What are right-wing/conservative politics if not the preservation of social heirarchy?

Author: Username

Posts

Total: 126
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Username
What are right-wing/conservative politics if not the preservation of social heirarchy?
Or the preservation of traditional social institutions. Really curious how you could define this any differently.
The RIGHT WING/LEFT WING distinction originates in the first parliaments of the French Revolution

"the Baron de Gauville, explained: 'We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.'

That's quite clear, the right wing prioritizes god & king.

RIGHT-WING politics "holds 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 viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies. The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system....Although the term right-wing originated with traditional conservatives, monarchists, and reactionaries, the term extreme right-wing has been applied to movements including fascism, Nazism, and racial supremacy."

CONSERVATISM, on the other hand, is "a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.  Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity.  The more traditional elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to 'the way things were"'

So I think your definition is right on.  I think we have to be careful about associating American Conservatism too closely with the American right wing these days because the 21st century right-wing has little interest in American traditions.

Take voting rights, for example.  American Conservatives must uphold the franchise as a constitutional and indeed God given right.  Right WIngers believe in reserving that franchise for right-wingers wherever possible. 

  • Yesterday, Trump explained his reason for defunding the Post Office, "They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots, If they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.
    • That's quite explicit- Trump opposes the Post Office because TRump opposes universal voting. 
  • Yesterday,White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow argued, "So much of the, uh, uh, Democratic, uh, asks, are really liberal left wish lists, as we don’t want a — vote —  you know, voting rights, and aid to aliens, and so forth. That’s not our game."
    • Most of the Right Wing is on board with the statement, "voting rights is not our game" but no American Conservative could possibly abide such a statement.
George Bush Sr, John McCain, MItt Romney, George Will, are examples of American who were once both Right Wing and Conservative but are now nowhere near the Right Wing while remaining conservative as the RIght WIng warps and mutates into something increasingly unrecognizable to traditional Americans.

Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Vader
That's a fair example, but that can be equally the same if power is given in the wrong hands as well. If we look at the Soviet Union, millions of people died in their care because of a strong national government

Okay the initial claim is that conservatives are protecting freedom because they oppose state intervention in the economy (even this isn't always true, see people like Nick Fuentes). My point is that this is not neccesarily true. What economic system (socialism vs. capitalism, keynseanism vs. lazziez-faire capitalism) allows for the most freedom is one of the, if not the, principle economic debates of the past 100 years, and I've given you some arguments from the leftist lane just to substantiate that claim. 

You take GWB and apply it to all scenarios. I have no problem with military. We have to defend ourselves from a threat in China, who is rapidly growing is there military and certainly becoming more aggressive in SCS. If they become #1, who knows what will happen
You're missing the point. Conservatives supporting military expansion and international wars are not small government. I don't care if it's justified or not. I'm not arguing over which system is better, I am trying to stamp down a definition for conservatives/the right. 

Biden was anti gay marriage when Trump was in support of gay marriage. The Liberals turned the tides and now want to blame Republicans
To use an anecdote to deny the obvious truth that it was progressives that supported gay marriage and conservatives that opposed it is absurd. We can play blind to historical trends all we want and look at the outliers, but come on. 
I think abortion shouldn't be publicly founded. It is against my religion to get an abortion, yet our family is paying tax dollars for people to have abortions. That isn't fair. Abortions should be privatized with government regulation.
I don't care about your personal opinions. Conservatives by enlarge want to ban abortion. 

I'm assuming Israel vs Palestine. Personally, due to the fact I've wanted to visit Israel to practice my religion, and Palestine want's to push religion away, I support Israel, but not for any other reason
See above. I understand your perspective, but Conservatives are supportive of funding a militaristic and expansionist state. Not small government. 

So you don't believe capitalism and democracy isn't a good form of government?
We're not arguing over what is good? I think that immigration restrictions, abortion bans, gay marriage bans, military building etc are not small government. The notion that Republicans are the party of small government isn't true.

The thing is that Liberals want the national government to operate stronger than the state governments. I disagree with this. A state is more equipped to handle to state issues versus the national government. There should be natl restrictions for states, but states need to power some more power than the federal government. Having a more powerful federal government is bad
 
I guess? But Conservatives support state's rights when it slows progress by liberals. Back when gay marriage was still up in the air, Conservatives tried to federally get rid of it altogether. 

I support the death penalty, but on very rare occasions, and it needs to be regulated

Conservatives by enlarge support it. The state killing it's citizens doesn't sound very small government to me. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,014
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain how "the conservatives" prevented The Patriot Act.

Most Republicans in Congress are not conservative.

Most Democrats in Congress are not progressive.

Both political parties do not give a shit about preserving "hierarchy and social structures."

Both do give a shit about preserving the status quo and the social structures of the hierarchal elites in D.C.

The posts in this thread clearly indicate most people don't understand this truism even after the last 4 years of it being shoved in front of our disbelieving faces.

Which means this charade will probably continue long after Trump is gone and forgotten.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Which means this charade will probably continue long after Trump is gone and forgotten.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Vader
If they become #1, who knows what will happen
Well, they'll probably start acting like the U.S.A. (spreading their version of "morality" across the globe).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Vader
I think abortion shouldn't be publicly founded.
I think corporations like the airline industry and the pharmaceutical industry and the entertainment industry and the oil industry shouldn't be publicly funded.

It is against my religion to get an abortion,
THEN DON'T GET ONE.

yet our family is paying tax dollars for people to have abortions.
BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED MEDICAL CARE.  WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE PRIVATE.

I also don't like the idea that my family is paying tax dollars for people to get circumcisions (a religious genital mutilation).

That isn't fair. Abortions should be privatized with government regulation.
It's also "not fair" that religious charities receive federal money.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Vader
Conservatives are the ones who don't want to allow a doctor to assist you in your death when you are so sick that you don't want to live anymore.
?
THIS IS A MATTER OF PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.  WHICH A "LIBERTARIAN" SHOULD UNDERSTAND.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Vader
Having a more powerful federal government is bad
I agree 100%.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
That's quite clear, the right wing prioritizes god & king.
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Take voting rights, for example.  American Conservatives must uphold the franchise as a constitutional and indeed God given right.  Right WIngers believe in reserving that franchise for right-wingers wherever possible. 

  • Yesterday, Trump explained his reason for defunding the Post Office, "They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots, If they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.
    • That's quite explicit- Trump opposes the Post Office because TRump opposes universal voting. 
  • Yesterday,White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow argued, "So much of the, uh, uh, Democratic, uh, asks, are really liberal left wish lists, as we don’t want a — vote —  you know, voting rights, and aid to aliens, and so forth. That’s not our game."
Excellent reporting.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Vader
@3RU7AL
china will become number 1 because of power transition theory
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Interesting Historical reference.

I think that tyranny was pretty much the political norm back in the day.

Hopefully British society and most of the rest of Europe has evolved since then.

Though a few Ex-Soviet States-People still find it hard to grasp the concept of democracy.

Nonetheless, governance, order and a stable society, is founded upon hierarchy and certain limitations of freedom....It's the price we pay for sleeping soundly in our beds.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Username
Hierarchy is an universal part of all politics.  It is inescapable. It is either the society on top or it is the individual. Some one has to be in charge.

Is the preservation of family not a traditional social structure? Is supporting the traditional family over other family models not heirarchical? Is capitalism not a right wing structure? 
Of course it is a traditional social structure. It is the fundamental building block of society.  Destroy the family and you destroy society. However it is impossible to destroy it - so the Left have done as much as they can to redefine it - so that it is no longer recognizable by the traditional conservative. 

Capitalism is not a right wing structure.  True, it is not Left wing either - but that is because socialism is both left wing and right wing. The NAZI fascists are socialist. As are the Left wing progressives - the issue is big government - not left wing or right wing per se. Capitalism cannot function in right wing ideology. 

I wholeheartedly reject the notion that progressive politics end in elitism. It is no coincidence that the further Left you go, the more anti-elitist and egalitarian you become. The opposite is true with the right. Conservatives want to preserve traditions and heirarchies. As you get further right, you begin to want to enforce these traditions and heirarchies until you eventually reach Fascism. Heirarchy is not a universal feature of politics. 
The left is elitism personafied. The next left I meet who does not act and talk like an elitist will be the first one. It is the nature of left wing progressive politics. 
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Preservation of the nuclear family; the foundation of a civil society.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
re: voting rights, I find it a curious thing that of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, fully 8 of them concern voting rights, and we still don't have it right. The item is spoken of 36 times, less than half in Articles I & II, and the balance in the amendments.
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tradesecret
Hierarchy is an universal part of all politics.  It is inescapable. It is either the society on top or it is the individual. Some one has to be in charge.

Not what heirarchy means. Prioritizing a certain set of values isn't heirarchy. Deliberately putting groups of people in social structures/positions that are above other people is heirarchy.

Of course it is a traditional social structure. It is the fundamental building block of society.  Destroy the family and you destroy society. However it is impossible to destroy it - so the Left have done as much as they can to redefine it - so that it is no longer recognizable by the traditional conservative. 
Don't get why this wildly subjective statement is relevant. 

Capitalism is not a right wing structure.  True, it is not Left wing eithe
Capitalism is a right wing structure, or at least it is in it's more unristricted forms. Free Market Capitalism allows (and to a degree reinforces) people doing better than others, and is fine with some dying so that the rich can have a few hundred more dollars. Socialism pushes for egalitarianism and thus, to varying degrees, rejects heirarchy.

The NAZI fascists are socialist.
They weren't. In fact, they engaged in an extensive level of privitization.

but that is because socialism is both left wing and right wing. 
...
As are the Left wing progressives - the issue is big government - not left wing or right wing per se.
Nope. Right wingers, with their love of immigration restriction, federal abortion bans, federal gay marriage bans, etc are participating in just as much "big government" as the leftists. 

 Capitalism cannot function in right wing ideology. 

Not in the extreme right, or at least some sections of it. But the right mostly accepts capitalism. 

The left is elitism personafied. The next left I meet who does not act and talk like an elitist will be the first one. It is the nature of left wing progressive politics. 
Some leftists have a superiority complex I guess. But superiority complex doesn't equal elitism which doesn't equal heirarchy. It just means you think you're right. 

Also, talking to leftists and analyzing how they act is not a good indicator of what their ideological beliefs are. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,014
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
.It's the price we pay for sleeping soundly in our beds.

Said George Orwell Never.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,014
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Tradesecret
egalitarianism is inherently an elitist concept since you need an elite to define what is "normal"

USA recently had an ex-president attempt to dictate what the "new normals" were.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
EGALITARIANISM
  • n.
    The political doctrine that holds that all people in a society should have equal rights from birth.
  • n.
    the doctrine of the equality of mankind and the desirability of political and economic and social equality
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Preservation of the nuclear family; the foundation of a civil society.
So, why did "conservatives" force hundreds of thousands of native american children into boarding schools?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Do you happen to oppose liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism??

Corporatist economic system

The Fascist regime created a corporatist economic system in 1925 with creation of the Palazzo Vidioni Pact, in which the Italian employers' association Confindustria and Fascist trade unions agreed to recognize each other as the sole representatives of Italy's employers and employees, excluding non-Fascist trade unions.[153] The Fascist regime first created a Ministry of Corporations that organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations, banned workers' strikes and lock-outs and in 1927 created the Charter of Labour, which established workers' rights and duties and created labour tribunals to arbitrate employer-employee disputes.[153] In practice, the sectoral corporations exercised little independence and were largely controlled by the regime and employee organizations were rarely led by employees themselves, but instead by appointed Fascist party members.[153]

It's funny how today, it's the corporations who appoint government officials.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was noexception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later,the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doingso, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of whichsystematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was alsounique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided bygovernment. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diversesectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was notideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union,strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as apolitical tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,014
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
EGALITARIANISM...<flowery words>...

You can put lipstick on a pig, but someone still has to define that pig.

In Orwell's book "Animal Farm," it was indeed the elite pigs that dictated the level of equality on the farm, and most importantly that some people were "more equal" than others.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
You might disagree, but if you're going to just make up your own personal definitions, please at least make them explicit.

 ...it was indeed the elite pigs that dictated the level of equality on the farm,
Which explains exactly how they were NOT egalitarian.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
to educate them them, along with all their children. You're really going to use education as a negative foil. Very progressive of you
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,014
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Which explains exactly how they were NOT egalitarian.

According to you. How many more times are you going to tell me what is normal and what is not normal? Why do I need you to do this for me?

I'm done with the elitist projections of normalcy for the hoi pelloi. Not only is it disgustingly hypocritical, but it is also unnatural, authoritarian, and immoral.

One Khmer Rouge leader said the killings were meant for the "purification of the populace."  

Why do I need someone in authority like Pol Pot to tell me what level of equality I must live by? Why does "everyone" need to "equally" live at the level of an agrarian farmer and be killed if they disagree?

Disgusting ideology. New normals? Okay, Obama.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagi
re: voting rights, I find it a curious thing that of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, fully 8 of them concern voting rights, and we still don't have it right. The item is spoken of 36 times, less than half in Articles I & II, and the balance in the amendments.
In other words,  you think there are too many voting rights already. 

The US Constitution guarantees 5 voting rights:

  • The right to vote
  • untaxed,
  • even if you are a woman
  • even if your skin is not white
  • as long as you are 18 years old
Please state which of these do you feel are excessive.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
The key lesson of Animal Farm is that loyal police dogs and a good lie are all you need to live a long and happy life.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
According to you. How many more times are you going to tell me what is normal and what is not normal? Why do I need you to do this for me?
Please be slightly more specific.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do I need someone in authority like Pol Pot to tell me what level of equality I must live by?
Well, you sound like an anarchist.

Would you describe yourself as an anarchist?