on
What is Right-wing and Why Would Someone Want to be Right-wing?
This is in response to the blog post Should there be political parties in the United States?.
This is part 1 of what will probably be a few to flesh out the ideas presented in the blog post.
The post just presents ideas in a thought experiment. So, I do think the writer will have more nuanced views. But I will just go off what is written.
My political position is more of a conservative libertarian. Although I espouse conservative ideals I reject forcing them on others.
What is right-wing?
According to Wikipedia right-wing means:
Right-wing politics supports the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies. Right-wing politics are considered the counterpart to left-wing politics, and the left–right political spectrum is one of the most widely accepted political spectrums.
The term right-wing can generally refer to the section of a political party or system that advocates free enterprise and private ownership, and typically favours socially traditional ideas.
The Right includes social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, while a minority of right-wing movements, such as fascists, harbor anti-capitalist sentiments. The Right also includes certain groups who are social liberal but fiscally conservative, such as right-wing libertarians.
I’m not sure how fascism fits into the Right as it rejects capitalism and it rejects social conservatism. It wants to destroy the social order of society in favor of everything being for the State and not the individual. I agree with the sentiment that it was the communist historians that painted fascism as right-wing because Hitler persecuted the communists - so it must be right-wing, right? Well, no, it was just a bunch of socialists vying for power.
Why would one choose right-wing ideals?
There are various reasons people would choose to be right-wing. Some do because it is pragmatic, some do because they see the ends which they want to achieve and see that the free market would best achieve those goals, some choose it because of a moral foundation.
Socially, why would someone choose to be right-wing? I think most people view conserving social values to be a stabilizing force in society. Thomas Sowell goes in depth in how encouraging blacks to reject families has hurt that segment of the population. So, conserving those values would have helped the blacks in the long run.
The Moral Foundation of the Free Market
The moral foundation among many libertarians can be summed up in the non-aggression principle.
The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.
The origins of the non-aggression principle can be found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as in Eastern philosophies such as Taoism.
The idea that these morals not only apply to men, but also to government is strongly held among those who truly advocate for the free market. This leads to the desire for individual liberty. Removing a free market necessarily rejects, at least in part, liberty.
A sampling of morals found in the scriptures are listed below.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Propping up the government to do what man was commanded to do places the State as god rather than God.
Thou shalt not steal.
It isn’t OK to take others' money by force from them. Just because the government does it doesn’t take away the morality of the question.
A great sermon on the subject was done by Pastor Bradley J. Helgerson Working is Better than Stealing.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Looking at others' money and saying, “They don’t need that. Let me take it and give it to the poor.” Is coveting others' wealth. Just because the government does it doesn’t take away the morality of the question.
Following from the first commandment, in Mormonism there is the concept of Satan’s plan versus Christ’s plan. Satan’s plan would take away the agency of man. Likewise, compulsory “giving” takes away a person’s agency. This is also similar to the liberty argument on why a conservative would be against government mandated welfare. It also takes away the consequences of bad moral choices and causes decay in society.
Another problem with government welfare is that people become vassals to the state. Another way to view it is that people become subjects rather than citizens of the country. Leon Trotsky said it best when he said as a critique of Stalin, “The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”
He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster.
— Proverbs 18:9
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
— 1 Timothy 5:8
Christianity has a deep doctrine in individualism which has helped the United States become as wealthy as it is now. It has helped end slavery around the world through those that advocated the end of slavery in Great Britain.
If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth. … For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
— Deuteronomy 15:7,8,11
Christians believe that the individual is responsible for caring for the poor as commanded by Christ. Not the State. And [individualistic societies have been shown to be more caring for others].(https://reason.com/2021/05/28/more-individualism-means-more-altruism/)
Property Rights
A core tenant to liberty is property rights. Human rights are property rights. They are inextricably interconnected.
In short, there are no human rights that are separable from property rights. The human right of free speech is only the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, to speak to those who are willing to listen, to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and sell them to those who are willing to buy. There is no extra right of free speech beyond the property rights that we can enumerate in any given case. In all seeming cases of human rights, then, the proper course is to find and identify the property rights involved. And this procedure will resolve any apparent conflicts of rights; for property rights are always precise and legally recognizable.
This is a core tenant of being “right-wing.” Many of the morals explained above are based on the idea of property rights. When you take away property rights or weaken property rights you weaken all of society. You make people less trustful of one another and less cooperative.
On Liberty
Broadly speaking, liberty is the ability to do as one pleases, or a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant (i.e. privilege). It is a synonym for the word freedom. In modern politics, liberty is the state of being free within society from control or oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behaviour, or political views. In philosophy, liberty involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of “sin, spiritual servitude, [or] worldly ties”. Sometimes liberty is differentiated from freedom by using the word “freedom” primarily, if not exclusively, to mean the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; and using the word “liberty” to mean the absence of arbitrary restraints, taking into account the rights of all involved. In this sense, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others. Thus liberty entails the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom. Freedom is more broad in that it represents a total lack of restraint or the unrestrained ability to fulfill one’s desires. For example, a person can have the freedom to murder, but not have the liberty to murder, as the latter example deprives others of their right not to be harmed. Liberty can be taken away as a form of punishment. In many countries, people can be deprived of their liberty if they are convicted of criminal acts.
What is this all for? It is so man might be free. To live his own life for his own self and not for others. Yes, you can still help others - and that is a good thing. But there is no coercion to force you to live for another person.
On Changing Definitions
After reading the Wikipedia definition of right-wing, I feel like I relate to its definition quite a bit. But I don’t think most people that consider themselves “right-wing” really believe in individualism, liberalism, a small government, etc. Many on the left falsely believe that fascism is right-wing (as pointed out in the Wikipedia article). Not only that, but many things which were considered “right-wing” when the term was originated were actually “left-wing!” That’s why I typically call myself a conservative libertarian. I believe that traditional values are important for a properly functioning society but I reject the use of initiation of force to enact those moral values unless the person is the one initiating the violence.
In the linked article you will find the short history of the definitions of left and right wing politics and how those terms are problematic in today’s world.
Changes to this article
2022-01-06: Added Leon Trotsky quote. 2022-01-09: Added comment on how individualist societies care more for others.