This was cleared up before. We can't continue until you admit your line of reasoning is outdated. No one who calls for limited government is seeking to reinstate the monarchy. You have to come to terms with the fact that the status quo is simply different in America than it was in France.
My line of reasoning is correct, though. I think you're making a simple error. This seems to be your thinking:
1. The right favors preserving the status quo.
2. In America, the status quo is liberal.
3. The American right is therefore liberal.
4. The American left is therefore the opposite of liberal.
The first problem with this is that "favoring preserving the status quo" is a (simplistic) description of *conservatism*, which is a generally right-wing ideology (one of many) but not synonymous with the right. And that's a problem here specifically because "conservatism" by that definition is not common on the right in America. Another problem is that you can't define the spectrum that way, even if 1-3 were right. The left in America *also* has liberal origins (and also has illiberal influences), and it is much closer to those origins now.
As I've mentioned numerous times their character makes not a lick of difference. You think it does but it doesn't.
What's the reasoning behind your assertion that the thoughts and actions of the American right are irrelevant to a description of the thinking of the American right?
American rightism is opposed to any form of authoritarianism or any centralized government operating outside the scope of it's original intentions like protecting people from one another and the externalities on an international stage. The more bloated government gets and the more redistributive the economy the more left it gets.
American rightism is not opposed to most forms of authoritarianism, and is, in fact, very authoritarian itself. "Redistributive" in your usage is defined against a baseline that entails gov't force. If the gov't isn't determining the initial distribution (i.e., it doesn't recognize and enforce claims to property), there's no need to redistribute (that's anarchism--no gov't and no property, and it's an extreme left-wing system).
Locke literally gave structure to Americas presidential system and the Central tenants of classical liberalism which is undeniably right-wing thought today, can be seen nearly verbatim in the constitution.
In no sense is classical liberalism right-wing thought today. What makes it so in your opinion?
You saying Calhoun was more influential than Locke here is to enter another dimension of weirdness that I'm not willing to follow on.
I don't understand. Are you unfamiliar with Calhoun?
When I have more time I'll read it but I'm currently at work. But assuming the last part of your sentence is an accurate portrayal of the contents than it would reinforce the idea that conservatism is relative and not static as tradition always is the world over.
It's like 700 pages (the book). Probably the best intro to American conservatism (which, again, is different from American rightism) you'll find, though.
Meh. He's to the right of something that's for sure.
Yes. He's authoritarian to an unusual degree and the dominant voice on the American right.
