Home - Politics - The modern right - What am I?


 

I am a mix of "left" and "right"

I am a libertarian, not a conservative

I am a "neo"-conservative, not a "paleo"-conservative

Who would I vote for?


"Left" and "Right" - What am I?

I would describe myself as a moderate libertarian or a neo-conservative or a classic liberal.

Let me explain these terms.



Left-wing or Right-wing?

So what am I? Much of the political dialogue in my lifetime has been based on the illusion that political parties can be classified along some 1-dimensional line from left-wing to right-wing. But if so, why are the extremes - communism and fascism - so similar? The answer is that the whole 1-dimensional left-right division is (and always has been) rather inaccurate and misleading.

The libertarian David Nolan defines a much clearer, 2-dimensional, terminology, where one axis measures free-to-unfree on personal liberty, and the other axis measures free-to-unfree on economic liberty. See discussion. This model is made for someone like me - a common voter type who is disillusioned with the "1-dimensional" parties. I like left-wing parties' commitment to personal liberty (sexual liberty, freedom from religion, anti-censorship, etc.) but am turned off by their lack of support for capitalism. I like right-wing parties' support for a strong capitalist economy, but am turned off by their social conservative and religious conservative wings. I want to vote for parties that support a free market and a free private life - I can never understand how you can be in favour of one of these and against the other, as most left-wing and right-wing parties are.

This is all about domestic policy - what kind of society one wants to live in. One could expand to 3-dimensions by considering foreign policy - whether one should spread the model to countries that do not have it (my answer: yes), or be isolationist unless attacked (most doctrinaire libertarians, e.g. the Libertarian Party in the US).

So in conclusion, what am I? I am obviously not left-wing. I think the left is wrong about almost everything. I would like to call myself a "liberal", but the meaning of that term has changed since the 18th-19th century, and now tends to mean someone hostile to capitalism and supportive, like the left, of a powerful state. The modern liberal also tends to be hostile to America and Western supremacy and often supportive or defensive of third world tyrannies. So I am not a liberal, in the modern sense. I agree with conservatives on many things (notably capitalism, crime, foreign policy) but ultimately I am not a conservative since I believe in a free private life. I guess I would describe myself as a moderate libertarian or a classic 18th-19th century liberal.



I am a libertarian, not a conservative

I am not a conservative myself. My understanding of classic conservatism is that it does not believe in a free private life. Whether it is the banning of contraception in Ireland, the banning of "pornography", the War on Drugs, the oppression of homosexuals, or the forcing of religion on non-believers in schools (like creationism).

I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian or a classic liberal. However, on issues such as the economy, crime and foreign policy, I think the conservative analysis is pretty much right.


The right are the idealists now



I am a "neo"-conservative, not a "paleo"-conservative

If I could be considered in the conservative camp, it would be as a "neo"-conservative:


These set themselves in opposition to "paleo"-conservatives such as:

  1. Realpolitik conservatives, who value stability over freedom.


  2. Anti-war, isolationist conservatives


  3. Anti-immigration conservatives

  4. Right-wing racists, and right-wing anti-semites.

  5. Religious conservatives


In short, I'm not like any of these groups. I'm like the neo-conservatives.

It is true that the neo-cons do contain members of one of the above groups - namely neo-con religious conservatives like Reagan and George W. Bush, and even neo-con creationists. Obviously I am a neo-con on matters of politics only. When it comes to questions of science and religion, I have no particular interest in what the neo-cons have to say. Instead, I read other writers.



Irish Nazis hate me

Nazis hate neo-cons for their anti-racism, and their support for the Jewish democracy of Israel.



"Islamanazi" hates me

I had another rather uninteresting encounter with extremists in Oct 2006.

The issue:

  1. I came across the site "Islamanazi", by "Rastaman", which Cox and Forkum, a site I much admire, linked to.
  2. It seemed a bit intemperate, but alright, based on a very quick look. I now know that if I had dug further, I would have found a ton of stuff to disagree with.
  3. Anyway, what caught my eye was a prominent icon saying that "Islamanazi" supported the neo-Nazi BNP.
  4. I couldn't believe that a supposedly "pro-Israel" site would support an anti-semitic, Holocaust-denying, Israel-hating party. Naively, I thought this might be an error by some foreigner (he is American) impressed by some BNP statement against Islamist terror, not realising that the BNP simply hates Muslims (and Jews, blacks, gays, etc.). So I emailed "Islamanazi". And sadly, it's no mistake. He really does support European fascists. I should have known.
  5. So I had to tell Cox and Forkum. There's no way they would support the BNP, and they would be horrified to link to a site that did. They agreed with me immediately, and removed the link.

The reaction:

  1. This really drove "Islamanazi" mad. He described me as "you vile little fascist" and said: "You disgust me. I consider you to be less than pond scum."
  2. Islamanazi post. He said this was someone "attacking me .. to stop Freedom of Speech".
  3. So Cox and Forkum removing their link to him is an infringement of his freedom of speech? And me telling them is an infringement of his freedom of speech? You might as well say that me criticising him at all is an infringement of his freedom of speech. In fact, he does: "This is a fascistic attempt to force me to give up my Freedom of Speech" Um, no. I criticised you.
  4. One of his readers complains that it is "persecution of bloggers" for sites to remove links to them. These people are mad.

  5. Anyway, forget my opinions. "Islamanazi" himself links to Cox and Forkum, so he clearly admires them. Surely their disapproval, and refusal to link to him, should make him think twice. In fact, soon afterwards, he uses a Cox and Forkum cartoon and yet seems unbothered by the fact that they just removed their link to him. Remember, they never had to listen to me. They could have ignored me. Instead they agreed with me, and thanked me for tipping them off. Doesn't this cause "Islamanazi" any doubts at all?

  6. He and his commenters immediately label me as "This dhimmi-type", "pro-Islamic", an Irish IRA supporter, etc. Amusingly, neither him nor his idiot commenters have discovered this blog, (*) with my support for Israel, support for Britain and America, and hostility to SF-IRA.
  7. But why justify myself to them? Their discussion is so childish. It was pointless emailing this guy. But I'm glad I told Cox and Forkum about him.
  8. (*) They've discovered it now. Don't expect any self-doubt to creep in, though. They're not that sort of people. Here's my favourite comment: "That Irish fellow is definitely pro IRA! And is a commie!" I'm referred to as "the lefty". This is comic gold.

The aftermath:

  1. While his readers deny the BNP is anti-semitic, "Islamanazi" admits it. In a first sign that his self-belief is cracking, he changes his BNP icon to:

    Yes, it's anti-semitic, so
    [BNP icon]
    Would you prefer Islam?

  2. He's changed it again, to the rather feeble:

    Still some racism, but
    [BNP icon]
    Would you prefer Islam?

  3. He now claims that the BNP have reformed, quoting Robert Locke, September 30, 2005, who is no fascist but was impressed by change in the BNP.
  4. Frankly, I think both of them are naive. Just because Hamas is in power doesn't mean the old Hamas is not still there underneath. The BNP leader is still Nick Griffin, who said: "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat. ... I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria." Membership of the BNP is still only for whites: "Membership .. is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent." Instead of opposing ethnic minority individuals who threaten us, such as Islamists, they want to remove all ethnic minorities: "A massively-funded and permanent programme .. will aim to reduce, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of ethnic origin, the proportion of ethnic minorities living in Britain" This will happen supposedly by "voluntary" means (it used to be by compulsory means, and would be again, if they ever got into power). If non-whites are allowed stay in Britain, it is not clear that they will have the same rights as whites. They say they want to give "priority on housing and school places lists" to whites, and "We would abolish all laws against racial discrimination in employment". They still want to make it illegal to "promote" homosexuality. Until 2004, they wanted homosexuality itself to be illegal. Read their other policies. Are you still happy with them?
  5. In summary, the BNP oppose Islamism, yes, but they also oppose many of the aspects of a modern, tolerant society.
  6. "Islamanazi", like the BNP, cannot simply oppose Islamism. He has to go much, much further. He makes no attempt to distinguish between Islamism and Islam. He thinks the US should end freedom of religion. He says: "Islam is pure, evil fascism. ... Islam should be and it must be outlawed in the United States and in all free Western nations." As I say, people like him and the BNP will destroy the West, not save it. I misunderstood his site at first. Had I read this kind of thing, I would never have bothered emailing him. I would only have emailed Cox and Forkum.

An amusing followup:

  1. "Anti-Dhimmi" takes Islamanazi's side against me. "Kudos to Rastaman of Islamanazi.com for not caving in." But wait! What's that quote at the top of her blog:
    "The West is the greatest, richest, freest, best part of planet Earth, the heart of science and all knowledge, the best hope for mankind. Anyone who seeks its destruction should be destroyed themselves."
    Isn't that quote familiar? Why, here it is on my website in Oct 2001! And here it is on my site today! In fact, I wrote that quote! "Anti-Dhimmi" put up her site in February 2006. She actually nicks a quote from me, puts it as the unattributed banner on her blog, and then attacks me! How embarrassing! "Kudos to Rastaman for not caving in, but I quote Humphrys above!" Hilarious stuff.


Who am I like?

So I don't like racists (and they don't like me). I'm not Jewish. I'm not a religious conservative, or even a Christian. And I can't stand Nixon and Kissinger.

In summary, if you're still confused, I'm like these people: Writers on politics that I like.

If you haven't heard of a lot of them - then, frankly, you should read a bit wider.

If I had to pick a single person I think like, I would pick: Victor Davis Hanson.




Return to The modern right.



Feedback: Comment on this page

About feedback

  1. Enter URL:

  2. Select one:
    This URL doesn't reference your site. It's just something you should see.
    This URL references your site.

  3. This image contains a password:
    Enter password (this is to confirm you are not a spam program):