I find it so amusing when conservatives say the left hates western civilization; of course they do, they’re the left. That is literally the entire point of their ideological framework, to criticize and reform.
That’s a popular refrain that keeps coming up, and I hate it. Left and right have been the primary way of describing political division for centuries.
Everyone knows this in my space on the internet, but the terms left and right literally directly correlate to the terms “progressive” and “conservative.” Any other way of describing political division is simply making distinctions within one group or the other. If you broadly believe your society is good and should be protected, you are right wing. If you think your society is fundamentally flawed and must be reformed or revolutionized, you are left wing.
Conservative quite literally means “careful,” while liberal means the opposite. Liberals aren’t necessarily reckless, or anti-careful to be exact, but believe that society should be more open to more groups of people and types of behaviour. Liberals are comfortable with drug use, conservatives are not. Conservatives believe in high military spending and border protections, liberals do not. That is the fundamental difference between someone who is left wing and someone who is right wing. If you believe that society is basically good, then you are a conservative.
That’s one reason why I find it so amusing when conservatives say the left hates western civilization; of course they do, they’re the left. That is literally the entire point of their ideological framework, to criticize and reform. The point of conservatives is to oppose that reform and criticism. That is the dynamic, and the philosophy. Conservatism is the force of status quo. Conservatism is the political embodiment of worry, conscientiousness, and (often justified) paranoia.
There are a number of generic canards used by those who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of human existence and political behaviors that go something like this: “It’s not left vs. right, it’s X vs. Y!”
Nationalism vs. Globalism
Capitalism vs. Socialism
Good vs. Evil
The People vs. The Elite
Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat
Democrat vs. Republican
Hierarchy vs. Equality
You could attribute most of these things to one side or the other depending on the society or the time period. In Ireland, nationalism is left wing, in Germany it is right wing. In the middle east, or the latter part of the history of the USSR, Cuba and China it could be explained that dictatorial, socialistic regimes are right wing because their primary focus was no longer the continuation of the spread of Marxism-Leninism but simply the continuation of the way of life that they fought and died for.
The most volatile and dangerous force in the world is change, and the more continuous that change the more disastrous for the people. That is why I believe Stalin was a great leader, governing in a fundamentally evil system. While yes, of course he was a murderous dictator who needlessly starved millions, Russia and her periphery were left in a difficult situation. If any person were the leader of a tyrannical system like a Leninist regime, they would have no choice to act as Stalin did. Obviously I’m not going to stand here and say that starvation and mass killings are good, but that they are inescapable in any new system of governance, especially when it is based around building a centrally planned economy with rapid industrialization of an agrarian society. Lenin and Trotsky, contrary to popular belief are in my opinion worse than Stalin. Karl Marx’ ideology inspired the most deadly regimes in the history of the world, and Stalin simply did the best he could to implement that ideology when Russia had gone beyond the point of no return. Trotsky was evil, Stalin was terrified.
Even if a country is founded upon some form of radical ideology, it will always revert to the natural state, with a bloated aristocracy and an inherent conservatism to its governance. Not ideological conservatism, but practical conservatism.
I think the fact that there is an ideology called conservatism that has a list of beliefs you check is one of the main reasons people fundamentally misunderstand what it means to be right wing. Ideological conservatism does not, in fact in any way pursue authentically right wing interests, but simply mirrors the talking points and behaviour of them for a higher goal.
I think the most accurate one of those canards is the “nationalism vs. globalism” one. Left wing nationalism basically only exists in two forms – seeking independence from another country’s occupation (ie. Quebec, Ireland), or in a braggadocios sense of being more ideologically progressive than a neighboring country (ie. Canada). Nationalism in a broader sense is simply the love for your own people, and as such is a naturally conservative worldview. Globalism is a force contrary to that worldview, and is ideological in nature, therefore being inherently left wing.
There is a natural state to the world, and the natural state of being is hierarchical, with strict moral authority. Those best at society will in a just society rise to the top, as is also the case in a free market economic system (which is why capitalism is right wing).
Ideological conservatism, also known as fusionism is a mixture of two ideological (left wing) belief systems, couched in the rhetorical devices of traditionalist Christianity. Those two ideological groups are of course the neo-cons and the libertarians.
The neo-conservatives are not conservative in any way. The prefix “neo” and the adjective “conservative” are in direct contradiction with each other. It literally means “conservatism, updated for the modern day” or “new conservatism.” So if you read a little into it, it means “conservatives that are not conservatives.” Libertarians take the free market aspect of conservatism to its extreme, saying there should be as minimal regulation on trade as possible.
The only part of the modern conservative framework that is actually conservative is the traditionalist part. They are the conservatives. Neocons and libertarians, because their focus is on reshaping society to fit their worldview, are left wing. Even if the worldview is “right wing” in nature (hierarchical, traditional), the aim of revolutionizing a perfectly functional society into something else is a left wing aim, and will ultimately just legitimize the most powerful left wing force of them all, internationalism (or communism if you’d like but communism is more specific).
So all of this leaves us in an interesting conundrum. Our society is being governed by subversive actors that are snowballing the entirety of our civilization towards internationalism. They are using the language of abolishing hierarchy to become the top of the hierarchy themselves. There will always be someone in charge, be that a king, president, aristocracy, or a central planner. The questions really are does the society have the will to survive, and will the new society be better than the old one?
I’m pretty sure everyone is at least somewhat aware of what the elite class are doing at the moment, the conspiracy theories, the blatant facts. Disarming the population, replacing the demographic core of the most competent nations with the incompetent, promoting government dependence over dependence on family and community, etc.
This is all going at a rapid pace.
So, what does this mean for the right wing. Because there is a second form of right wing other than a conservative, that being the reactionary. If you are not a conservative or a reactionary, you are not right wing. A conservative is someone who wants to halt the society, keeping it the way it is. A reactionary is someone who wants to revert, undo those changes and return society to its natural state. There is a genuine appetite for reactionary (or far right) politics in the west, as exemplified by Trumpism.
Trump is an inherently reactionary, far right figure. Make America Great Again. America used to be great, so we need to change things back to the way they were. That is opposed to the conservative message; America is great, has no problems and should stay the same.
What this means for the right wing – the appetite for reactionary politics, the constantly shifting march of globalism, liberalism and the like – is that to be a conservative, you must be a reactionary, a nationalist. Otherwise, all you will be doing, is saying “well all the changes the left has made so far have been fine, but this new change is too far.” What we should be saying is “everything the left touches and has touched in our society has been an unmitigated disaster and must be undone by a strong, male leader. We need to fix our society and make it great again.”
Make America Great Again isn’t just a slogan. It should be our entire ideological vision.