Why is Being Right Wing so Frowned Upon?

[quote]forensic91 wrote:
Now I don’t wanna turn this into a heated political debate.

At school I have a politics class and I seem to be the only one who seems to be more to the right. If I say anything that is right winged everyone else in the class seems to think i’m “mean and heartless” and don’t “care about the poor.” which is simply not true. The teacher tries to remain neutral but it is obvious he is more left wing. It seems like everyone in my entourage is left wing and it seems like any slight right wing ideology is “uncaring” and frowned upon. [/quote]

WTF. Srsly W-T-F.

A liberal is someone who believes in limited, representational government and equality of all before the law. The American Revolution, people, was a liberal one. The US “conservatives” would be considered liberals everywhere else on Earth. We don’t have actual conservatives (don’t believe me? How many monarchists do you know?) The failure of the Republican Party is precisely the failure to explain this. Since the majority of Americans are some form of liberal, effectively the Republicans have ended the debate before it even starts.

The problem as I see it is partly sheer ignorance of the public. Most of what counts as “liberal” these days is recycled Euro-socialism from the 1970’s, confounded with a very consumer approach to thinking that paying taxes is like forking over money to a company for goods.

Want fun with your left leaning friends? Give them a dose of history. Of the 170 million people killed by their own governments in the last century, about 95% have been done in by Socialists/Communists who were pursuing various Leftist social agendas. Pol Pot, the Kims, Stalin, Mao and the Cultural Revolution are the institutional aftermath of these systems. They were not aberrations. That it is conventional wisdom Communism or some such is “better” than the US is just because it is entrenched in the universities (yes, I work at one on faculty) and in the parallel universe of academia it is endlessly recycled. Those countries that tried these have roundly denounced them as being inhuman.

Oh and the most heavily persecuted religion in the last century? Christianity (I’m an atheist, but an honest one). It is estimated that 45 million Christians (such as 2/3 of the Polish clergy in one horrific pogrom right after WW II) died at the hands of various Communist and Socialist states. When someone in your classes takes Christians to task for something, they have every much the same obligation to explain why they aren’t going to dabble in mass murder every bit as much as a neo Nazi talking to some Jews would. If your classmates sort of look at you funny when you bring it up, you might point out to them that anyone in Eastern Europe would put them in precisely the same league as a Holocaust denier for shrugging this off.

Have them read von Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” as a start. He was there. He knew.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

Hayek was brilliant. I stated above that I’m basically conservative, because I tend to identify with Reagan a bit more than Ron Paul (though I sincerely wish people had listened to him years ago about the Fed), and I share a good deal of other common beliefs with conservatives.

Our liberals are definitely turning to a form of socialism. It’s like the boogeyman, though. People have ridiculed even the idea to the point of laughing it off whenever someone says the word. Just a small study on HOW socialism comes about in a country would dispel their laughter quickly. It’s usually taken at a steady pace, in increments.

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

  • James Madison, 1788

Liberal truth-telling moment of the day: - YouTube

Liberals in power in America today consider themselves an aristocracy. You’re too stupid to know what’s good for you, so they need more power to get you in line and tell you exactly how to live your life.

Voting liberals, chic liberals, and classroom liberals are afraid of being laughed at and ridiculed. They don’t want to appear evil and stupid (as conservatives are, of course) and they have an idealistic (read: naive and quixotic and dangerous) view of the world, of human nature, and of cause and effect.

In regards to your mention of liberal/conservative, JJ, I agree we’ve formed new definitions in the last century in America. Like the Democratic party being FOR slavery, when they try so hard to paint themselves as the socially righteous.

“If , once upon a time, conservatives felt a Burkean responsibility to uphold sound social habits and traditional customs against liberal debunking, now it is liberalism that constitutes the old order, dictating â??correctâ?? habits and permissible customs, while conservatives can become the exponents of light and air, of free and open debate, of demystification and even of political and intellectual liberation. The bankruptcy of liberalism invites the possibility of a new, governing conservatism.” - Bill Kristol

Wow thanks for the replies. I think i might have learned more from this thread than in my politics and history class lol ;). And no, I am not some “parroting idiot” that just repeats what he hears. As an example of what happened one day in class, we were discussing welfare.

Many people in the class thought Canada’s welfare system was better than the U.S. because in Canada you could be on welfare for your entire life whereas in the U.S. you have a limit. I asked “Why is that better?” and the general consensus seemed to be that I was a “cruel heartless” being.

[quote]forensic91 wrote:
Now I don’t wanna turn this into a heated political debate.

At school I have a politics class and I seem to be the only one who seems to be more to the right. If I say anything that is right winged everyone else in the class seems to think i’m “mean and heartless” and don’t “care about the poor.” which is simply not true. The teacher tries to remain neutral but it is obvious he is more left wing. It seems like everyone in my entourage is left wing and it seems like any slight right wing ideology is “uncaring” and frowned upon. [/quote]

A straight response:
you’re going to be in the minority in a college politics class, as a conservative, in most parts of the country.
Take it as an opportunity!
Most people don’t know how to have discussions with truly opposing viewpoints. It’s distressing, but true. Most likely the kids in your class have never met a conservative (I didn’t until I went to college) and have no experience being civil to people they disagree with, or actually engaging with opposing arguments.

What you can do:
Keep calm. Be obviously considerate in your manner to belie their stereotypes of conservatives as unkind people.
In the same vein: be upbeat. A happy person doesn’t come across as resentful or malicious.
Dispute the arguments, don’t insult the people. Ask a lot of questions. Socratic method can get you a long way; many people have unexamined assumptions.
Be educated about the political or economic theory behind your beliefs.
Be willing to change your mind if somebody else makes a valid point.
On a personal level: just don’t talk about politics all the time if it drives your friends crazy. Sorry, that’s what you have to do.

If you’re good at dealing with disagreement, rationally and politely, you have a huge advantage over your peers who are used to unanimity. At some point all of us have to hold a minority view, follow our conscience when it’s unpopular, or defend one of our ideas to a skeptic. I’ve had some of the same experiences as you in politics classes, though on the other side of the political spectrum; you just have to be comfortable being the only one who isn’t going along with the group, without being too strident or nasty about it. It’s a very useful skill.

Yeah, forget about trying to be an Objectivist in this country. Heck, I have to tell people I’m Libertarian for them to understand. It’s a good way to piss off both the left and the right when they find out you’re all for gun ownership and all for the freedom for a woman to choose what she does with her body.

We’re caught between the fascist versions of Socialism and Theocracy.

[quote]JHollywood wrote:

Voting liberals, chic liberals, and classroom liberals are afraid of being laughed at and ridiculed. They don’t want to appear evil and stupid (as conservatives are, of course) and they have an idealistic (read: naive and quixotic and dangerous) view of the world, of human nature, and of cause and effect.
[/quote]

What exactly is a voting liberal? I vote almost exclusively Democrat, but think the notions of the girl being pissed at her grandpa and lifetime welfare are ridiculous.

Anyway, I tend to think of right-wing politics being those of the most extreme Repoblicans, as the whole ‘wing’ thing implies sitting in a particular part of a legislative building.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Leftists of this sort are rather hateful people and/or are cliquish and completely dehumanize anyone who is not part of their clique.
[/quote]

I think it can be traced back to the belief in the ideal as a possibility for human society.
Compare Plato and Aristotle in their approach to defining the proper state.

All the people who believe that they can achieve some sort of perfect society end up slaughtering (in real life or words) everyone who disagrees with them.

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Yeah, forget about trying to be an Objectivist in this country. Heck, I have to tell people I’m Libertarian for them to understand. It’s a good way to piss off both the left and the right when they find out you’re all for gun ownership and all for the freedom for a woman to choose what she does with her body.

We’re caught between the fascist versions of Socialism and Theocracy.
[/quote]

I’d be careful about the abortion topic (which I assume you are getting at), as some Libertarians do say that it should be allowed, that it should be allowed if the people on the local level should allow it, and then there are some that see that at conception the egg and sperm create a human, H. sapiens, and that is one of the principles of libertarianism is that the protection of life is of the highest order, even though all humans are not equal.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Yeah, forget about trying to be an Objectivist in this country. Heck, I have to tell people I’m Libertarian for them to understand. It’s a good way to piss off both the left and the right when they find out you’re all for gun ownership and all for the freedom for a woman to choose what she does with her body.

We’re caught between the fascist versions of Socialism and Theocracy.
[/quote]

I’d be careful about the abortion topic (which I assume you are getting at), as some Libertarians do say that it should be allowed, that it should be allowed if the people on the local level should allow it, and then there are some that see that at conception the egg and sperm create a human, H. sapiens, and that is one of the principles of libertarianism is that the protection of life is of the highest order, even though all humans are not equal.[/quote]

Whenever I hear someeone talk about a woman’s right to her own body, I find myself asking “what about the baby’s right to their body?”

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Yeah, forget about trying to be an Objectivist in this country. Heck, I have to tell people I’m Libertarian for them to understand. It’s a good way to piss off both the left and the right when they find out you’re all for gun ownership and all for the freedom for a woman to choose what she does with her body.

We’re caught between the fascist versions of Socialism and Theocracy.
[/quote]

I’d be careful about the abortion topic (which I assume you are getting at), as some Libertarians do say that it should be allowed, that it should be allowed if the people on the local level should allow it, and then there are some that see that at conception the egg and sperm create a human, H. sapiens, and that is one of the principles of libertarianism is that the protection of life is of the highest order, even though all humans are not equal.[/quote]

Whenever I hear someeone talk about a woman’s right to her own body, I find myself asking “what about the baby’s right to their body?”
[/quote]

Lets just stop talking about this, do we really want another thread to turn into this debate?

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Yeah, forget about trying to be an Objectivist in this country. Heck, I have to tell people I’m Libertarian for them to understand. It’s a good way to piss off both the left and the right when they find out you’re all for gun ownership and all for the freedom for a woman to choose what she does with her body.

We’re caught between the fascist versions of Socialism and Theocracy.
[/quote]

I’d be careful about the abortion topic (which I assume you are getting at), as some Libertarians do say that it should be allowed, that it should be allowed if the people on the local level should allow it, and then there are some that see that at conception the egg and sperm create a human, H. sapiens, and that is one of the principles of libertarianism is that the protection of life is of the highest order, even though all humans are not equal.[/quote]

Whenever I hear someeone talk about a woman’s right to her own body, I find myself asking “what about the baby’s right to their body?”
[/quote]

Lets just stop talking about this, do we really want another thread to turn into this debate?[/quote]

Right on, my bad.

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Yeah, forget about trying to be an Objectivist in this country. Heck, I have to tell people I’m Libertarian for them to understand. It’s a good way to piss off both the left and the right when they find out you’re all for gun ownership and all for the freedom for a woman to choose what she does with her body.

We’re caught between the fascist versions of Socialism and Theocracy.
[/quote]

Tell me about it. As someone who is all for gun ownership, supports a woman’s control over her body, is against affirmative action and isn’t bothered by gay marriage, I give both libs and cons the occasional aneurysm. And it’s consistent with being an old school constitutionalist and a firm believer in democracy.

The crux of these issues isn’t where you stand on them, but how you think they should ultimately be decided - by the supreme court (and which method of interpretation you’d prefer to be used), or through traditional democratic processes, and at which structural level (state vs. federal). It’s so much more fruitful to get people to step away from how they FEEL about the issue, and to get them to consider the pros and cons of WHO should decide the issue for WHOM.

[quote]forensic91 wrote:
Now I don’t wanna turn this into a heated political debate.

At school I have a politics class and I seem to be the only one who seems to be more to the right. If I say anything that is right winged everyone else in the class seems to think i’m “mean and heartless” and don’t “care about the poor.” which is simply not true. The teacher tries to remain neutral but it is obvious he is more left wing. It seems like everyone in my entourage is left wing and it seems like any slight right wing ideology is “uncaring” and frowned upon. [/quote]

Just tell them they’re rightistphobic. That’ll flip they’re PC switch, and next thing you know, they’ll be marching for your rights, petitioning the school for greater political diversity among the student body and faculty, and setting aside a week (maybe even a month) to celebrate you with various rightist cultural events.

I think this thread highlights the pointless of modern political debates without an adequate understanding of the terms involved or where their own position lands them in regard to others.

The poster who suggested you all read Hayek is right, because Hayek spells thinks out brilliantly. Read ‘Why I am not a Conservative’ if you are lazy. Secondly a good dose or Thomas Paine or Jefferson et al will help with an understanding of politics.

It seems the OP and most other posters would actually be classified as liberal on the traditional meaning of the term and are very close to the mentality shared by the founding fathers of the USA. Most conservatives/libertarians et al similarly fit in there.

To answer the OP’s original question: Being ‘right wing’ (right - left is a stupid dichotomy) has been vilified since about the Vietnam war. The perversion began in academic circles and spread slowly out into the general consciousness. The vilification really took after under Bush’s presidency and in that time American partisan politics became extremely heated, rigid and falsely dichotomous. Hence you arrive at the point today where people are openly hostile over politics. And the most venomous are second rate academics and wannabe intellectuals. Unfortunately, due to the rot in higher education, most of these vapid sophists who pass for intellectuals haunt the halls of academic social science, politics, philosophy etc.

[quote]Bunyip wrote:
I think this thread highlights the pointless of modern political debates without an adequate understanding of the terms involved or where their own position lands them in regard to others.

The poster who suggested you all read Hayek is right, because Hayek spells thinks out brilliantly. Read ‘Why I am not a Conservative’ if you are lazy. Secondly a good dose or Thomas Paine or Jefferson et al will help with an understanding of politics.

It seems the OP and most other posters would actually be classified as liberal on the traditional meaning of the term and are very close to the mentality shared by the founding fathers of the USA. Most conservatives/libertarians et al similarly fit in there.

To answer the OP’s original question: Being ‘right wing’ (right - left is a stupid dichotomy) has been vilified since about the Vietnam war. The perversion began in academic circles and spread slowly out into the general consciousness. The vilification really took after under Bush’s presidency and in that time American partisan politics became extremely heated, rigid and falsely dichotomous. Hence you arrive at the point today where people are openly hostile over politics. And the most venomous are second rate academics and wannabe intellectuals. Unfortunately, due to the rot in higher education, most of these vapid sophists who pass for intellectuals haunt the halls of academic social science, politics, philosophy etc.

[/quote]

Yup.

[quote]Brayton wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Yeah, forget about trying to be an Objectivist in this country. Heck, I have to tell people I’m Libertarian for them to understand. It’s a good way to piss off both the left and the right when they find out you’re all for gun ownership and all for the freedom for a woman to choose what she does with her body.

We’re caught between the fascist versions of Socialism and Theocracy.
[/quote]

Tell me about it. As someone who is all for gun ownership, supports a woman’s control over her body, is against affirmative action and isn’t bothered by gay marriage, I give both libs and cons the occasional aneurysm. And it’s consistent with being an old school constitutionalist and a firm believer in democracy.

The crux of these issues isn’t where you stand on them, but how you think they should ultimately be decided - by the supreme court (and which method of interpretation you’d prefer to be used), or through traditional democratic processes, and at which structural level (state vs. federal). It’s so much more fruitful to get people to step away from how they FEEL about the issue, and to get them to consider the pros and cons of WHO should decide the issue for WHOM.[/quote]

Be careful there. Are you a firm believer in Democracy (majority rule) or a constitutional republic that protects the rights (freedoms to action) of the individual?

Remember that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.

[quote]ds1973 wrote:

[quote]Brayton wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Yeah, forget about trying to be an Objectivist in this country. Heck, I have to tell people I’m Libertarian for them to understand. It’s a good way to piss off both the left and the right when they find out you’re all for gun ownership and all for the freedom for a woman to choose what she does with her body.

We’re caught between the fascist versions of Socialism and Theocracy.
[/quote]

Tell me about it. As someone who is all for gun ownership, supports a woman’s control over her body, is against affirmative action and isn’t bothered by gay marriage, I give both libs and cons the occasional aneurysm. And it’s consistent with being an old school constitutionalist and a firm believer in democracy.

The crux of these issues isn’t where you stand on them, but how you think they should ultimately be decided - by the supreme court (and which method of interpretation you’d prefer to be used), or through traditional democratic processes, and at which structural level (state vs. federal). It’s so much more fruitful to get people to step away from how they FEEL about the issue, and to get them to consider the pros and cons of WHO should decide the issue for WHOM.[/quote]

Be careful there. Are you a firm believer in Democracy (majority rule) or a constitutional republic that protects the rights (freedoms to action) of the individual?

Remember that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.
[/quote]

Or 2 sheep and one wolf voting on what for dinner.

The Right wants you to believe that life is more complicated than it appears, I believe some things are more complicated, but over all life is a pretty simple thing. If you create policy that is more beneficial to the wealthy, you are (NOT) doing the poor a favor. If you want to help the poor you create policy that is conducive for the poor to elevate their living standard.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Right wants you to believe that life is more complicated than it appears, I believe some things are more complicated, but over all life is a pretty simple thing. If you create policy that is more beneficial to the wealthy, you are (NOT) doing the poor a favor. If you want to help the poor you create policy that is conducive for the poor to elevate their living standard.[/quote]

Thats what I say!

So let us not make laws to “help the poor” or else “the rich” will be forced to buy themselves some politricians and things of that nature can ruin a perfectly good country.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Right wants you to believe that life is more complicated than it appears, I believe some things are more complicated, but over all life is a pretty simple thing. If you create policy that is more beneficial to the wealthy, you are (NOT) doing the poor a favor. If you want to help the poor you create policy that is conducive for the poor to elevate their living standard.[/quote]

Haha. You’re a dumb ass. The democrats/left are more to the right than the Republican party, good job at fucking yourself over on that comment.

Read: The Goldwater Anomaly | Mises Institute