Five Common Myths About Right-Wingers Debunked

Severin_K Follow
  • 88
  • 1
show more
Upvotes (6)
Comments (1)
Sorted by:
  • [ – ] JonTheBemused reply I agreed with most of that. So I must be a left-wing conservative. Some of what you describe was quite US-centric. And what you describe as the left is not any left that I recognise. But given their utter ignorance of history, that people now call themselves left who have no understanding of it, does not surprise me at all. And while I completely agree about the changing society one person at a time, and the essential need for a brake on change, I would be that brake the other way, in regard to overly vigorous dismantling of the security systems put in place to account for deficiencies of capitalism. The massive states we have, though lamentable, with excessive regulation, did not arise out of nothing, or for no reason. We forget the lessons that lead to their creation at our peril. For those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
    • [ – ] Severin_K parent reply My ideological thinking is influenced mainly by American conservatism and libertarianism, obviously with English liberalism blended in. What I'm really aiming for is a kind of transatlantic conservatism. As for the left, I think it's been this way for quite a long time. As long as Marxist thought is involved it will be authoritarian. Some of the economic stuff was already mentioned in last week's video. If you're not familiar with this side of the left, I think you've missed quite a bit. The British left is in on the whole climate change narrative too, and the gender theory crap. If I have to concede something it's that I failed to mention the opposite. The right-wing is there to keep progress from happening too quickly, while the left is there to make sure society doesn't stagnate. It used to be that both would talk to each other and the political situation would be fine. Now the left is shutting everyone out that doesn't agree with the hyper-progressive agenda, and the right may ye...moret become more insular as a result.
      • [ – ] JonTheBemused parent reply The irony, is that Marxism started out as anti-authoritarian, whereas our conservatives are still heavily authoritarian. Just look at the internet censorship they are putting in place, the "hate speech" laws, the crack down on "online abuse", anti-pornography legislation, and so on. When I was growing up, the only way to be anti-authoritarian in Britain was to be left-wing. But only part of the left wing. The left-wing authoritarians, particularly parts of the Labour Party, have always been there. What I have failed to see much evidence of in Britain, is right-wingers who advocate for liberty. People cite Thatcher as a great liberating force. But she did plenty to extend that which we refer to as the "nanny state". For all her years in government, she didn't reduce the number of laws, the extent, size or cost of government. She just privatised a lot of stuff, putting money into the hands of those already wealthy enough to take advantage, widening existing divisions, and creati...moreng economic blackspots of serious extent. And gave major tax cuts to the same people. That she did this with the best of intentions, and for good reasons was no consolation to those who, through no fault of their own, lost out as a result. That there was urgent need for reform is not something I dispute. But when something is to be changed, there are ways to go about it. I wrote a piece criticising Kyle Kulinski when he suggested drastic cuts to military spending. Because huge swathes of the US economy will depend and be structured around that spending. So it has to be done slowly and carefully, to allow the companies affected to switch into other areas, and thus maintain the employment of their workforce. It is not only about making change. It is about managing the change to minimise any adverse consequences. And failings of British Conservatism could be considered reason to side with the British left, if they were not equally deranged in a different direction. For sadly, we have no parties seemingly interested in liberty and the individual. But be under no illusion that the "right" in Britain is interested in small government, or avoiding state subsidies. The only difference between our left and right are who it is OK to subsidise.
        • [ – ] Severin_K parent reply Many of Britain's liberty conservatives can be found UKIP and the UK Libertarian Party, but are a minority in the Tory party. There isn't a huge political force for US style liberty conservatism (or libertarianism) in politics, but plenty of libertarian individuals. I'm all too aware of Tory authoritarianism. That's why I actually dislike the Tory party and have never voted for them. I think it will take a long time to transform the British political landscape in order to favour liberty. If only the Liberal Democrats were an actually liberal or libertarian party. Maybe then they might grow as a political force again.
          • [ – ] JonTheBemused parent reply I was musing recently whether we might benefit from a Freedom Party (I guess Liberty Party risks beings confused with Liberals and Libertarians). The view is that the economic policies that governments can pursue can be heavily constrained, and so not such a large differentiator. Thus, a focus on increasing and protecting personal liberties, which would have the benefit of reducing the size and scope of government, could draw broad support. People are crying out for such a move, I suspect. Or am I mistaken?
            • [ – ] Severin_K parent reply The problem with social policy is that neither Labour or the Tories are very different. That's why I would like a Freedom Party, but I would prefer to grow the existing options. If I were to join the Liberal Democrats I'd probably mount a Thatcher-style leadership coup and take over the party. That's probably the only way to get the Lib Dems where I would want them to be. Of course because I'm now familiar with economic policy (at least on a basic level), it's hard for me to focus simply on social policy, which is one of the reasons I shifted right.
              • [ – ] JonTheBemused parent reply The thing about economic policy is that, at the start of the Blair years, Gordon Brown demonstrated that even Labour could be economically sound, so long as they remained fiscally responsible. It was the abandonment of that sense of responsibilty that caused problems. And this was why I said that economic policy needn't be such a differentiator. For I believe that sound economic policy has very broad appeal. While cleaning up (reducing) government involvement in social issues can only lead to less government, and thus cheaper government. At least, that is how I see it.
Load more comments
Download the Vidme app!