# right wing and conservative - are they the same thing?



## Philippa

Hi folks!
Reading some of the recent Culture threads is amazing and intimidating. You guys are very knowlegeable and philosophical!! Anyway, if someone (or you, Cuchu!) could enlighten me about this, my ignorance will decrease a little bit more.


			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The movement towards the political right (please note that I do not call it 'conservative' because it often is not) is to be found in a number of prominent European countries including your own.


It's from this thread (post 14):
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=21805
Saludos
Philippa  (feeling gramatically and political-historically challenged today!  )


----------



## jmx

I'm not the right one to answer, but the way I understand it, someone can be rightist but not conservative when he advocates things such as :

- shrinking the public administration to a minimum
- lowering a lot taxes
- privatizing police, fire-brigades, all health care...

Let's see what others think.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Philippa,

Many years before you were born, I read a book about conservatism.  If my memory hasn't totally failed, the author said something along these lines:

Change is inevitable.  The principal difference between a progressive [liberal] and a conservative is the attitude towards change.  Progressives seem to be optimistic that much change is good, and will have positive effects on society.  Thus they encourage it.  Conservatives are prone to pessimism about the likelihood of change being beneficial, and try to restrain it.

Does this help any?

abrazos,
Cuchu


----------



## goyete12

I don't know if technically speaking it is the same (probably they aren't), but in Spain most of the people think about them as the same thing.


----------



## cuchuflete

From a strictly US viewpoint, the following may be useful in framing the issue:



> And for roughly the first two hundred years of the Republic, conservatism was defined politically and culturally by its fears of the political excesses, economic egalitarianism, and cultural vulgarity generated by a democratic society shorn of any aristocratic restraints.


 source: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_019700_conservatism.htm

From the same source:



> As New Right leader Paul Weyrich put it bluntly: "We talk about issues people care about, like gun control, abortion, taxes and crime. Yes, they're emotional issues, but that's better than talking about capital formation."


  This is what I meant when I wrote that the right is not necessarily conservative.  Opposition to crime is neither liberalism nor progressivism nor conservatism nor any other 'ism'.  Controlling gun ownership has left and right views, neither of which is conservative, and neither of which is liberal.

I suggest Clinton Rossiter's Conservatism in America as a good source for ideas on the topic.

saludos,
C.


----------



## Helicopta

In my view, conservatism does fall under the umbrella of right wing politics but cannot be described as the same thing. The term ‘right wing’ has too broad a spectrum, covering anything from right of centre (a mild conservatism) to extreme far right (Nazism). In the same way that left wing could be used to describe anything from mild liberalism to extreme anarchism.

As a UK national, that's certainly how I understand these terms but maybe different countries use the definitions in different ways.


----------



## Philippa

Hi!
I'm just as confused, but on a slightly higher level!!
What's 'capital formation'?
Controlling gun ownership has left and right views, neither of which is conservative, and neither of which is liberal. As an example, would you explain what a left and right wing policy might be on gun control. As for conservative and not, surely any _controlling_ of gun ownership wouldn't be conservative as it implies a change? Are you saying that both conservative politicians and non-conservative ones would want gun control change, but that the conservatives wouldn't see it as likely to help?
Hmmm!! Now you can see why these conversations are a bit beyond me!!  
Abrazos
Philippa


----------



## cuchuflete

Helicopta said:
			
		

> In my view, conservatism does fall under the umbrella of right wing politics but cannot be described as the same thing. The term ‘right wing’ has too broad a spectrum, covering anything from right of centre (a mild conservatism) to extreme far right (Nazism). In the same way that left wing could be used to describe anything from mild liberalism to extreme anarchism.
> 
> As a UK national, that's certainly how I understand these terms but maybe different countries use the definitions in different ways.



Bravo Helicopta...very well stated.

Not too long ago, the right-wing political party in the US, the Republicans, were cleary conservative.  Thus it was easy to say right=conservative.
More recently, that party has adopted policies which have led to massive deficit spending and public debt, the intrusion of federal [national] government into matters which were once left to local governments, and other policies which are not conservative.  They are, in my view, populist.

I don't say that this is good or bad, simply that it is at odds with historically conservative positions. 

In another curious change, the U.S. Democratic party, historically the party of the left, is now using 'state's rights'...or the idea that a central government should be limited, with much power at the local level...arguments to oppose the proposals of the right.  For most of the past century, Democrats were in favor of a larger and more powerful federal government.

This loss of equivalency between right=conservative and left=progressive may be a U.S. phenomenon only.  I don't know if there is a similar change in your country.   Please let us know.

Thanks again,
Cuchu


----------



## cuchuflete

Philippa said:
			
		

> Hi!
> I'm just as confused, but on a slightly higher level!!
> What's 'capital formation'?
> Controlling gun ownership has left and right views, neither of which is conservative, and neither of which is liberal. As an example, would you explain what a left and right wing policy might be on gun control. As for conservative and not, surely any _controlling_ of gun ownership wouldn't be conservative as it implies a change? Are you saying that both conservative politicians and non-conservative ones would want gun control change, but that the conservatives wouldn't see it as likely to help?
> Hmmm!! Now you can see why these conversations are a bit beyond me!!
> Abrazos
> Philippa



It is confusing Philippa!!

What follows is about the US only:

Today it's harder to get a driver's license than to buy a gun.  The left, in the incongruous company of most police chiefs, want to regulate gun purchases and ownership to try to be sure that criminals have less easy access to weapons.  Or so they say...

The right...probably more for a concern for votes than anything else...is adamently against any further controls on gun ownership, saying that it would erode personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

But...the same 'right' had few if any objections to the "Patriot Act" which does limit personal freedom.

So...in the interest of politics as usual, the left and right got together, and passed a law saying people could not own 'assault weapons' and then they argued about the definition of that type of weapon.  They also joined to require 'background checks' for prospective gun purchasers, but also said that these do not apply to people buying guns at gun trade exhibitions.

If you can make sense of this, please explain it to me.

thanks,
C.


----------



## Philippa

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The left want to regulate gun purchases and ownership to try to be sure that criminals have less easy access to weapons. *The right is adamently against any further controls on gun ownership*, saying that it would erode personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.


But this sounds like 'the right' being conservative/against change!
How do we know what's left and right wing anyway? Is there an actual definition separate of conservative/not and separate of specific policies?
Philippa


----------



## Helicopta

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This loss of equivalency between right=conservative and left=progressive may be a U.S. phenomenon only. I don't know if there is a similar change in your country. Please let us know.


 
I think this change is certainly visible on the left in this country but not so much on the right. The Labour party has always been the traditional party of the left here but the present Labour government, to my mind at least, is at odds with this. It seems now that they are scared of being too left wing, thinking that this will loose the votes of ‘Middle England’ and hand power back to the Tories. They now want to be seen as the party of the great economy and are afraid to make any decisions on social welfare that may be seen as too radical or, heaven forbid, may require an increase in taxes. I think your term ‘populist’ is very relevant here too.



For example:

Under the old Tory government (conservative/right wing), many of our nationalised industries (gas, electricity, water, the railways) were sold into private hands. The Labour opposition at the time objected strongly to this privatisation but they're objections had no effect. Admittedly, some of these industries were in a pretty sorry state but since their privatisation, we (the consumers) have seen little or no improvement in services only price increases. Have the Labour government done anything to redress the balance since they came into power? No, they’ve overseen the privatisation of the post office as well. Also, our beloved National Health Service is being sold off piece by piece. First it’s the catering, then the cleaning, then who knows?

Erm, I'm not offering any prizes to anyone who can guess on which side my politics lean!


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Helicopta,
Under Bill Clinton the Democrats behaved in similar fashion.  They became a center/right party.  The Republicans, not to be outdone, became a far right party.

There is really no 'left' in American politics, with the possible exception of a few small single issue parties that have little if any national power.

C.


----------



## Helicopta

Is a global trend then? (hopefully some people from other nations can help us find out). Leaving us with a choice between centre-right and far-right governments? The centre-right governments maybe would like to push a little back to the left but are too afraid of losing their popularity.

This sort of ties in with your comments in another thread regarding idealism. I think it does still exist, it exists in the anti-globalisation and anti-war marches that have taken place in recent years but those in power are afraid to embrace these ideals.

Idealism seems to now be viewed as leftist extremism.


----------



## WolfBrother

My Opinions:
The best answer - in general terms - was Helecopta's
_In my view, conservatism does fall under the umbrella of right wing politics but cannot be described as the same thing. The term ‘right wing’ has too broad a spectrum, covering anything from right of centre (a mild conservatism) to extreme far right (Nazism). In the same way that left wing could be used to describe anything from mild liberalism to extreme anarchism._

The only difference between the most political parties in the US is what they want the Federal Government to take away individual.  The "conservatives" want to take one group of freedoms/abilities/things the "liberals" want to take away another group.


----------



## Hakro

Exactly today  (29.2.) we have the final voting for presidential election in Finland. We have two candidates: one for the left wing and the other for the right wing.  Can you guess which one of these is really _conservative?_


----------



## SpiceMan

Right and left, socialism and liberalism are concepts that vary from language to language and country to country.

From my perspective (which I think is Argentina's to some extent) for instance USA is a center-right liberalism, and democrats and republicans are two factions disputing over taxes mostly. (I'm using USA as an example, because you end up being quite up-to-date with american affairs through media). Which probably isn't what americans feel.

Similarly, while I'm not sure (because I'm not american) I think that american see Argentina as leftists (or facist in the 40s and 50s). While I perceive Argentina with a tendency for centered-right socialist alternating with some centered liberalism (or right liberalist during coup d'etats) which is quite different.

Although what people think in a given country and outside usually _are _different, I some times think it's because what "right" and "left" is, and what "socialism" and "liberalism" is, sometimes changes a bit and sometimes changes a lot from language to language, and from country to country.


----------



## gorbatzjov

It's weird that you ask that question. For me, the Right wing is Progressive, Democrate, the left wing is Conservative, Socialist...


----------



## Noel Acevedo

Philippa said:
			
		

> Hi folks!
> Reading some of the recent Culture threads is amazing and intimidating. You guys are very knowlegeable and philosophical!! Anyway, if someone (or you, Cuchu!) could enlighten me about this, my ignorance will decrease a little bit more.
> 
> It's from this thread (post 14):
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=21805
> Saludos
> Philippa  (feeling gramatically and political-historically challenged today!  )


Phillipa,

When I think in some one who is a "right winger", I tend to think of someone sitting way out in right field of the political spectrum, your neo-fascists, skin heads.  Those that preach America right or wrong and consider as americans only those who are lilly white, anglo saxon and protestants (once referred to as WASP's).  Here in Puerto Rico, they are "de derecha" sort of pejorative sticker and are identified as belonging to the lunatic fringe.  I sure I did not help you much...

Noel


----------



## Fernando

Right and left are not very useful terms. As an example, Perón in Argentina was right or left winger? 

Current confussion has simply grown up since traditional "right" or "left" parties have adopted some of their enemies' views.

As an example, right and left in Europe and US are split on the basis of the role of the State in economy. While rightist like to see low taxes, little State, leftists are prone to high taxes and a big State. This is a very broad division. Rightist tend(ed?) to want a big Army and police (which means taxes and State).

But nowadays, this is even more difficult to determine since:

- Left has abandoned typical demands: No more abolition of the private property, state companies,...

- Right has assumed many left ideas: welfare state, pensions, unemployment wages,...

None has increased federal deficit more than republicans. Some libertarians (rightists, but anarchists) would like to lower military expense and most family ties. Conservatives oppose Islamists claiming they defend woman freedom while leftist defend polygamy on the basis of tolerance.

I can not see many common ground in "left" and "right".


----------



## Zahab

was dwight einshower from the right wing partie?

i am not from united states but i study in a bilingual north american school in my country and i learned some aspects about U.S.A history.

thank you folks.


----------



## cuchuflete

Zahab,
Dwight Eisenhower, a soldier by trade, and later president of a major university, was a member of the Republican party.  When he was President of the U.S., in the 1950s, his party was right wing and conservative.  That same party, today, is right wing, but only conservative on select issues.

Eisenhower was also one of the first leaders to warn of a military-industrial complex that would try to 'manage' the country for its own benefit.


----------



## maxiogee

The way I see it - Liberalism and Conservatism are timeless and non-specific approached to political situations and public behaviour. Conservatives from any country would tend to recommend the same courses of action for any theoretical problem.

Left and Right are shifting and depend a great deal on context for their interpretation - a right-wing party in Ireland would seem terribly left-wing to many Americans.
Left-wing politicians from a wide range of countries would probably never reach a consensus on how to tackle a theoretical problem.


----------



## Zahab

i heard that the conservative parties want to creates laws that benefitis international aspects from the country, for example ALCA,G3,TLC and things like that, and the liberal parties want to creates or support laws that benefitis the country in its internal affairs, this is a contrast that analize in this political situation.

thank you.


----------



## Fernando

I disagree. The Rep. party in US has been (traditionally and theoretically, not always in practice) a strong opponent of any exterior action, while democrats (Roosevelt) has opposed it.


----------



## Zahab

democrats are more liberal, and republicans are more conservative people, i think that this good because shows different kinds of political opinons that helps a country in all its problems, i think that we have to follow a neutral partie but the problem here is that the United States do not have strong independent parties that offers another option for the people politicla choices.

i think that democrats want to affect positevely the external affairs and the republicans want benefits the internal affairs of the country. this two sides are important for a country because we live in a globalize sociaty that needs to be stronger in internal politics for be strong in external politics.

we can see this contrast with two presidents

Bush(republican)-want external power, iraq, north korea, south amercan countries, TLC, ALCA, and others aspects his governement is based inexternal power, this is the reason that the budget of the U.S.A have some problems or is affected because of the spenditure of a great part of the money in war and in another aspects.

clinton(democrat)-he based all his politicla force to enrich the country this is the reason that when he was president the United States was more rich than now, because he projected all the investments to the northamerican citizen that need the help of the government.

this shows tha base of my hipothesis, if you make which partie i am, i answer to you conservative but i have some liberal believes.

thank you for your time.


----------



## Fernando

Zahab and others: To me "liberal" is misleading. i do not know when you are using the "European" or the "American" meaning.

About Bush and Clinton differences: You are possibly right, but remember that Bush (senior) and Reagan began their mandates claiming to focus in internal affairs.

Clinton governed when Senate and H.of Representatives were rep-dominated and in US (Laus Deo) is the legislative who controls the money.

In the past, as said before, I disagree: Kennedy began Vietnam War and Nixon ended it, as an example.


----------



## Zahab

To me "liberal" is misleading

fernando why do you think that the liberal is misleading?

another difference between this two parties is

conservative let the church to have a more powerful participation in the congress and in the formulation of the laws, the liberal partie permits less participation of the church in governement topics. this clear example occurs in the south-american countries.

thank you fernando for your opinion.

fernando i want to know if dwight Eisenhower  was right or left wing?

another question how many presidents of the United States was republicans and how many was democrats?

thank you for your time.


----------

