James L. Richardson identified five central themes in Locke's writing:
individualism, consent, the concepts of the
rule of law and government as trustee, the significance of property and religious toleration. Although Locke did not develop a theory of natural rights, he envisioned individuals in the state of nature as being free and equal. The individual, rather than the community or institutions, was the point of reference. Locke believed that individuals had given consent to government and therefore authority derived from the people rather than from above. This belief would influence later revolutionary movements.
[61]
Where are you getting the idea that the left in America is not liberal, then? Or that the right in America is not right in a general sense?
At this point it would be you since you keep incorrectly injecting it in here for what ever reason. A better question would be how you've gathered that from my statement that "Liberalism isn't the dividing factor between left and right" Again we have a fundamental disagreement about what American conservatism is because you confuse the status quo that needs to be maintained from a rather outdated view and think that it's the exact same in America as it once was in France.
I'm not seeing how this fits in with your other thinking. Seems like you're now acknowledging that equality and protecting hierarchy is the basis for the spectrum. BTW, it's not accurate to say that European right-wingers are leftists in America--just that European rightists are more likely to support some left-wing policy. Also I'm not seeing the basis for thinking that "any bloating of gov't (is) a shift ... to the left."
It fits just fine. You are having a hard time separating ideology from the public in America that considers itself "right" which i disagree has fundamentally changed just because Trump is in office which is what brings you closer to a more european form of conservatism. I simply reject your logic that it somehow negates the status quo in America Just like voting in a communist on the left doesnt make everyone in America on the left a communist. What i mean buy American right / American Rightism is Americas brand of conservatism which is also known as Classical liberalism.
When i attatch the words "American" and "rightism/Conservatism" together i am referring to classical liberalism and that is without a question right wing thought today.
You actually agree with this unknowingly but keep switching what it means to be a conservative. Lets follow your logic of what makes a right winger a right winger in the very general sense which in your words is 1)"
Think that what conservatism is (well-described here, which I recommend) is a belief in the wisdom of tradition." ok this is accurate and the general core definition of what it means to be on the RIGHT on the political paradigm. They do not intend to change tradition (status quo), where you go wrong is how you define a conservative later on bringing us to this fundamental disagreement that is impossible to overcome 2) "
Incorrect. The far right of the spectrum is monarchy or monarch-like systems. The far left is no gov't at all and a totally flat hierarchical structure (no property, essentially)." First off this is not the tradition being upheld in america. The tradition being upheld is classical liberalism which is a break away from authoritarian hierarchies, you are making the crucial mistake of thinking conservatism is a static ideology the world over. It's fine but grossly inaccurate and outdated by today standards. Following this logic would mean that you do not actually agree with assertion #1 but instead you actually believe in assertion #2. The only way to truly qualify statement #2 in America is to show case how authoritarianism is in any way not antithetical to the status quo. Of course you can't so what you are currently spending your time doing is saying "Trump is in office therefore the status quo from a different point in history and location is going to replace the already existing one in America." This makes zero sense if we follow definition #1 which is relative.
Also when you say far left you mean the dissolution of state ushering in the utopia after communism. This is a classless, hierarchy free (in any way shape or form state or otherwise) and one where the land is held in common. Do you realize that what makes this different than Right Wing anarchism is the fact that one is collectivist (left) and one is Individualist (right). You will probably cite that right wing anarchism makes no sense because it lends itself to hierarchies(not state but naturally occurring ones) and a more feudalistic society completely negating the very existence of true version of left wing anarchism but Anarchism is the complete dissolution of the state with private property so land and industry is not held in common but instead privately. Explain to me how statism and collectivism or vice verca is not navigating this? Amplify government and the further left you go. To an anarcho capitalist a classical liberal is a leftist, to a classical liberal Trump is a leftist, to Trump Hitler is a leftist and down the road we go. It has zero to do with equality because classical liberalism already deals with equality (but not equity) under the law, leftists decide to approach it by government intervention in eradicating inequity in society. The difference here is how one approaches liberty equality and freedom, either collectively or individually. Collectivism and statism are antithetical to classical liberalism and this is where we will continue to disagree.
I'm not seeing how this fits in with your other thinking. Seems like you're now acknowledging that equality and protecting hierarchy is the basis for the spectrum. BTW, it's not accurate to say that European right-wingers are leftists in America--just that European rightists are more likely to support some left-wing policy. Also I'm not seeing the basis for thinking that "any bloating of gov't (is) a shift ... to the left."
What I'm having a hard time grasping is your justification for constantly switching between describing conservatism and the American right, which are different things.
What are you basing this on? I asked before where you're getting your understanding of American politics, and you didn't answer. I'm quite curious, as I think your source is misleading you.
This is because you have a conflicting view of what makes a conservative a conservative. Read the above.
Individualism isn't left or right--it's liberal. But the American left is far more liberal than the American right. "Unfettered market economies" are not possible in reality--it is fetters established by the gov't that enables a market economy in the first place. You wouldn't have a market economy with anarchism (in fact, by definition, it wouldn't be anarchism unless we assume an economy run by worker collectives or something).
Incorrect. Individualism is without a question right. Like i said liberalism in the classical sense falls to the right. Unfettered market economies not being possible in reality make no difference to the conversation we are having. I could easily say a society without hierarchies in any capacity and land being held in common (key word) without conflict are a pipe dream, not like that negates it's presence on the world stage nor where it sits on the political compass which is on the far left.
I'm not thinking about it like that. You're making assertions about the left that don't have any basis in history or philosophy, and insisting that the American right is something very different from the American right that exists.
Im not asserting that the current right wing block is a monolith or making any opinions on the variations of personally held opinions of the right wing block. That's your argument, not mine. None of that changes the American political paradigm like you think it does. Until the constitution is wildly changed, upholidng it's values makes it American Conservatism.
Who is criticizing Trump for being more left than right? Certainly not anyone familiar with the history of political thought and Trump, and certainly not most people.
Well you certainly seem not to be one of those people but it is an issue people have discussed since he upholds that tradition of demagoguery as you put it before. That runs contrary to the American Tradition.
I think you misread something.
Likewise.
Edit: I'll leave this passage from wikipedia here for you to read. Let me know if this isnt accurate either (which who knows maybe it is)
Central to classical liberal ideology was their interpretation of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, which had been written as a defence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although these writings were considered too radical at the time for Britain's new rulers, they later came to be cited by Whigs, radicals and supporters of the
American Revolution.
[59] However, much of later liberal thought was absent in Locke's writings or scarcely mentioned and his writings have been subject to various interpretations. For example, there is little mention of
constitutionalism, the
separation of powers and
limited government.
[60]
James L. Richardson identified five central themes in Locke's writing: individualism, consent, the concepts of the rule of law and government as trustee, the significance of property and religious toleration. Although Locke did not develop a theory of natural rights, he envisioned individuals in the state of nature as being free and equal. The individual, rather than the community or institutions, was the point of reference. Locke believed that individuals had given consent to government and therefore authority derived from the people rather than from above. This belief would influence later revolutionary movements.
[61]
Here is a passage from a book written by Deepak Lal
- Reviving the Invisible Hand: The Case for Classical Liberalism in the Twenty-first Century.
The major votaries of classical liberalism today are American conservatives. For as Hayek noted: "It is the doctrine on which the American system of government is based. "But, contemporary American conservatism is a novel brew which Micklethwait and Wooldridge rightly note is a mixture of the individualism of classical liberalism and "ubertraditionalism." It represents adherence to the bourgeois organization of society epitomized by that much-maligned word, "Victorian": with its faith in individualism, capitalism, progress, and virtue. Having been silenced by the seemingly endless march of "embedded liberalism" since the New Deal, American conservatism has, since the late 1960s, regrouped, and under Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush created a new powerful political movement. Thus, apart from the brief period of Margaret Thatcher's ascendancy in Britain, it is only in the United States that the classical liberal tradition continues to have political force.
