Right-wing politics

:Right wing is also a term used in several sports; see winger (sport).

The Right and the War on Terror

Overview

In some countries, the contemporary Left-Right dichotomy is characterized more by contrasting positions on international conflicts than by economic differences; some thinkers, both of the left and the right, see this as a worrying tendency. For example:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• In the United States, the strongest support for the military aspects of the "War on terror", and especially the identification of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq ("Operation Iraqi Freedom") and the subsequent occupation of Iraq as being part of that "War on terror", has come from the Neoconservative faction of the American right. In contrast, the post-September 11 anti-war movement has been largely from the left.
• In Israel, much of the current left/right dichotomy is about dovish (left) versus hawkish (right) policies with reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.**

Reasons for support

In the United States, most of the political right support the use of military measures against terrorist organizations — by which they mean not only paramilitary groups like Al-Qaida, but also groups like Hamas, which combine paramilitary activities with more conventional political and social organizing — and "terror-supporting states", including some Arab dictatorships. However, the Far-right and the Paleoconservatives generally oppose all or some of these campaigns and some of the left-wing approves a proactive stance against terrorism and dictatorship, while questioning whether the Iraq war is a useful part of such a stance.

Related Topics:
Terrorist organization - Al-Qaida - Hamas - Terror-supporting states - Far-right - Paleoconservatives

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Neoconservative argument is that a hard line is the only correct approach to deal with terrorists and dictators. The rhetoric in support of this view often invokes the persistent stance of Sir Winston Churchill to fight Adolf Hitler instead of trying to appease him. Churchill himself clashed over this issue with fellow members of the UK Conservative Party during the period before Hitler's 1939 invasion of Poland. Historically, most of the elements that wished to appease Hitler, especially in the United States, were right-wing, while the left wing in the US and abroad opposed the appeasement of Hitler. Critics rarely disagree that Churchill was right about Hitler; instead, they further reject the appeasement analogy, arguing, for example, that whereas Hitler in the late 1930s likely had the military means to conquer Europe, Iraq in 2003 was no longer a serious military threat.

Related Topics:
Sir Winston Churchill - Adolf Hitler - Conservative Party - 1939 invasion of Poland

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

United States politics, in particular, has long had a current that claims to believe it is their moral obligation to free nations from dictators and undemocratic regimes. This has not always been particularly associated with the right: it can be found in Cold War Liberalism and many trace the roots of this thinking back to the French Revolution and, especially, the French Revolutionary Wars. The tradition owes more to classical liberalism than to conservatism, but in the U.S. today, many advocates of this position are on the political right.

Related Topics:
Cold War Liberalism - French Revolution - French Revolutionary Wars - Classical liberalism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Those who subscribe to this view argue that the Western enlightened values of freedom, democracy and justice are the only means tending to protect rather than exploit the individual, and that the West should spread them around the globe. In this, they claim to oppose cultural and moral relativism, although critics argue that they are selective as to which countries the West should attempt to change. Neoconservatives and their allies advocate that the defense of individual liberty must be backed with a credible commitment to military action against certain states, such as those that were branded by G.W. Bush as "the Axis of Evil", which they say violate human rights, and which they describe as threats to the world's (or their own state's) security. This ideology has been articulated by right-wing leaders such as Natan Sharansky, Ronald Reagan and Richard Perle. The Bush Administration's official policy is to call for democratic reforms in all undemocratic governments; former Secretary Powell publicly called for democratic reforms in meetings with Arab and Islamic states; again, critics charge that practice does not live up to this rhetoric.

Related Topics:
Freedom - Democracy - Justice - Moral relativism - G.W. Bush - Axis of Evil - Human rights - Natan Sharansky - Ronald Reagan - Richard Perle

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Many groups on the left agree with the ideal of spreading democracy and freedom, but disagree with the methods employed by the right. Some also mistrust what they see as the right's new-found belief in spreading democracy--much as some on the right doubt the left's commitment to liberty given communism's frequent entanglement with totalitarianism. These leftist groups argue that the US has a history of supporting foreign dictatorships where that support is seen as being in the "national interest", both throughout the Cold War and (in such cases as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Uzbekistan) during the present "War on Terror". These leftist critics argue that many of the causes of Islamic terrorism lie in previous military or clandestine interventions by the United States.

Related Topics:
Pakistan - Saudi Arabia - Kuwait - Uzbekistan

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Conversely, many right-wingers dispute the left's commitment toward human rights, claiming that the left has consistently opposed action against terrorist regimes and attempted to silence criticism of atrocities by leftist third world insurgent movements. They accuse the left of apologising for terror and atrocities justified on the ground of "struggle against imperialist oppression."

Related Topics:
Atrocities - Third world

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Mainstream American right-wing groups also tend to support Israel's actions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as they perceive Israel as being the only stronghold of democracy and stability in the Middle East. The terrorist attacks that struck Israel after the Camp David 2000 Summit and the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. increased this sympathy for, and support of, Israel. Some on the Christian right, many of them Judeo-Christians or Christian Zionists, support Israel because they believe its existence is essential to bring the Messiah. (See also dispensationalism.)

Related Topics:
Israel - Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Democracy - Middle East - Terrorist attacks - Camp David 2000 Summit - September 11 terrorist attacks - Christian right - Judeo-Christian - Christian Zionists - Messiah - Dispensationalism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There are also many Far-right groups and militias in the United States who vigorously oppose any assistance towards Israel, and go so far as to call the United States government a Zionist-Occupied Government. Similarly, Muslim right-wingers and Islamists support the Palestinians, as they see Israel and the Jews as "enemies of Islam" and the Arab people. There has been some intermingling of ideas and sympathetic rhetoric between these two groupings.

Related Topics:
Militia - Zionist-Occupied Government - Muslim - Islamists

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~