't necessarily adopted.[46] The Islamic populism in Indonesia has boosted its influence in 1998 after the demise of the Suharto authoritarian regime.[46] Islamic populism in Indonesia has similar properties with Islamic populist regimes like in the Middle East, Turkey and North Africa (MENA).[46] The emphasis on social justice, pluralism, equality and progressive agendas could be potentially mobilized by Islamic cultural resources.[46]

In India, Bharatiya Janata Party supporters have more authoritarian, nativist, and populist ideas than other Indian citizens.[47] Under Narendra Modi, the BJP, populism is a core part of the party's ideology.[47] The main populist idea is that the ordinary, "good" individuals are continuously under attack from the "bad" political forces, media, etc.[47] Since Narendra Modi became the leader of the BJP, it has increasingly been associated as a populist radical right party (PRR), however, traditionally the party was viewed as a Hindu nationalist party.[47]

Religion

[edit]
Maharajadhiraja Prithvi Narayan Shah (1723–1775), King of Nepal, propagated the ideals of the Hindu text the Dharmasastra as his kingdom's ruling ideology.

Philosopher and diplomat Joseph de Maistre argued for the indirect authority of the Pope over temporal matters. According to Maistre, only governments which were founded upon Christian constitutions—which were implicit in the customs and institutions of all European societies, especially the Catholic European monarchies—could avoid the disorder and bloodshed that followed the implementation of rationalist political programs, such as the chaos which occurred during the French Revolution. Some prelates of the Church of England–established by Henry VIII and headed by the current sovereign—are given seats in the House of Lords (as Lords Spiritual), but they are considered politically neutral rather than specifically right- or left-wing.

American right-wing media outlets oppose sex outside marriage and same-sex marriage, and they sometimes reject scientific positions on evolution and other matters where science tends to disagree with the Bible.[48][49]

The term family values has been used by right-wing parties—such as the Republican Party in the United States, the Family First Party in Australia, the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, and the Bharatiya Janata Party in India—to signify support for traditional families and opposition to the changes the modern world has made in how families live. Supporters of "family values" may oppose abortion, euthanasia, and birth control.[50][51]

Outside the West, the Hindu nationalist movement has attracted privileged groups which fear encroachment on their dominant positions, as well as "plebeian" and impoverished groups which seek recognition around a majoritarian rhetoric of cultural pride, order, and national strength.[52]

In Israel, Meir Kahane advocated that Israel should be a theocratic state, where non-Jews have no voting rights,[53] and the far-right Lehava strictly opposes Jewish assimilation and the Christian presence in Israel.[54] The Jewish Defence League (JDL) in the United States was classified as "a right wing terrorist group" by the FBI in 2001.[55]

Many Islamist groups have been called right-wing, including the Great Union Party,[56] the Combatant Clergy Association/Association of Militant Clergy,[57][58] and the Islamic Society of Engineers of Iran.[59][60]

Social stratification

[edit]
Russell Kirk, 1963

Right-wing politics involves, in varying degrees, the rejection of some egalitarian objectives of left-wing politics, claiming either that social or economic inequality is natural and inevitable or that it is beneficial to society.[39] Right-wing ideologies and movements support social order. The original French right-wing was called "the party of order" and held that France needed a strong political leader to keep order.[31]

Conservative British scholar R. J. White, who rejects egalitarianism, wrote: "Men are equal before God and the laws, but unequal in all else; hierarchy is the order of nature, and privilege is the reward of honourable service".[61] American conservative Russell Kirk also rejected egalitarianism as imposing sameness, stating: "Men are created different; and a government that ignores this law becomes an unjust government for it sacrifices nobility to mediocrity".[61] Kirk took as one of the "canons" of conservatism the principle that "civilized society requires orders and classes".[32] Italian scholar Norberto Bobbio argued that the right-wing is inegalitarian compared to the left-wing, as he argued that equality is a relative, not absolute, concept.[62]

Right libertarians reject collective or state-imposed equality as undermining reward for personal merit, initiative, and enterprise.[61] In their view, such imposed equality is unjust, limits personal freedom, and leads to social uniformity and mediocrity.[61]

In the view of philosopher Jason Stanley in How Fascism Works, the "politics of hierarchy" is one of the hallmarks of fascism, which refers to a "glorious past" in which members of the rightfully dominant group sat atop the hierarchy, and attempt to recreate this state of being.[63]

History

[edit]

According to The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, the Right has gone through five distinct historical stages:[64]

  1. The reactionary right sought a return to aristocracy and established religion.
  2. The moderate right distrusted intellectuals and sought limited government.
  3. The radical right favored a romantic and aggressive form of nationalism.
  4. The extreme right proposed anti-immigration policies and implicit racism.
  5. The neo-liberal right sought to combine a market economy and economic deregulation with the traditional right-wing beliefs in patriotism, elitism and law and order.[10][page needed]

The political terms Left and Right were first used in the 18th century, during the French Revolution, referencing the seating arrangement of the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the chair of the presiding officer (le président) were generally supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Old Regime.[27][65][66][31] The original "Right" in France was formed in reaction to the "Left" and comprised those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[5]: 693  The expression la droite ("the right") increased in use after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the ultra-royalists.[67]

From the 1830s to the 1880s, the Western world's social class structure and economy shifted from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism.[68] This shift affected centre-right movements such as the British Conservative Party, which responded supporting capitalism.[69]

The people of English-speaking countries did not apply the terms right and left to their politics until the 20th century.[70] The term right-wing was originally applied to traditional conservatives, monarchists, and reactionaries; a revision of this which occurred sometime between the 1920s and 1950s considers the far-right to denote fascism, Nazism, and racial supremacy.[71]

Rightist regimes were common in Europe in the Interwar period, 1919–1938.[citation needed]

China

[edit]

Republic of China (1912–1949)

[edit]

Among Kuomintang (KMT)'s conservatives during the Republic of China, Dai Jitao Thought supporters formed the Western Hills Group in the 1920s.

Chiang Kai-shek initially claimed himself as a 'centrist' in the KMT left-right conflict, but became an anti-communist right-wing after Shanghai massacre. Chiangism (or 'Chiang Kai-shek Thought') was related to Confucianism, party-state capitalism, paternalistic conservatism, and Chinese nationalism.

People's Republic of China

[edit]

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) describes itself as Marxist, and has not officially abandoned leftist ideology, Marxism–Leninism, or socialism with Chinese characteristics. Christer Pursiainen has characterized the CCP as a right-wing political party,[72] pointing to an ideological change within the party under Jiang Zemin's leadership during the 1990s.[72]

Neoauthoritarianism is a current of political thought that rose in China in the late 1980's and came into ascendancy after the death of Deng Xiaoping; it advocates a powerful state to facilitate market reforms.[73] It has been described as right-wing, classically conservative even though it incorporated some aspects of Marxist-Leninist and Maoist theories.[74][75]

France

[edit]
See also: Left–right politics

The political term right-wing was first used during the French Revolution, when liberal deputies of the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the presiding officer's chair, a custom that began in the Estates General of 1789. The nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right. In the successive legislative assemblies, monarchists who supported the Old Regime were commonly referred to as rightists because they sat on the right side. A major figure on the right was Joseph de Maistre, who argued for an authoritarian form of conservatism.

Throughout France in the 19th century, the main line dividing the left and right was between supporters of the republic and those of the monarchy, who were often secularist and Catholic respectively.[31] On the right, the Legitimists and Ultra-royalists held counter-revolutionary views, while the Orléanists hoped to create a constitutional monarchy under their preferred branch of the royal family, which briefly became a reality after the 1830 July Revolution.

The centre-right Gaullists in post-World War II France advocated considerable social spending on education and infrastructure development as well as extensive economic regulation, but limited the wealth redistribution measures characteristic of social democracy.[citation needed]

Hungary

[edit]

The dominance of the political right of inter-war Hungary, after the collapse of a short-lived Communist regime, was described by historian István Deák:

Between 1919 and 1944 Hungary was a rightist country. Forged out of a counter-revolutionary heritage, its governments advocated a "nationalist Christian" policy; they extolled heroism, faith, and unity; they despised the French Revolution, and they spurned the liberal and socialist ideologies of the 19th century. The governments saw Hungary as a bulwark against bolshevism and bolshevism's instruments: socialism, cosmopolitanism, and Freemasonry. They perpetrated the rule of a small clique of aristocrats, civil servants, and army officers, and surrounded with adulation the head of the state, the counterrevolutionary Admiral Horthy.[76]

India

[edit]

Although freedom fighters are favoured, the right-wing tendency to elect or appoint politicians and government officials based on aristocratic and religious ties is common to almost all the states of India.[77][78][79][80] Multiple political parties however identify with terms and beliefs which are, by political consensus, right or left wing. Certain political parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, identify with conservative[81] and nationalist elements. Some, such as the Indian National Congress, take a liberal stance. The Communist Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist), and others, identify with left-wing socialist and communist concepts. Other political parties take differing stands, and hence cannot be clearly grouped as the left- and the right-wing.[82]

United Kingdom

[edit]
1909 Conservative Party poster

In British politics, the terms right and left came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s during debates over the Spanish Civil War.[83]

United States

[edit]
American anti-communist propaganda of the 1950s, specifically addressing the entertainment industry

In the United States, following the Second World War, social conservatives joined with right-wing elements of the Republican Party to gain support in traditionally Democratic voting populations like white southerners and Catholics. Ronald Reagan's election to the presidency in 1980 cemented the alliance between the religious right in the United States and social conservatives.[84]

In 2019, the United States populace leaned center-right, with 37% of Americans self-identifying as conservative, compared to 35% moderate and 24% liberal. This was continuing a decades long trend of the country leaning center-right.[85]

The United States Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism in the United States as "broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."[86]

Types

[edit]

The meaning of right-wing "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[87] According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, and nationalists, as well as fascists on the far-right.[88]

British academics Noël O'Sullivan and Roger Eatwell divide the right into five types: reactionary, moderate, radical, extreme, and new.[89] Chip Berlet wrote that each of these "styles of thought" are "responses to the left", including liberalism and socialism, which have arisen since the 1789 French Revolution.[90]

  1. The reactionary right looks toward the past and is "aristocratic, religious and authoritarian".[90]
  2. The moderate right, typified by the writings of Edmund Burke, is tolerant of change, provided it is gradual and accepts some aspects of liberalism, including the rule of law and capitalism, although it sees radical laissez-faire and individualism as harmful to society. The moderate right often promotes nationalism and social welfare policies.[91]
  3. Radical right is a descriptive term that was developed after World War II and it was applied to groups and ideologies such as McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, Thatcherism, and the Republikaner Party. Eatwell stresses that this usage of the term has "major typological problems" because it "has also been applied to clearly democratic developments."[92] The radical right includes right-wing populism and various other subtypes.[90]
  4. The extreme right has four traits: "1) anti-democracy, 2) ultranationalism, 3) racism, and 4) the strong state."[93]
  5. The New Right consists of the liberal conservatives, who stress small government, free markets, and individual initiative.[94]

Other authors make a distinction between the centre-right and the far-right.[95]

  • Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (though they may accept government regulation to control monopolies), private property rights, and a limited welfare state (for example, government provision of education and medical care). They support conservatism and economic liberalism and oppose socialism and communism.
  • By contrast, the phrase "far-right" is used to describe those who favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and criminalize other ethnic groups or religions.[96][97][98][99][100] Typical examples of leaders to whom the far-right label is often applied are: Francisco Franco in Spain, Benito Mussolini in Italy, Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina.[101][102][42][page needed][103][104][105]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Johnson, Paul (2005). "Right-wing, rightist". A Politics Glossary. Auburn University website. Archived from the original on 19 August 2014. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
  2. ^ Bobbio, Norberto; Cameron, Allan (1996). Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 51, 62. ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4.
  3. ^ Goldthorpe, J.E. (1985). An Introduction to Sociology (Third ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-521-24545-6.
  4. ^ "Right". Encyclopædia Britannica. 15 April 2009. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
  5. ^ a b Carlisle, Rodney P. (2005). Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right. Thousand Oaks [u.a.]: SAGE Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4129-0409-4.
  6. ^ a b T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."
  7. ^ a b Left and right: the significance of a political distinction, Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, p. 37, University of Chicago Press, 1997.
  8. ^ a b Seymour Martin Lipset, cited in Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. 1990. The left-right schema. pp. 203–34 in Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, ed.M.Jennings et al. Berlin:de Gruyter
  9. ^ a b c Lukes, Steven (2003). "Epilogue: The Grand Dichotomy of the Twentieth Century". In Ball, Terence; Bellamy, Richard (eds.). The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 610–612. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521563543.030. ISBN 9780521563543. OCLC 7334137654.
  10. ^ a b c Clark, William Roberts (2003). Capitalism, Not Globalism: Capital Mobility, Central Bank Independence, and the Political Control of the Economy ([Online-Ausg.]. ed.). Ann Arbor [u.a.]: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11293-7.[page needed]
  11. ^ Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.'
  12. ^ Gidron, N; Ziblatt, D. (2019). "Center-right political parties in advanced democracies 2019" (PDF). Annual Review of Political Science. 22: 23. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-090717-092750. Defining the right by its adherence to the status quo is closely associated with a definition of the right as a defense of inequality (Bobbio 1996, Jost 2009, Luna & Kaltwasser 2014). As noted by Jost (2009), within the context of Western political development, opposition to change is often synonymous with support for inequality. Notwithstanding its prominence in the literature, we are hesitant to adopt this definition of the right since it requires the researcher to interpret ideological claims according to an abstract understanding of equality. For instance, Noel & Therien (2008) argue that right-wing opposition to affirmative action speaks in the name of equality and rejects positive discrimination based on demographic factors. From this perspective, the right is not inegalitarian but is "differently egalitarian" (Noel & Therien 2008, p. 18).
  13. ^ Scruton, Roger "A Dictionary of Political Thought" "Defined by contrast to (or perhaps more accurately conflict with) the left the term right does not even have the respectability of a history. As now used it denotes several connected and also conflicting ideas (including) 1)conservative, and perhaps authoritarian, doctrines concerning the nature of civil society, with emphasis on custom, tradition, and allegiance as social bonds ... 8) belief in free enterprise free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom and suited to the temporary nature of human aspirations ..." pp. 281–2, Macmillan, 1996
  14. ^ Goldthorpe, J.E. (1985). An Introduction to Sociology (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-521-24545-6. There are ... those who accept inequality as natural, normal, and even desirable. Two main lines of thought converge on the Right or conservative side...the truly Conservative view is that there is a natural hierarchy of skills and talents in which some people are born leaders, whether by heredity or family tradition. ... now ... the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one.
  15. ^ Gidron, N; Ziblatt, D. (2019). "Center-right political parties in advanced democracies 2019" (PDF). Annual Review of Political Science. 22: 24. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-090717-092750. S2CID 182421002. ...since different currents within the right are drawn to different visions of societal structures. For example, market liberals see social relations as stratified by natural economic inequalities.
  16. ^ McClosky, Herbert; Chong, Dennis (July 1985). "Similarities and Differences Between Left-Wing and Right-Wing Radicals". British Journal of Political Science. 15 (3): 329–363. doi:10.1017/S0007123400004221. ISSN 1469-2112. S2CID 154330828.
  17. ^ Leonard V. Kaplan, Rudy Koshar, The Weimar Moment: Liberalism, Political Theology, and Law (2012) p. 7–8.
  18. ^ Alan S. Kahan, Mind Vs. Money: The War Between Intellectuals and Capitalism (2010), p. 184.
  19. ^ Jerome L. Himmelstein, To the right: The transformation of American conservatism (1992).
  20. ^ Wright, Edmund, ed. (2006). The Desk Encyclopedia of World History. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 370, 541. ISBN 978-0-7394-7809-7.
  21. ^ Hendershot, Cyndy (2003). Anti-Communism and Popular Culture in Mid-Century America. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland. ISBN 978-0786414406.
  22. ^ Nunberg, Geoffrey (17 April 2003). "Sticks and Stones; The Defanging of a Radical Epithet". The New York Times.
  23. ^ Adler, Franklin Hugh. Italian Industrialists from Liberalism to Fascism: The Political Development of the Industrial Bourgeoisie, 1906–34. p. 349.
  24. ^ a b c Wiarda, Howard J. (1997). Corporatism and comparative politics: the other great "ism". Comparative politics series. Armonk, NY: Sharpe. ISBN 978-1-56324-716-3.
  25. ^ Wiarda, Howard J. (1997). Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great "Ism". M.E. Sharpe. pp. 27, 141.
  26. ^ Clarke, Paul A. B; Foweraker, Joe. Encyclopedia of democratic thought. London, UK; New York, US: Routledge, 2001. Pp. 113
  27. ^ a b Goodsell, Charles T., "The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture", British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (July 1988), pp. 287–302.
  28. ^ Marty, Martin E.; Appleby, R. Scott (1994). Fundamentalisms Observed (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-226-50878-8. Reactionary right-wing themes emphasizing authority, social hierarchy, and obedience, as well as condemnations of liberalism, the democratic ethos, the "rights of man" associated with the legacy of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and the political and cultural ethos of modern liberal democracy are especially prominent in the writings and public statements of Archbishop Lefebvre.
  29. ^ Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age, 1740–1958. Paulist Press, 2003, p. 132.
  30. ^ Payne, Stanley G. (1983). Fascism: Comparison and Definition. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-299-08064-8. Right radicals and conservative authoritarians almost without exception became corporatists in formal doctrines of political economy, but the fascists were less explicit and in general less schematic.
  31. ^ a b c d e Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright (2006). The Government and Politics of France. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35732-6.
  32. ^ a b John, David C. (21 November 2003). "The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement". heritage.org. Archived from the original on 8 March 2010. Retrieved 13 May 2010.
  33. ^ Doyle, William (2002). The Oxford History of the French Revolution (2nd ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-925298-5. An exuberant, uncompromising nationalism lay behind France's revolutionary expansion in the 1790s...", "The message of the French Revolution was that the people are sovereign; and in the two centuries since it was first proclaimed it has conquered the world.
  34. ^ Winock, Michel (dir.), Histoire de l'extrême droite en France (1993).
  35. ^ Adams, Ian Political Ideology Today (2nd edition), Manchester University Press, 2002, p. 68.
  36. ^ Ramet, Sabrina; Griffin, Roger (1999). The Radical Right in Central and Eastern Europe since 1989. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0271018119.
  37. ^ Barber, Tony (11 July 2016). "A renewed nationalism is stalking Europe". Financial Times. Retrieved 23 September 2023.
  38. ^ "Neo-Nationalism - ECPS". Retrieved 23 September 2023.
  39. ^ a b Left and right: the significance of a political distinction, Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, pg. 68, University of Chicago Press, 1997.
  40. ^ Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer and Jeffrey O. Nelson, ed. (2006) American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, p. 870.
  41. ^ Mudde, Cas and Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal (2017) Populism: a Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.14-15, 72-73. ISBN 978-0-19-023487-4
  42. ^ a b Canovan, Margaret (1981). Populism (1st ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ISBN 978-0151730780.
  43. ^ Hayward, Jack (2004). Elitism, Populism, and European Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198280354.
  44. ^ Daniel Stockemer, "Structural data on immigration or immigration perceptions? What accounts for the electoral success of the radical right in Europe?." JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 54.4 (2016): 999-1016.
  45. ^ "About Us". Tea Party. 2 September 2004. Retrieved 15 November 2016.
  46. ^ a b c d e f Hadiz, Vedi R. (8 August 2018). "Imagine All the People? Mobilising Islamic Populism for Right-Wing Politics in Indonesia". Journal of Contemporary Asia. 48 (4): 566–583. doi:10.1080/00472336.2018.1433225. ISSN 0047-2336.
  47. ^ a b c d Ammassari, Sofia; Fossati, Diego; McDonnell, Duncan (October 2023). "Supporters of India's BJP: Distinctly Populist and Nativist". Government and Opposition. 58 (4): 807–823. doi:10.1017/gov.2022.18. ISSN 0017-257X.
  48. ^ DeGette, Diana (2008). Sex, Science, and Stem Cells: Inside the Right Wing Assault on Reason. The Lyons Press. ISBN 978-1-59921-431-3.
  49. ^ Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science: Revised and Updated, ASIN: B001OQOIPM
  50. ^ "2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America" (PDF). MSNBC. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 May 2012. Retrieved 23 July 2012.
  51. ^ Rozsa, Matthew (5 July 2019). "How did the Republican Party become so conservative?". Salon. Retrieved 7 March 2022. To understand how the Republican Party became associated with right-wing politics — and, for that matter, how the Democratic Party became associated with a left-wing, progressive philosophy — it is essential to understand the history of the Grand Old Party.
  52. ^ Thomas Blom Hansen, The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India, Princeton University Press, 2001, ISBN 1-4008-0342-X, 9781400803422.
  53. ^ "Israel's Ayatollahs: Meir Kahane and the Far Right in Israel". Archived from the original on 19 February 2009. Any non-Jew, including the Arabs, can have the status of a foreign resident in Israel if he accepts the law of the Halacha. I don't differentiate between Arabs and non-Arabs. The only difference I make is between Jews and non-Jews. If a non-Jew wants to live here, he must agree to be a foreign resident, be he Arab or not. He does not have and cannot have national rights in Israel. He can have civil rights, social rights, but he cannot be a citizen; he won't have the right to vote. Again, whether he's Arab or not.
  54. ^ Rubin, Shira (24 December 2015). "Good Will and Peace Towards Men Elusive This Year in Nazareth". Forward.
  55. ^ "FBI — Terrorism 2000/2001". Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  56. ^ Demirtas, Burcu (27 March 2009). "Rescue Teams Could Not Reach Turkish Party Leader, Muhsin Yazicioglu after Helicopter Crash". Turkishweekly.net. Archived from the original on 5 March 2012. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  57. ^ "Readings". uvm.edu. Fall 2007. Archived from the original on 6 October 2012. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  58. ^ "Poll test for Iran reformists". BBC News. 10 February 2000. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  59. ^ "Middle East Report Online: Iran's Conservatives Face the Electorate, by Arang Keshavarzian". Merip.org. 23 May 1997. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 13 May 2010.
  60. ^ Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Mahjoob Zweiri, Iran and the rise of its neoconservatives: the politics of Tehran's silent revolution, I.B. Tauris, 2007.
  61. ^ a b c d Moyra Grant. Key Ideas in Politics. Cheltenham, England, UK: Nelson Thornes, Ltd., 2003. p. 52.
  62. ^ Bobbio, Norberto. Left and right: The significance of a political distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1996, pp.60-62
  63. ^ Stanley, Jason (2018) How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. New York: Random House. p.13. ISBN 978-0-52551183-0
  64. ^ Ball, T. and R. Bellamy, eds., The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, pp. 610–12.
  65. ^ Linski, Gerhard, Current Issues and Research In Macrosociology (Brill Archive, 1984) p. 59
  66. ^ Clark, Barry Political Economy: A Comparative Approach (Praeger Paperback, 1998), pp. 33–34.
  67. ^ Gauchet, Marcel, "Right and Left" in Nora, Pierre, ed., Realms of Memory: Conflicts and Divisions (1996) pp. 247–248.
  68. ^ Alan S. Kahan. Mind Vs. Money: The War Between Intellectuals and Capitalism. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2010. p. 88.
  69. ^ Ian Adams. Political Ideology Today. Manchester, England, UK; New York, New York, US: Manchester University Press, 2001. p. 57.
  70. ^ The English Ideology: Studies in the Language of Victorian Politics, George Watson Allen Lane, London, 1973, p. 94.
  71. ^ Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Right (-wing)...and for extreme right parties racism and fascism., p. 465, Oxford, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920780-0.
  72. ^ a b Christer Pursiainen (10 September 2012). At the Crossroads of Post-Communist Modernisation: Russia and China in Comparative Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 156. Consequently, the CCP's transformation into a right-wing elitist party occurred during the 1990s under Jiang Zeming's reign.
  73. ^ Bramall, Chris (2008). Chinese Economic Development. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-19051-5.
  74. ^ Yuezhi Zhao (20 March 2008). Communication in China: Political Economy, Power, and Conflict. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-7425-7428-1.
  75. ^ Sautman, Barry (1992). "Sirens of the Strongman: Neo-Authoritarianism in Recent Chinese Political Theory". The China Quarterly. 129 (129): 72–102. doi:10.1017/S0305741000041230. ISSN 0305-7410. JSTOR 654598. S2CID 154374469.
  76. ^ István Deák, "Hungary" in Hans Roger and Egon Weber, eds., The European right: A historical profile (1963) p 364-407 quoting p. 364.
  77. ^ "Right wing politics in India, by Archana Venkatesh". osu.edu. 1 October 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2020.
  78. ^ "Hindutva enters, takes centre-stage in Andhra Pradesh politics, by Balakrishna Ganeshan". thenewsminute.com. 1 October 2020. Retrieved 30 November 2020.
  79. ^ "India Will Move Beyond Modi, his Party, and Right Wing Populism, by Ajay Gudavarthy". newsclick.in. 11 July 2020. Retrieved 30 November 2020.
  80. ^ Rao, Jaithirth (25 October 2019). The Indian Conservative : A History of Indian Right-Wing Thought (First ed.). New Delhi: Juggernaut Press. p. 280. ISBN 978-9353450625.
  81. ^ IWANEK, Krzysztof (2019). "Is the BJP Conservative?". Politeja. 16 (59): 55–72. doi:10.12797/Politeja.16.2019.59.04. ISSN 1733-6716. JSTOR 26916353. S2CID 212822106.
  82. ^ Ghose, Sagarika (24 April 2013). "Left-wing or Right-wing: Why labels simply don't capture India". Firstpost. Retrieved 18 February 2021.
  83. ^ Charles Loch Mowat, Britain Between the Wars: 1918–1940 (1955), p. 577.
  84. ^ Farney, James (2012). Social Conservatives and Party Politics in Canada and the United States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-4426-1260-0.
  85. ^ "The U.S. Remained Center-Right, Ideologically, in 2019". Gallup. 9 January 2020. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  86. ^ "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" (PDF). United States Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  87. ^ Augoustinos, Martha; Walker, Iain; Donaghue, Ngaire (2006). Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. p. 320. ISBN 9780761942191.
  88. ^ McLean, Iain; McMillan, Alistair (2008). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 465. ISBN 9780199205165.
  89. ^ Davies, p. 13.
  90. ^ a b c Berlet, p. 117.
  91. ^ Eatwell: 1999, p. 284.
  92. ^ Eatwell: 2004, pp. 7–8.
  93. ^ Eatwell: 2004, p. 8, "Today four other traits feature most prominently in definitions: 1) anti-democracy; 2) nationalism; 3) racism; 4) the strong state".
  94. ^ Vincent, Andrew (1995). Modern Political Ideologies (2nd ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-19507-8. Who to include under the rubric of the New Right remains puzzling. It is usually seen as an amalgam of traditional liberal conservatism, Austrian liberal economic theory ... extreme libertarianism (anarch-capitalism) and crude populism.
  95. ^ Betz & Immerfall 1998; Betz 1994; Durham 2000; Durham 2002; Hainsworth 2000; Mudde 2000; Berlet & Lyons, 2000.
  96. ^ Davies, Peter; Davies, Peter Jonathan; Lynch, Derek (2002). The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-21495-7. Retrieved 13 May 2010. far right.
  97. ^ Durham, Martin (2000). The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-5486-0. Retrieved 13 May 2010.
  98. ^ Merkl, Peter H.; Weinberg, Leonard; Leonard, Weinberg; Merkl, Professor Peter (30 June 2000). Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-7146-5182-8. Retrieved 13 May 2010.
  99. ^ Eatwell, Roger; Mudde, Cas (2004). Western Democracies and the New Extreme Right Challenge. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-36971-8. Retrieved 13 May 2010.
  100. ^ "Pim Fortuyn: The far-right Dutch maverick". BBC News. 7 March 2002. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  101. ^ "A Dictator's Legacy of Economic Growth". NPR. 14 September 2006. Retrieved 15 October 2007.
  102. ^ Greenwald, Glenn (31 May 2012). "Glenn Greenwald". Salon.com. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  103. ^ Betz, Hans-Georg (1994). Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-08390-8.
  104. ^ Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Cote Jr., Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, "Anti-immigrant and anti-refugee feeling is being exploited by extreme right-wing parties throughout Europe...", p. 442, MIT Press, 2001, ISBN 978-0-262-52315-8.
  105. ^ La teoría social latinoamericana: La centralidad del Marxismo (in Spanish). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Coordinación de Estudios Latinoamericanos, Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico. 1995. ISBN 978-968-36-4710-8.

Further reading

[edit]
  • Bacchetta, Paola, and Margaret Power, eds. 2002. Right-Wing Women: From Conservatives to Extremists around the World. New York: Routledge.
  • Berlet, Chip. 2006. "When Alienation turns Right." In The Evolution of Alienation: Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium, edited by Langman, Lauren, and Kalekin-Fishman. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-1835-3, ISBN 978-0-7425-1835-3
  • Davies, Peter. 2002. The Extreme Right in France, 1789 to the Present: From De Maistre to Le Pen. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-23982-6, ISBN 978-0-415-23982-0.
  • Eatwell, Roger. 1999. "Conclusion: The 'End of Ideology'." In Contemporary Political Ideologies, edited by R. Eatwell and A. Wright. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8264-5173-X, ISBN 9780826451736.
  • —— 2004. "Introduction: the new extreme right challenge." In Western Democracies and the new Extreme Right Challenge, edited by R. Eatwell and C. Muddle. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-36971-1, ISBN 978-0-415-36971-8
  • Fielitz, Maik, and Laura Lotte Laloire, eds. 2016. Trouble on the Far Right. Contemporary Right-Wing Strategies and Practices in Europe. Bielefeld: transcript. ISBN 978-3-8376-3720-5
  • Gottlieb, Julie, and Clarisse Berethezéne, eds. 2017. Rethinking right-wing women: Gender and the Conservative Party, 1880s to the present.
  • Miles, Michael W. (1980). The Odyssey of the American Right. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195027747.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&oldid=1264026680"