Does anyone know the background of the right wing/authoritarians/hawks/imperialists/conservatives being, at least in rhetoric,on the side that is seen as “advocating the free market more?” At least when it comes to more mainstream exposure.
They’re neo-cons and fascists. They only pay lip service to “free market ideas” in order to pander to certain voters, but they never deliver on their promises to stop screwing us.
I’m sure Raimondo or Rothbard covers it in either Reclaiming the American Right or Betrayal of the American Right respectively, although I’ve not read either so I wouldn’t know for sure.
It disgusts me to no end. While the left is evil, it is a bit more subtle. The right wing is almost cartoonishly evil. The general perception is Right= Autoritarian, warlike, uber patriotic, cult like, and free market. The left is viewed as scientific, peaceful, cultured, anti-authoritarian, and anti-market. Honestly, could the market get a worse wrap. It’s like some diabolical plot to kill the market from both sides.
These types of cognitive dissonances are due mostly to the fact that conservatives and so-called liberals are merely bigots with no philosophy whatsoever who only happen to land on correct conclusions by accident. It’s basically a game of conclusion with no methodology. That’s why the “invisible hand” metaphor is still used and is rightfully ridiculed. It’s basically being put forth the same way conservatives believe in other superstitions. The liberal’s invisible hand is “regulation”. No one knows what the hell any of this means.
I would say the reason the state continues to grow is due to this fact. And the result of both parties knowing the other is bluffing.
There is a definite method to their madness: the market produces far more wealth than any centrally-planned society could possibly hope to achieve, so it’s natural for them to make use of it to facilitate their many nefarious schemes.
The left is viewed as scientific, peaceful, cultured, anti-authoritarian, and anti-market.
I’ve never understood how the left is able to rationalize being anti-authoritarian and anti-market at the same time. Every tax, regulation, and nanny-state law advocated by the left is ultimately enforced through police brutality, authority figures, and the US prison system. This would explain why leftist regimes always end up being extremely authoritarian.
The right wing is almost cartoonishly evil.
LOL, too true.
When I was in sixth grade, I remember wondering how anyone could have possibly gone along with Hitler’s regime. After watching the behavior of the American Right through the Bush years, I fully understand how. I don’t care what they say; there isn’t a single doubt in my mind that every last one of them would have been a militant supporter of Adolf Hitler under those circumstances.
I blame the education system, especially the history classes. The fact is that when one examines in analytic detail the individual presidents one finds that democrats are more “republican” in policy than you would think (Kennedy, Wilson, Cleveland, Clinton, Carter) and republicans are more “democrat” in policy than you would think (Bush, Nixon, Hoover, Eisenhower).
The misconceptions are due to the victory of pure rhetoric (SEE: Obama/Reagan) over historical fact.
Curious though, is this just a pet peeve of yours (cause I’d be in the same boat with you) or are there liberals you know who drive you nuts?
It is so true. I run across neocon acquaintances online now, and they are suddenly free market, but the very policies that they claim are Obama socialism were Bush fascism 12 months ago. Cognitive dissonance as J Ess has said.
Because they justify that authoritarianism and coercion by the means of “helping the poor people and ending the savage of capitalism”
To the uneducated mind the free market capitalism can easily be assimilated as an authoritarian system of exploitation from which the state is the only mean of protection.
I was watching the Mancow Muller show to see if he was still a paranoid conservative version of Howard Stern the other day and he had a program on where he was talking for a long time about being a libertarian. And then in the next segment talked about how much we need war and lamenting children not praying or saluting flags in public schools anymore. Back in the nineties he used to have on guests lamenting the end of school corporal punishment. As a way of showing why the public schools don’t work, of course. They’d just work if only the state could thrash your children. And had song parodies of “War (what is it good for)”: and then would throw in the answer… stopping “America’s enemies.” He and the other radio jocks are pretty confusing characters. It seemed like the nineties radio jocks were pretty good at digging up stuff on Clinton and being for gun rights… but not concerned about much else. That’s probably the “freedom” they imagine the state genocide in Iraq is defending: the freedom to write books about democrats and shoot people.
You need to get a grasp of the distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian.”
The side that is out of power tends to adopt more free market and anti-state rhetoric, since that is what many people really want, and that rhetoric tends to propel them into power, where they are immediately corrupted and their tune changes.
At least, this has been the story of the conservative movement as long as I have been part of it. Sigh…
As others said, read Rothbard’s history of the Betrayal of the American Right for more perspective. I need to get around to reading that one.
Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan LInz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:[5]
| Totalitarianism | Authoritarianism | |
|---|---|---|
| Charisma | High | Low |
| Role conception | Leader as function | Leader as individual |
| Ends of power | Public | Private |
| Corruption | Low | High |
| Official ideology | Yes | No |
| Limited pluralism | No | Yes |
| Legitimacy | Yes | No |
Sodrol argues that the while both authoritarians and totalitarianism are forms of autocracy, they differ in “key dichotomies”:
(1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop a charismatic ‘mystique’ and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image. (2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritatians. Authoritarians view themselves as indvidual beings, largely content to control; and maintain the status quo. Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an indispensable ‘function’ to guide and reshape the universe. (3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evidence among authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a kleptocracy.
It is a pet peeve of mine, but I am probably driven more stark raven mad by liberals to a fault. But is there something inherently inherent in the free market that appeals to the right wing mentality, or is it just one of the random groups it tries to by off?
wow I just typed inherently inherent
I think that they are both bought off and inherent. The latter because of the fact that regulation is seen as being against the big corp. in favor of the little guy whereas deregulation is seen as allowing the rich to triumph over the poor. But it seems that the rich are an authority (because they are bosses) so the party that favors them most is seen as authoritarian. But the party that revolts from the bosses for the workers is seen in an opposite light. Secondly I venture to say that the reason leftism is more “scientific” than rightism is because 1) rightists are ostensibly more religious and anything religious has been, since the rise of natural science in the 18th and 19th centuries, unscientific, 2) leftists are more interested in economic regulation which takes conscious planning. So they develop theories about utopias and brave new worlds while the rightists are more interested in economic freedom which doesn’t take a conscious planner so they have vague catch-phrases about spontaneous order, invisible hands, and free markets -ideas which aren’t very well articulated or developed in most rightist politicians such that the concept becomes more like a “faith in free markets”.
As for being bought off obviously both parties have interest groups which they try to attract -dems get most of their funding from trade unions and rep. from businesses.
But again these misconceptions are due to ingenious party rhetoric which makes one think that the two parties are different when they are very much the same.
I would suggest you read herbert spencer -he has a very insightful analysis and answer of your very question and answers it far better than I could.