4 ms·

I agree that it's incorrect to say that right wing politics are specifically about maintaining the status quo, but that does tend to be the effect of their poli

I agree that it's incorrect to say that right wing politics are specifically about maintaining the status quo, but that does tend to be the effect of their policies, regardless of how much they change the law "lines of code" style, as pointed out by a sibling post. But what right wing politics are about is maintaining the social order. Ensuring that wealth stays with the wealthy, power remains with the powerful, and making people content with both their own place in society and the places of others (particularly their 'betters'). Dismantling SS, keeping illegal immigrants illegal, cheap, and vulnerable as well as avoiding a flood of legal immigrants who will take 'native' jobs, and controlling education policy all achieve these goals. As does advocating for less progressive taxes to avoid distribution of wealth away from top earners. Making right wing politics all about shrinking government is putting the cart before the horse. Shrinking government is not in itself a useful goal, it's the outcomes of that shrinkage, and what you shrink, that are the goal. Starving the beast is just how you get there.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
On the contrary, right wing politics seem to be about replacing the current social order. Currently academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents. This is the status quo. Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers, business leaders and those who embody traditional christian values. That's a real change in the status quo.
- gone35 12y ago
  "Currently [...] teachers [...] occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents." [Emphasis added] Interesting --maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim. Can you clarify what you mean by "occupy a strong position in the social order", and outline your evidence for such a belief?
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. Consider the difficulty in reducing dependency programs (e.g., SS, Medicare) - these are political non-starters due to old people voting. On the cultural front, note how difficult it is even to criticize teachers or government dependents. Consider the media reaction when Romney correctly pointed out that about half the population is at least partly dependent on the government, or how right wing politicians are described as "attacking" teachers when they propose anything the educational establishment dislikes. Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received?
    - Frondo 12y ago
      Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services. I'm sure many people of a certain ideological stripe feel as though they're somehow self-reliant and do not rely on anything any level of government provides, but that does not mesh with reality. As for shaming people on welfare, I'm again unsure which country you're describing. First, "welfare" (i.e. as a cash grant) hasn't existed in the U.S. in close to 20 years. Second, people who do receive some sort of subsidized food or housing are very nearly universally looked down upon. They're not held in any esteem whatsoever now. Do you think it would be reasonable, or make any kind of policy sense, to shame them further? If so, why?
      - blfr 12y ago
        Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services. He means net payments to/from the government, not using the roads.
      - areyousure 12y ago
        It is my understanding that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a cash benefit. Do you not consider TANF in the U.S. to be "welfare" in the form of a cash grant?
- Frondo 12y ago
  I am not sure which country you're describing. To say that "government dependents" "occupy a strong position in the social order" does not accurately describe the U.S. in any meaningful way.
- smadge 12y ago
  > academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order Those are some of the least paid and least powerful professions in society. Academics just have loud voices that no one listens to. > Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers That's why the right wing supports increasing the minimum wage, unions, and regulating industry exploitation of employees. /sarcasm. The left wing has pretty much been pro-workers since the left wing was invented in 1789 France.
- stormbrew 12y ago
  Your description of reality here is almost diametrically opposed to any reality I've ever experienced. The idea that elevating business leaders and people with christian values is something that alters the status quo, in particular, seems particularly absurd -- their influence on the social order is practically apex. I'd also be really curious to hear why you think they're in support of 'workers', to which I assume you mean something different from a normal definition of 'working class'. I'm not really aware of any right wing political policy that works in their favour. But all of that aside, you again conflate changing the status quo with changing the social order. Obviously the right wing seeks some kind of change in the status quo (else why organize at all), but that change is to reinforce the social order or establish one that is in line with their views. The fact that you're talking about elevating a particular class of people is in itself a right wing, social-order oriented, concept. Left wing politics are generally about dismantling social order altogether -- not just the current one, but the very existence of one. You can easily argue about how successful they've been, especially in the more radical efforts, but that remains their pie-in-the-sky goal. You may also argue with the idea that such a thing is even possible. That is itself a right wing axiom.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

On the contrary, right wing politics seem to be about replacing the current social order. Currently academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents. This is the status quo. Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers, business leaders and those who embody traditional christian values. That's a real change in the status quo.

gone35 12y ago
"Currently [...] teachers [...] occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents." [Emphasis added] Interesting --maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim. Can you clarify what you mean by "occupy a strong position in the social order", and outline your evidence for such a belief?
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. Consider the difficulty in reducing dependency programs (e.g., SS, Medicare) - these are political non-starters due to old people voting. On the cultural front, note how difficult it is even to criticize teachers or government dependents. Consider the media reaction when Romney correctly pointed out that about half the population is at least partly dependent on the government, or how right wing politicians are described as "attacking" teachers when they propose anything the educational establishment dislikes. Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received?
  - Frondo 12y ago
    Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services. I'm sure many people of a certain ideological stripe feel as though they're somehow self-reliant and do not rely on anything any level of government provides, but that does not mesh with reality. As for shaming people on welfare, I'm again unsure which country you're describing. First, "welfare" (i.e. as a cash grant) hasn't existed in the U.S. in close to 20 years. Second, people who do receive some sort of subsidized food or housing are very nearly universally looked down upon. They're not held in any esteem whatsoever now. Do you think it would be reasonable, or make any kind of policy sense, to shame them further? If so, why?
    - blfr 12y ago
      Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services. He means net payments to/from the government, not using the roads.
    - areyousure 12y ago
      It is my understanding that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a cash benefit. Do you not consider TANF in the U.S. to be "welfare" in the form of a cash grant?
Frondo 12y ago
I am not sure which country you're describing. To say that "government dependents" "occupy a strong position in the social order" does not accurately describe the U.S. in any meaningful way.
smadge 12y ago
> academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order Those are some of the least paid and least powerful professions in society. Academics just have loud voices that no one listens to. > Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers That's why the right wing supports increasing the minimum wage, unions, and regulating industry exploitation of employees. /sarcasm. The left wing has pretty much been pro-workers since the left wing was invented in 1789 France.
stormbrew 12y ago
Your description of reality here is almost diametrically opposed to any reality I've ever experienced. The idea that elevating business leaders and people with christian values is something that alters the status quo, in particular, seems particularly absurd -- their influence on the social order is practically apex. I'd also be really curious to hear why you think they're in support of 'workers', to which I assume you mean something different from a normal definition of 'working class'. I'm not really aware of any right wing political policy that works in their favour. But all of that aside, you again conflate changing the status quo with changing the social order. Obviously the right wing seeks some kind of change in the status quo (else why organize at all), but that change is to reinforce the social order or establish one that is in line with their views. The fact that you're talking about elevating a particular class of people is in itself a right wing, social-order oriented, concept. Left wing politics are generally about dismantling social order altogether -- not just the current one, but the very existence of one. You can easily argue about how successful they've been, especially in the more radical efforts, but that remains their pie-in-the-sky goal. You may also argue with the idea that such a thing is even possible. That is itself a right wing axiom.