Right Wing vs Conservative: What's the Difference?

I just have a question: Is there a difference between "conservative" and "right wing"? I say there is none, but many people, including conservatives within y family, have said there is a big difference, yet I don't know exactly what that is? Please help...

PS. I just finished the book "the Last Jihad" by Joel C Rosenburg. It is a great, fast-paced novel, about a war with Iraq. It was written and published before the war in Iraq. I would recommend it to everyone.

Max Eastman's comments on this subject are worth noting:

"In Europe, especially, the connotations [of 'Left' and 'Right'] were extensive and very rich. The 'man of the Left' liked a plain suit of clothes, and the farther left the plainer and simpler until you reached the soft collar and cap and loose flowing tie of the Bohemian rebel. The man of the Right liked titles and ceremonies; he addressed people with careful regard for the distance between them. He revered personages and looked down on mere human beings. The man of the Left shook hands and said hello to everybody, and why not? The man of the Right was for law and order as good in themselves. The man of the Left was for law primarily as a defense of the rights of hthe citizen and his liberties. The man of the Right was conventional and inclined to respect accepted opinions. The man of hte Left was ready to kick over the conventions, and go in for independent inquiry on any subject. All these traits enriched the connotation of left and right, but most of all, and at the bottom of all, the attitude toward the constituted authorities, to the state: 'the individual on one side, the state on the other, that is the underlying substance of this contrast,' says J. Pera in an engaging essay on this subject [Etudes Materialistes, No. 14, September, 1947].

"Now it is clear that not only in their underlying substance, but in all their essential implications, these words left and right have exactly changed places. In America, and I think in all Western countries, a 'leftist' is a man unhorrified by the Soviet tyranny and acquiescent in the gigantic overgrowth of hte state at home. The restauration in Russia of epaulettes, salutes, emblems, and attitudes of rank, the transformation of 'comrade Stalin' first into 'Marshal' and then 'Generalissimo'--even the adoption of the goosestep in the Red Army--did not disturb his feelings. The reverence for a personage passing almost into obeisance before a god was not revolting to him. He accepted, of found excuses for, a system of law which, instead of defending men's liberties, was focused upon suppressing them, and where it failed of that could be replaced by administrative decrees, or mere decisions of the state police. Conventions made rigid, opinions handed down by infallible authorities, value judgments made obligatory in every field of endeavor, a fixed hierarchy of caste and imposed status in civil and industial as well as military and political life--all these things were meekly swallowed down. In short, every judgment and choice, every trait and mode of behavior, that once had given meaning tot he word 'right' is now supported or condoned by those whom all agree in calling 'left' or 'leftist."

--Max Eastman, Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, (New York: Devin Adair, 1955), pp. 70-71.

In Europe the Nazi Party and other fascist parties like Benito Mussolini’s party were considered on the “right” even though they were advocates of big government socialism. The acronym Nazi, after all, has the word Socialist in it.

Here is a little Poli Sci 101:

1) Nationalist Socialists are Nazis.

2) Internationalist Socialists are Communists.

3) American Socialists are Democrats.

Right-wing as an expression goes back to the States General of the French Revolution of 1789. The traditionalists, upholders of King and Church, sat on the right. This ideology was essentially a development from the absolutist monarchs of the early modern period. The rebels, the worshippers of Voltaire and (especially) Rousseau, sat on the left. These were the only two ideologies at play on the European continent at the time.

The problem is that these two ideologies just weren’t involved in the American Revolution or the early American experience. The American Revolution was fought and won by believers in the British Whig ideology, which was quite different from either of the two contending European ideologies. To over-simplify, it was descended from the aristocratic opponents of an absolutist King, Magna Carta, the Roundheads and all that. The ideology died on the Continent because the constant foreign warfare indulged in by Europeans required a single decision maker, as warfare always does. Poland, for example, tried to hold onto the ideal of “aristocratic freedom,” and was absorbed by its neighbors as a result. Britain, alone on an island, didn’t face this dilemma, and the ideology was able to survive and thrive.

Originally, the “free men” it stood up for were basically the nobles. Over time, this category expanded. By the time of the American Revolution, or shortly thereafter, it meant all white men. It later expanded further to include all adults.

After the American Revolution, the American political spectrum ran from conservative Whig (Burke/Hamilton/Washington/Federalist) to liberal Whig (Charles James Fox/Jefferson/Madison/Republican). There were no upholders of an absolutist King and state Church, or of the “general will” promoted by Rousseau. This split continued down to the rise of the Progressive Movement in the late 19th century, which was an import of European socialist left-wing ideas foreign to the American experience to that point.

The ideals of the American Revolution, which is what American conservatives want to conserve, thus had essentially nothing to do with either the right wing or the left wing of the French Revolution. So the term is inappropriate.

However, American “liberals” have abandoned even a facade of upholding American revolutionary ideals and have become European socialists and thus are in direct line of descent from the left wing of the French Revolution.

You're conservative if you want to conserve or preserve something.

You're right-wing if you're against the left-wing or liberals.

"Right-wing" and "left-wing" talk is pretty passe.

Essentially the media calls extremist groups "right-wing" and then applies the same label to conservatives in order to demonize them.

I'd keep "liberal" and "conservative" for what's more or less the mainstream, and "extremist" -- no "right-wing" or "left-wing" just "extremist" -- for the radical fringe groups which have more in common with each other than with those closer to the middle.

Then if you really, really want to call yourself "right-wing" you may eventually be able to do so without people thinking you're a Nazi.

The ideology died on the Continent because the constant foreign warfare indulged in by Europeans required a single decision maker, as warfare always does. Poland, for example, tried to hold onto the ideal of “aristocratic freedom,” and was absorbed by its neighbors as a result. Britain, alone on an island, didn’t face this dilemma, and the ideology was able to survive and thrive

From 1154 to 1558 England was a continental European nation, and still managed to produce Magna Carta, the Provisions of Oxford, and the Model Parliament.

From 1154 to 1558 England was a continental European nation

Not exactly. During the period in question England was a (part of an )island nation with colonies and conquests on the continent. France and Spain, as it turned out, were unable to really get at England, while the English were always able to attack them and then retreat to their invulnerable stronghold.

Also, during most of the period you mention "aristocratic freedom" was a fully competitive ideology in most of Europe. It wasn't until the early modern period, when gunpowder and particularly artillery became critical to war-making capability that kings throughout Europe were able to crush their fractious nobles. When making war mostly consisted of men and horses, an ad hoc noble coalition could go toe to toe with the king fairly well.

Once an artillery train, financially beyond the capability of nobles, became a necessity, the nobles couldn't compete. Particularly because the artillery allowed the king to demolish their castles in hours or days. Before this, capturing a castle required weeks or months of siege work, which meant a noble coalition could drag resistance out for years and wear the king down.

The great English documents you mention had counterparts in most European nations. Almost every European nation had an analogue to the English Parliament. The difference is that kings gained power in Europe after 1400 and lost power in England. The promising beginnings of free institutions were crushed in one European country after another, but survived in England. I believe we sometimes don't fully realize how amazing this is.

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.