Scrap the meaningless terms Left and Right and reclaim the honourable title 'reactionary'

In 1789, in the [French National] Assembly, the increasingly alarmed partisans of the ancien régime sat on the right-hand side (Côté Droit) of the president, the revolutionaries on his left-hand side (Côté Gauche). This terminology was first made familiar to the English-speaking world by Thomas Carlyle, in Volume I of “The French Revolution”: “Rudiments of Methods disclose themselves; rudiments of Parties. There is a Right Side (Cote Droit), a Left Side (Cote Gauche); sitting on M. le President’s right hand, or on his left: the Cote Droit conservative; the Cote Gauche destructive.” That recognition of the character of so-called progressive forces as “destructive” was a valuable insight; the reviving of the memory of the Left/Right alignment, however, was less beneficial. Yet this terminology did not gain popular currency until as late as 1897, when the psychologist William James disseminated the phrase “left wing”. By the 1930s it was all-pervasive. Today it has infantilised politics (and the BBC) to the extent that mutinous Russian armoured columns advancing on Moscow to restore Marxism-Leninism were described as “Right-wing”.

We have to get rid of this nonsensical vocabulary. The correct terminology for those who futilely seek to improve the world through some innovatory creed such as socialism is “radical”, “liberal” or, preferably, “progressive”, since that places some onus on them to explain to what destination they imagine they are progressing. In the more extreme cases they may be described as “revolutionary”. Their opponents should not hesitate to reclaim the currently pejorative term “reactionary”. It describes a coherent process: an examination of a failed innovation leading to a determination to return to the status quo ante; it is what a scientist does in the laboratory when an experiment fails.

Read the whole thing.

This guy is exactly 100% right. Most so-called conservatives have no idea about what conservatism is. Hint: if you are in favor of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, you are not a conservative. Those are the watchwords of the Revolution. The real Right Wing stands for Tradition, Family and Property.

For the straight scoop on real conservatism — which is Reaction — start with the works of Joseph-Marie, Comte de Maistre, the encyclical Libertas of Pope Leo XIII, the teaching of Pope Saint Pius X, and the TFP (Tradition, Family, Property) movement started by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, the author of Revolution and Counter-Revolution.

"From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther." -- Pope Leo XIII

At the start of the Twentieth Century the term "liberal" meant the same in America as it still does in the rest of the world - essentially, what is called "conservatism" in American Newspeak. Of course we "American Conservatives" are not the ones who oppose development and liberty, so in that sense we are not conservative at all. We actually are liberals.
But in America, "liberalism" was given its American Newspeak - essentially inverted - meaning in the 1920s (source: Safire's New Political Dictionary). The fact that the American socialists have acquired a word to exploit is bad enough; the real disaster is that we do not now have a word which truly descriptive of our own political perspective. We only have the smear words which the socialists have assigned to us. And make no mistake, in America "conservative" is inherently a negative connotation just as surely as marketers love to boldly proclaim that the product which they are flogging is NEW!
I have my own Newspeak-English dictionary:

objective :
reliably promoting the interests of Big Journalism. (usage: always applied to journalists who are members in good standing; never applied to anyone but a journalist)

liberal :
see "objective," except that the usage is reversed: (usage: never applied to any working journalist)
progressive :
see "liberal" (usage: same as for "liberal").
moderate:
see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal").
centrist :
see "liberal" (usage: same as for "liberal").

conservative :
rejecting the idea that journalism is a higher calling than providing food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and security; adhering to the dictum of Theodore Roosevelt that: "It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena (usage: applies to people who - unlike those labeled liberal/progressive/moderate/centrist, cannot become "objective" by getting a job as a journalist, and probably cannot even get a job as a journalist.)(antonym:"objective")

right-wing :
see, "conservative."

>This guy is exactly 100% right. Most so-called conservatives have no idea about what conservatism is. Hint: if you are in favor of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, you are not a conservative. Those are the watchwords of the Revolution. The real Right Wing stands for Tradition, Family and Property.

The guy is only 100% from a Continental perspective. In the U.S. things are a bit different. Given that the U.S. was founded on a set of liberal principles (and by no means do I use the term liberal in it’s current progressive meaning, but rather in the classical liberal sense of freedom, free markets, limited government) to be a ‘conservative’ would be to preserve liberal values.

It is perfectly legitimate to be a conservative and believe in ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. Freedom, equality before the law, and regard for your fellow man are in no way principles which violate core values of the U.S. founders. Only when the French radicals distorted those values well past recognition did they become something else. It’s like progressives today distorting the classic negative rights into positive ones guaranteeing free stuff.

Personally I don’t have a great deal of use for classic continental conservatives. They are usually protectionist, favor the nobility, and have high regard for social stratum. All of these are things I consider odious from an American perspective.

More to the point, the two sides should be referred to as “the political right”, and “the political wrong”.

But seriously, folks. The term Progressive is very deceptive in its own right, because progression suggests moving from a known place to a known better place, not moving from a known place to a speculative, theoretical place, that might or might not be better.

Yet this is the paradox of the left. They dislike, or openly despise the status quo, seeing no value in it, and thinking it oppressive, parochial, and decrepit. They ignore the history and evolution of the status quo, and pretend it was just chosen at random, or conspiratorially selected to oppress, on the spur of the moment, and not very long ago at all, by someone of bad character.

To them, everything that the majority enjoys should be swept aside and replaced with unproven theory. “Burn down your house and material possessions, and throw away your money, because there is a place out there, somewhere, that is better. Where you don’t need a house, material possessions, or money.”

Today, it has become nonsensical, with those who defend the successful status quo for years being called “radical” by the left, solely for not embracing radical change. Terribly ironic. What in the world is a “radical conservative?” To the mind of the radical, what is truly radical, is resistance against radicalism.

A true conservative, however, likes the status quo, more or less. At least enough to see no great value in radically changing it. As such, they don’t want to destroy it, but maintain it and in an efficient manner.

For conservatives, progress is stability and true progression, which is individuals moving towards their American dream, that can be whatever pursuit of happiness they choose. It is progress from the known, to the known, through hard work and study.

This highlights another difference. The political left are unhappy with their lives, personally and as a group. But they do not see that the solution to this problem as changing their own lives for the better. Instead they seek to change everyone else’s lives, to accommodate the worldview of the left.

And this is patently offensive, and wrong. Thus, “the political wrong.”

In itself, calling the left, “the left”, is correct, if the term incorporates the secondary meanings of the left. The “sinister”, implying illegitimacy, corruption, and embrace of evil. A “bar sinister” went from the left of a family crest to indicate that its founder was an illegitimate child.

So what is the left today? The muddled and stupid philosophies of communism and socialism are utter failures, at least to anyone with pattern recognition abilities. So there can be no “progress” in that direction. Yet at the same time, the left is haunted by their specter of unhappiness with the status quo.

They are very unhappy people. They are angry, and feel oppressed and victimized by life. And because they have no good alternative to this, they fall back to the idea of just tearing down everything that is good and successful. Seeking companionship in their feelings of burning inadequacy and hate.

And this is the tragedy of the left. Because hurting others is never the route to ending your own pain. It just doesn’t work that way. And no matter how many groups of dehumanized people the left decides to hate: the rich, the successful, the talented, the heroic, the voting public, the conservative, the religious, the honorable, and even the individualist, it will not diminish their gut churning pain one bit.

They are reduced to wanting to live as sheep, in a herd full of animals that all look the same. With no one successful, and no one a failure. With all sharing the same fate, the same outcome, even if it is the abattoir. All so they never, ever have to confront their inadequacies, their envy, greed, bitterness and hate.

They are “the political wrong.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.