Far-right politics - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Intangible (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 24 October 2006 (paleo subset of conservatism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:56, 24 October 2006 by Intangible (talk | contribs) (paleo subset of conservatism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Far right, extreme right, ultra-right, radical right, or hard right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or relative position a group or person occupies within a political spectrum. The terms "far right" and "far left" are often used to say that someone is an "extremist." "Far right" is thus usually a pejorative term used by outsiders rather than a self-label.

The far right has often been associated in various degrees with social, cultural and religious conservatism, reactionary monarchism, reactionary nationalism, jingoistic chauvinism, populism, economic protectionism, anti-immigration or racist and xenophobic policies, but the usage varies greatly.

Usage

See also: Left-Right politics

A simple, if vague, definition of "far right" is someone deemed too right-wing to be accepted in the nation's mainstream right-wing political parties. "Far right" ideologies and movements often advocate substantial intervention, typically government intervention, in society in order to protect or promote inequalities or privileges, especially those inequalities or privileges that are viewed as "traditional". It is often associated with hardline nationalism. This is in contrast to the left-wing, who advocate intervention in favor of "equality", and give little or no authority to "tradition". Both stand in contrast also to less interventionist positions such as conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism, each of which gives varying weights to the value of tradition and equality.

The terms "left" and "right" used in this way arose during the French Revolution. The original meaning of "far right" was the "throne-and-altar" conservatives, like Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald, who rejected democracy, liberalism and individualism, and were in favour of an authoritarian monarchical government. They further proclaimed the submission of the individual to the so-called "natural associations" (families, regions, professions, nations, etc.). For them, we should obey our superiors in Earth (the father in family, the King in the state, the Pope in the Church) because their authority is the mirror of the authority of God in the Universe.

Naturally, in societies that differ significantly from Ancien Régime France, the term takes on a completely different meaning. The original French meaning is specific to a Roman Catholic nation, and more specifically to a Gallican society in which church and state were closely tied to one another. It can be expanded to include the kind of Caesaropapism that occasionally existed in some Orthodox kingdoms, but is poorly equipped to deal with the idea there even can be a far right outside the Catholic/Orthodox world. This interpretation of "far right" especially lost favor in the decades following the Revolutions of 1848 as a return to the Ancien Régime became increasingly implausible. By the reign of Pope Pius XI this interpretation of far-right had essentially become anachronistic even in conservative Catholic circles. Therefore this original meaning is somewhat rare in a modern context. See Traditionalist School, Ultramontanism, and Reactionary for more on this ideological stream.

In the modern world, the term far right is applied to those who support authoritarianism, usually involving a dominant class (which may be aristocratic or defined along racial or other lines), and/or an established church (although some forms of far right—for example, elements of the militia movement in the United States—are devolutionist). Their favored authoritarian state can be an absolute monarchy, but more often today it is some form of oligarchy or military dictatorship. This is most true in regions and nations that have no real history of monarchy, such as Central America (discounting the Pre-Columbian era), Switzerland, and the United States. The term "far right" also embraces extreme nationalism, and will often evoke the ideal of a "pure" ideal of the nation, often defined on racial or "blood" grounds. They may advocate the expansion or restructuring of existing state borders to achieve this ideal nation, often to the point of embracing expansionary war, racialism, jingoism and imperialism.

In the English-speaking nations this is often a nationalism descended from the militant aspects of British New Imperialism. Hence the groups labelled far-right often embrace state churches, harshly retributive justice, and militarism. More generally, the term "far-right" has been applied to any stream of political thought that rejects democracy in favour of some form of elite rule (including monarchy, plutocracy, and theocracy).

Fascism is generally, but not universally, classified as a far-right ideology. Libertarian scholars such as F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises are noteworthy dissenters from that view; Hayek even considered it far left (see Fascism and ideology). However, even strong Miseans like Murray Rothbard put fascism on the right.

Some political figures move from far left to far right. Mussolini is one example of such a circumstance, and Bill White (neo-Nazi) is another. National Bolshevism, the international third position and national anarchism are often regarded as far right, but they transcend the boundaries of ordinary politics. To further complicate matters, populism, social unrest, violence, and revolution can be found in both the far right and far left. Concern with ecology and calls for full employment and other concerns common on the left are sometimes found in the far right.

A further complication is found in Nazism and other "national-revolutionary" ideologies, such as those of the "Left Nazi" or "Third Position" Strasser brothers, Juan Peron in Argentina, Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, the Baath in Syria and Iraq and groups like International Third Position or the "national-anarchism". On one hand, these movements are nationalist and anti-communist; but, unlike fascism, they mobilize essentially the lower and middle-classes and, when in power, have often nationalized property, especially property owned by foreigners or by members of ethnicities not defined by them as part of their "nation".

Furthermore, the term "far right" has also been used for certain populist or authoritarian regimes, especially for "free market dictatorships". The epitome of such regimes was that of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, but it can be seen (with less market freedom) in many other twentieth-century Latin American military dictatorships.

In some contexts — particularly in the United States—the term "far right" is used to denote supporters of paleoconservatism and isolationism. While it is occasionally applied to the supporters of extreme laissez-faire capitalism such as some libertarians, calling the libertarians "far right" or even "right" is a matter of controversy. The libertarians consider themselves as the heirs of the classical liberals, the main enemies of the first far-right. In his essay "Left and Right: the Prospects for Liberty" and "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal" , Murray Rothbard even put libertarianism on the "left", claiming that conservatives are the right and socialists merely "middle-of-the road".

The imprecise use of the terms "left" and "right" in politics, and there being no absolute consensus as to what the "archetypes" of left and right are, has led to a number of disputes over the proper usage of "far right" and "far left" other than as general terms of derision. "Far right" and "far left" are meant to describe two diametrically opposed extremes. However, there are a good number of arguably extremist groups and ideologies that don't fit in the traditional far left and far right categories, and some seem to fit in both.

There have been many attempts to go beyond the left-right model by describing the political landscape with a multi-dimensional, rather than linear, political spectrum; one such approach is the political compass.

Much confusion is caused by varying usage of these terms throughout history and the political spheres.

Terminology

The "Far Right," "Radical Right," "Hard Right" and "Extreme Right" are terms used by many political commentators to discuss political groups, movements, and political parties that are difficult to classify within conventional right-wing politics.

Much confusion is caused by widely varying usage of these terms. The term Far Right is used in different ways by different authors. It has been used by scholars in at least three somewhat conflicting ways to encompass:

Reform-oriented right-wing movements or rightist factions of conservative political parties. These are sometimes called the dissident right, activist right, or right-wing populism, These are all forms of Right-wing politics located between traditional conservatives and the extreme right. In this case participants are found outside mainstream electoral politics, but they generally produce a movement of drastic reform rather than actual revolution.
Neo-fascists and Neo-Nazis are usually labeled extreme right or ultra right. Such groups are generally revolutionary in character rather than reformist.
The whole range of right-wing politics from the borders of conservatism out to the far reaches of the extreme right.

Even these categorisations are by no means universally accepted, and other uses exist, making comparative use of the term complicated.

The terms Extreme right or Ultra right are used by some scholars to discuss only those right-wing political groups that step outside the boundaries of traditional electoral politics. This generally includes the revolutionary right, militant racial supremacists and religious extremists, Fascists, neo-fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis. In this usage the terms are distinct from other forms of right wing politics such as the less-militant sectors of the Far Right and Right-Wing Populists, as well as from the more traditional conservatives (Betz & Immerfall 1998; Betz 1994; Durham 2000; Durham 2002; Hainsworth 2000; Mudde 2000)

References

Betz, Hans-Georg and Stefan Immerfall, eds. 1998. The New Politics of the Right: Neo-Populist Parties and Movements in Established Democracies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Betz, Hans-Georg. 1994. Radical Right-wing Populism in Western Europe. New York: St. Martins Press.
Durham, Martin. 2000. The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Durham, Martin. 2002. "From Imperium to Internet: the National Alliance and the American Extreme Right" Patterns of Prejudice 36(3), (July): 50-61.
Hainsworth, Paul, ed. 2000. The Politics of the Extreme Right: From the Margins to the Mainstream. London: Pinter.
Mudde, Cas. 2000. The Ideology of the Extreme Right. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Schoenbaum, David. Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939. ISBN 0-393-31554-1
Formisano, Ronald P. (2005). "Interpreting Right-Wing or Reactionary Neo-Populism: A Critique". Journal of Policy History. 17 (2): 241–255.