I agree with your first paragraph insofar as that European politics in general has a much more collectivist approach in dealing with inequity through out society and their is a level of statism required to correct for that. Through all the fluff though, this is just a long-winded way of saying "more government". At it's core the European left-right paradigm is shifted heavily to the left no matter where one find themselves on it for this exact reason. Right wingers in europe correct for societal inequities (to the best of their ability) at the behest of government. This is absolutely antithetical to the individualistic, anti-statist approach prescribed by American Rightism (Classical Liberalism) that is rooted in Lockean and Smithian thought. In a nut shell, European right wingers are closer to American left wingers and that is common knowledge today. Again this is separated by two core principals.
Your second paragraph is rather misleading. There is no consistent philosophy between conservatives other than the fact that they don't like change. This is a tendency and not a philosophy. Change from what and to is wildly different depending on who you are asking. Simply put, conservatives want to maintain the status quo. There is no philosophy that they all ascribe to and this may seem like semantics but it's actually rather important to note because the status quo in europe at the time was wildly different than it was ( and still is) in America which is obviously my case. The division once more is rooted at it's core by statism vs anti-statism and collectivism vs individualism. At the time in europe the status quo was to maintain the monarchy while the revolutionaries where breaking away from that authority making them radically different for their time, today however, those radically different people are now called conservatives by modern our modern standards. Why? Because that is the status quo which they seek to maintain and anything unlike it is to the left. Which is limited government, a largely unfettered economy and individual rights and liberties under the constitution. Any form of a strong centralized authority or interference by government in any capacity is comfortably on the left by American standards.
It is undeniable that today, no matter where we are in the world, thie left-right paradigm is dictated by statism since the inception of America and it's not revisionist history to claim this. Actually it would be exclusionist to say it is because it denies the very history that the revolutionaries broke away from authority in the first place. The idea here is that the spectrum has absolutely been broadened since the inception of the American constitution. Left wingers will see it differently how ever and say that the paradigm is about "equality" which isn't incorrect historically because statism was never the defining factor between left or right nor was collectivism vs individualism. But by today's standards it is absolutely incorrect to do so. The dividing factor in the past was merely whom it applied to and how many people ruled. On the far left side you had Communists who where radical egalitarians viewing borders and culture as obstacles in the international struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois classes while on the far right you had Nazis that basically thought the same except they only extended this equality to a small subset of the population and posted up borders. The level of statism is the same and the level of collectivism is the same with the minor distinction of who it applied to in Nazi Germany. This simply isn't the case in America and it would be odd to assert that Classical Liberalism is in any way shape or form like Nazism when they are diametrically opposed to one another.
Equality/Liberty and how you achieve it are different depending on who you are asking. To the philosophical underpinnings of American Rightism/Classical Liberalism, it is achieved though a constitution that is egalitarian in nature, that applies to every citizen but this does not correct for INEQUITY which to a left winger is an obstacle for true liberty. Right wingers care more for equal opportunity rather than equal outcome but this means nothing for the right-left paradigm because at the end of the day authoritarianism or collectivism of any sort stands in opposition to their individualistic approach to governance. A common trend for left wingers today is to talk about the inequity that an unfettered capitalist society brings about and this is done because it's easy for them to shoe in Nazism and Classical Liberalism into the same camp on the grounds that they are both inequitable when in reality communism and fascism have more in common with each other with the minor distinction of who the prescriptions apply to.
In europe far rightism is Nazism, in America It's anarcho-capitalism. Are they both inequitable? Yes. Do this make them the same? Absolutely not. To assert otherwise is a very odd. Typically this is where leftists bring out the multi dimensional/axis spectrums but this is because they want to be able to differentiate the political ideologies on the basis of inequity and not statism. Their very reputations rely on doing so and this is why we are lambasted in academia about the perils of capitalism on the basis of inequity. The political spectrum is much simpler than this of course.
Your last paragraph is interesting because you separate American conservatism from American rightism which is misleading since they are inseparable. You even fortify this by understanding the true right wing cause in europe as upholidng the monarchy which was conservatism in europe at the time and as a result right wing. You further reinforce this here
"Monarchy is the original right-wing cause, and Nazism is a kind of form of that." The issue you are having is that you don't understand that Conservatism is relative and not constant nor static. As i said before the status quo in America is to maintain and uphold the prescriptions of classical liberalism which was a break away from the monarchy and authoritarian rule which preceded it in Europe (which was the status quo there). The more Trump increases American Hegemony, the closer he actually gets to the left and the further away he gets from American Conservatism/rightism. To deny this is to deny not only history but the definition of conservatism in the first place. Conservatism in europe to an American is Left no matter how you quantify the difference. So yes, on those grounds Trump has been criticized for not being a true AMERICAN conservative but not as a EUROPEAN conservative.
Now Monarchism (The rule of one) is decidedly left wing in America because it stands in opposition to their status quo. Whether or not you have heard about the criticisms of Trump not being a true right winger are irrelevant. A quick search on google can clear that up for you. The more "Dictator" like tendencies Trump shows, the further left he goes. How the American public votes is also irrelevant because no one is talking about them but rather the left-right paradigm which remains wholly intact no matter who is currently president or how anyone votes. Just because America hasn't voted in a communist president, it doesn't negate the existence of the ideology and the same applies for American rightism as an ideology and prescription to it's citizens. Trump pulling
TL/DR (for anyone who doesn't want to sift through this but wants in on the fun)
-The political spectrum is not defined by equality/inequity but collectivism vs individualism and statism vs collectivism
-Left = collectivism/statism, Right = individualism/Anti-statism to varying degrees.
-Historically Status quo in Europe(right wingers in europe) = upholding the monarchy, status quo in America = upholding Classic liberalism
-Trump Is closer to European conservatism as American Hegonomy increases.
-Conservatism is not a philosophy but is about maintaining the status quo which is relative to the time and place we live.
Let me know if i missed anything. Looking forward to your response and having everyone flip shit in this thread. Be kind to my english it's my second language.
