The essence of Rightism?

What is the essence of rightism? What is it that's the underlying principlies for it all? I have a little thesis that it's just masculinity applied to politics: pride, self reliance, strength, honour, duty, confidence, justice et cetera. it's also interesting that it's a coherent philosphy; that once you realise why x is wrong you can apply that same knowledge to scenario z. I was suprised about this, as I came from a kind of lefty position and gradually got righty. Once you get 'right' in one area you realise that it applies everywhere too. I never thought that I'd be with the against-abortion crowd for example but I got there by thinking about tax levels!

I want your thoughts about that, and your ideas. And please, I don't want people just saying 'oh it's just greed, hate, racism, bigotry lalal' Seriously, (*)(*)(*)(*) off I hate that.

 

I think it has a lot to do with which portions of the brain one uses, whether to the front or back of the amygdala.

 

I don't know much about how the brain functions but I definitively think you're on to something here. The left-right divide is probably on a brain level in some ways.

 

I don't think you're going to have an answer to that. North Americans and Europeans seem to have a different idea of what the Right is, and what views it holds.

 

Rightism certainly does have a love of the masculine.

Out of curiosity though would you mind if I ask how tax levels caused you to be anti abortion?

 

I actually don't think they are different. They stem from the same philosphy but they differ in their interpretation of it. They're still mascunline but the european right views a welfare state as the strong helping the weak, while the american right emphasise the self-reliance part more. Get my point?

 

Careful there if you drop the jar that idea is in you have one side attempting to pass a law declaring the other side mentally defective.

Which I'm sure a lot of people might like to see, but I find it counterproductive.

 

You can vote for either Sméagol on the left or Gollum on the right, it's a two-party system.

 

Many of the behaviors that are considered most "masculine" reside to the rear of the amygdala.

 

I tried for way too long to find some sort of unifying theory to apply to the right and the left, and I nearly wound up in a room wallpapered with magazine articles, boxes full of thumbtacks, and a huge spool of red yarn.

In the end, I realized you can squeeze almost any political behavior into whatever spectrum you draw.

I've come to believe everybody is only half of what they think they are, and nobody is pure or right even a majority of the time.

 

Well, it actually didn't start with taxes, but with religion. I disliked religion, because I was a wee little rebellious laddie and my mother was christian. So I started to question it, and I had some discussions with my mother which lightened up my interest for it and I read and watched stuff on the internet, like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. That was anti-christian, but it gradually got over to being just anti religion overall, and thus I began reading about anti islamism. And from there it spread to all kinds of rightist issues. I must say that I'm not at all anti religious anymore, that I had a libertarian phase, and that I'm not drifting a bit left. My political journey sure is unpredicatable, and it's only been going on for some three years!

What it is though is that for the same reasons that high taxes are morally wrong, id est because people are free and as little as possible should be stolen from them (for that's what taxation really is), unnecessary abortions are wrong. it's the same philosophy about rights that apply in both cases; the innocent child that should have to bear the consequences of irresponsible parents, and the innocent citizen who shouldn't have to put up with unnecessary taxation.

blurry post probably, my bad.

- - - Updated - - -

If they are mentally defective that's a fact and there need to be no law for that. Rightism is about self reliance though, it gives equal opportunity to idiots as well as geniuses.

 

It's important that the goals and reasons are looked at, not the actions. Communists and nazis can for example both use political terrorism, but it's a mere tool to further their goals, which are not at all similar.

it also depends on what one views as right and left of course. and a big question is if there's supposed to be something more than right and left.

 

Depends on what you call right. People are labeled righties if they do not fully embrace liberal ideology so that would be anyone outside one person's definition of liberal. Some connect all on the right as the religious right even though the religious right is a relatively small percentage of what is considered the right but has a large percentage of the air time just like progressive leaders are in charge of the Democrat party even though they are a small percentage of Democrats.

You have to define your version of what right is to be able to discuss it. For instance, I am Libertarian but considered to be far right because I believe in maximum liberty with minimum government.

 

I leave that up to you, but I was thinking of rightism in the broadest sense of the word.

Speaking of libertarianism, I'm wondering if I can make the case that libertarianism and nazism does indeed share the same side, the right. As in my reply to lil mike I said that american and european rightism emphasise different parts of masculinity. The same can be said about libertarianism and nazism can't it? Naizms is self reliant in the sense that the nation is, while libertarians go more individualistic. Other things can be compared too of course, this was just in my head. This is the kind of level that I'm looking at; really deep, beyond small and big government which are really just means to other ends. Your thoughts?

 

The Right is called Right because they're right. If the Right was wrong they'd be called the Left.

 

good one. I'm giving you another good one (I don't necessarily agree, it's just funny)

The Christian Right is neither.

 

I think the right/left scale is the wrong scale to compare libertarianism and Nazism. A better scale is the Tyranny/Anarchy scale.

Tyranny on the left (appropriate) and Anarchy on the right. The US was founded somewhere in-between but closer to the Anarchy side of the scale. The further the US leans toward progressive ideology the more force of government is required to maintain it, moving us closer toward the Tyranny side of the scale. Libertarians are just a bit right of the Founders on that scale.

Nazism would be on the Tyranny side of that scale, a complete opposite.

 

I guess time will tell about that one.

 

The European Right is really more conservative (in the generic meaning of the word) than it is, "Right." The European Right supports the welfare state because that is a long established part of of the government and the social contract there. Whatever is considered traditional and established they seem to support. In the US, the "Right" adheres more or less to a specific ideology, Classical Liberalism.Tories are not Republicans and visa versa.

 

It does sound like quite the journey. Thank you for sharing it. It's good that you are true to yourself. I hope we should all be brave enough to change our mind when we decipher something to be true we once thought wasn't.

To the second part I would have to point out that in fact because no law is necessary is actually exactly what makes it more likely that a law would be passed.

Overall as a more left leaning individual myself with 16 year evolution in my own politics. Let me say what caused me to wind up on the left was examining the concept that while you are absolutely correct in what you've pointed out. The logic of the right is simple, plain spoken, based in common morals, and principles. The problem lies in the fact that the world is not a simple, plain spoken, based in common morals type of place. It's actually little different at it's core than Leftism. The goal is balance. Nuance, details, conditions, factors, variables they all matter when you get down to the heart of any issue. The right often fails to account for these or even acknowledge them.

Even to their own detriment. As they experience anytime they try to expand their base outside of white males in a considerable way. You go to Latino, or Black organizations around America on a community level. They have a family values, masculine based society, but they also have real problems. Their kids don't graduate enough. They work hard, but they don't make enough money. Some of them have bad encounters with the police. The schools on their side of town are 40 years old. In other words they have grievances. Legitimate grievances sometimes. That's what they are going to talk about. Because they don't have the luxury to rest on principles while nothing gets done. They are never going to throw in with a philosophy that tells them the only problem is that they aren't good enough people. That they need to be bettered.

I think they are right. I think that nuance should be considered. I don't think most situations dealing with large groups of individuals fit neatly into any preset core of values, but that the best we mortals can do is respect human decency, and make decisions as best we can on what arises.

 

[MENTION=59316]Mr. Swedish Guy[/MENTION]:

The right is, in my opinion, characterized by its exclusive flavor of tribalism, a tendency to associate impure or disgusting things with immorality, reluctance to deviate from teachings offered by traditionally-legitimate sources of moral authority, concern for the well-being of others, and fondness for justice. In culmination these traits compel a rightist to resist rapid changes to the law, institutions, or their ways of life out of concern that new ways of doing things present unnecessary, uncomfortable risks that should be avoided or at the very least tinkered with gradually, with an abundance of caution, and commitment to old, tried-and-true values. New ways are met with perhaps an imprudently severe amount of cynicism.

In contrast, I think the left tends to embrace a more inclusive sort of tribalism, less often makes the jump from things seeming gross or disturbing to being labeled immoral, has less loyalty to and trust as it concerns the moral authority of leaders and institutions, and to a relatively narrower extent are focused on advancing the well-being of others and seeing justice done. A leftist is prone to feeling dissatisfied with the current social order, will find many things to criticize about it, and wants to reform or totally replace the system in place. There is greater curiosity and boldness at work - though it comes along with greater susceptibility to naivete, perhaps? The left oft undervalues the cohesive benefits of tradition.

These are just broad generalizations of course and I am assuming that libertarians, classical liberals, and totalitarian-leaning folk belong in different, distinct categories on the centre rather than distinctly belonging on either the right or left.

 

It might help to understand who the original righties and lefties were. The terms come from the French Parliament following the revolution in the late 18th century. Quite literally, those who sat on the right side supported the old monarchy and were reactionary against those who sat on the left, who supported the revolution.

Generally, I'd say right wing politics supports traditional (or more strict) social hierarchy, whether its considered natural or desireable, where the left supports a more (or completely) egalitarian social structure.

- - - Updated - - -

A clear misunderstanding of the history, ideology, and practice of anarchism.

 

The last political belief that extolled the 'masculine' virtues was fascism. Everyone reveres the values you list, including women, communists, and gays. But when they are implemented in the selective ways the right does the hypocrisy is just too obvious for anyone but a blind man to see. Let me give you a clue. REAL men value women as equals deserving full control over their own bodies and find it just to give them equal pay for equal work. REAL men look at all people regardless of race or religion as their brothers and sisters. REAL men see the government as a cooperative effort that we all must participate in to promote the general welfare for all, even the weakest of us. REAL men understand the right of the worker to negotiate collectively for better working conditions, and fair compensation for his labor. And above all REAL men don't try to twist the meaning of the virtues you listed to fit their own selfishness, prejudice and greed.

 

That's not enough in my view, it's not deep enough. why is it anarchist or tyrannical? For what ends? Obviously anarchy and tyranny aren't the ends, who'd want tyranny itself other than a tyrant? What I'm saying is that it might be somewhat similar reasons beneath, only that they come out very differently.

 

indeed. I'd say that american conservative are more classically liberal since that's what's established and traditional in america. Anywho, I think that these differences are only that they emphasise different things of political masculinity. I still think my thesis hold that they're of the same basic pihosophy.