The Republican Party of today does a massive disservice to any shred of the concept of a logical and realistic right-wing opinion.
And even then, the ideals depend heavily on the system functioning properly. Honestly a properly functioning right-wing state could be as good or better for individual freedom and security than a properly-functioning true socialist state.
However, I think it takes a hell of a lot of faith in the right-wing system to even get close to something fair and functional in the real world.
What’s the function of banning books, removing women’s rights to bodily autonomy, removing individual rights of transgender people, electing a fraud and rapist president, and pushing christian facism in a " properly functioning right-wing state"?
That’s the thing. Today’s Republican Party is not a right wing party. They christofascists that hijacked the Republican party’s platform, propaganda machines, and now, leadership.
It’s been a gentle decline since the 80s, then Sarah Pain got a platform right alongside McCain and the whole thing fell right into the deep end.
Who would’ve thought that the two people most detrimental to the fall of modern society would be Ralph Nader and Sarah Palin.
It’s a No True Scotsman kind of thing…but I wouldn’t consider anything the christofascists say or do to be aligned with right-wing principles (limited government, personal autonomy, “golden rule” type stuff).
Government banning anything, whether it be books or gay marriage or abortions, would not fly under a true right wing government, because banning anything requires enforcement (which requires a larger government) and a breach of personal autonomy.
When you get to “far”, well by definition you have extremists. Things are distorted know because the far right has power and the far left essentially doesn’t exist in our political system. So it’s hard to ignore the extremism.
Also, though we like a spectrum, it doesn’t cut in one dimension. One flavor of “right wing” says government stays out of stuff, especially religious stuff, but another flavor wants a theocracy. The latter flavor is at the wheel in the Republican party now, which is dangerous.
In terms of a realistic theoretical right position I’d say favoring reducing spend over raising taxes is a defensible position. Now problem again being the Republicans tossed this and spend at least as much as the Democrats, but are less responsible about tax revenue as they do it.
I’m wary of the dangers of partisan driven politics (your “team” becomes your ultimate loyalty), but in the current climate I side with the Democrats because the Republicans have just been getting more and more nuts. I still want to watch the nuance and vote for candidates rather than blindly for a party, because complacency can be a dangerous position.
Can you give us a logical and realistic right-wing opinion?
The Republican Party of today does a massive disservice to any shred of the concept of a logical and realistic right-wing opinion.
And even then, the ideals depend heavily on the system functioning properly. Honestly a properly functioning right-wing state could be as good or better for individual freedom and security than a properly-functioning true socialist state.
However, I think it takes a hell of a lot of faith in the right-wing system to even get close to something fair and functional in the real world.
What’s the function of banning books, removing women’s rights to bodily autonomy, removing individual rights of transgender people, electing a fraud and rapist president, and pushing christian facism in a " properly functioning right-wing state"?
What if those aren’t examples of a properly functioning right-wing state?
They sound more theocracy based. From your examples in order:
That’s the thing. Today’s Republican Party is not a right wing party. They christofascists that hijacked the Republican party’s platform, propaganda machines, and now, leadership.
It’s been a gentle decline since the 80s, then Sarah Pain got a platform right alongside McCain and the whole thing fell right into the deep end.
Who would’ve thought that the two people most detrimental to the fall of modern society would be Ralph Nader and Sarah Palin.
Everything you described is right wing. Christofascism is right wing.
It’s a No True Scotsman kind of thing…but I wouldn’t consider anything the christofascists say or do to be aligned with right-wing principles (limited government, personal autonomy, “golden rule” type stuff).
Government banning anything, whether it be books or gay marriage or abortions, would not fly under a true right wing government, because banning anything requires enforcement (which requires a larger government) and a breach of personal autonomy.
That’s not what right-wing means. Right-wing is Capitalist, and associated with entrenching and upholding hierarchy.
Limited government cannot exist in a right wing environment, Capitalism requires a state. That’s why all Anarchism is leftist.
I see you haven’t heard of ancaps.
I’ve heard, it’s just not Anarchism.
Right wing or far right?
When you get to “far”, well by definition you have extremists. Things are distorted know because the far right has power and the far left essentially doesn’t exist in our political system. So it’s hard to ignore the extremism.
Also, though we like a spectrum, it doesn’t cut in one dimension. One flavor of “right wing” says government stays out of stuff, especially religious stuff, but another flavor wants a theocracy. The latter flavor is at the wheel in the Republican party now, which is dangerous.
In terms of a realistic theoretical right position I’d say favoring reducing spend over raising taxes is a defensible position. Now problem again being the Republicans tossed this and spend at least as much as the Democrats, but are less responsible about tax revenue as they do it.
I’m wary of the dangers of partisan driven politics (your “team” becomes your ultimate loyalty), but in the current climate I side with the Democrats because the Republicans have just been getting more and more nuts. I still want to watch the nuance and vote for candidates rather than blindly for a party, because complacency can be a dangerous position.
“private property is necessary for a functioning society.”
or is that liberals? I get them confused all the time