Talk:Radical right (United States)

Dixiecrats

Didnt see any citation that confirms inclusion for Radical right...DN (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And they are not mentioned in the sources used for the article, so I will remove them. TFD (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Darknipples and The Four Deuces: The Dixiecrats are called "far-right" in this Washington Post article: Manipulating elections is a conservative tradition by historian John S. Huntington.

Not sure if that is enough for them to be included as radical right or not? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that meets the criteria of seeking to make fundamental changes. Basically, they resisted change. TFD (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not certain that the Dixiecrats fit the definition. They were white supremacists, making them similar to the radical right. But they seemed to favor New Deal policies. They did not use anti-government rhetoric, and their policies did not revolve around anti-communism. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

ahh okay, that's makes sense! Thanks for the quick reply. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

White supremacism

An editor removed a mention in the lead that some in the U.S. radical right lean toward white supremacy with the comment, "Where is the "reliable source" reference for the "white supremacy" thingy then? Racial supremacy makes not left or right. Many far-leftists (BLM) are black nationalists, as are far-rightists (ADOS). White nationalists too (Richard Spencer became far-left over the years, and David Duke far-right."[1]

The reliable source used to support the statement is footnote number 1 (Potok). The discussion of the connection appears on pp. 54, 56-57).[2]

I don't understand the claim that Richard Spencer became far left over the years. He's still a leader of the alt-right.

In an earlier comment, the editor said, "Racial supremacy doesn't make one radical left or right. Richard Spencer and Louis Farrakhan are both centrists."[3] But the groups they lead are considered far right in reliable sources.

Racism exists across the political spectrum. But it's only the extreme right that incorporates it into its ideology. TFD (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Populism / Trump -- what is the conclusion?

Hi @Darknipples about the trump populism paragraph can you help explain the conclusion? I find it hard to read, and its conclusions vague. Tonymetz 💬 19:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "explain the conclusion". Rick Perlstein argues that historians have underestimated the influence and power on the modern American political right by radical right movements, namely Trumpism, which "is an authoritarian political movement...incorporating ideologies such as right-wing populism, national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and neo-fascism." Poli-Sci Professor, Joseph Lowndes, also speaks to this relation in 2021 article in the Washington Post. DN (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

what is the paragraph trying to say? It mentions underestimating & overestimating and it is hard to read. What would you say it says? Tonymetz 💬 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems Perlstein's opinion is that the radical right was under-estimated in terms of influence over conservative politics, while the status quo of "traditional" conservatism, for lack of a better description, was over-estimated. Perhaps if I quote some of the article that might help? (italics mine)

• Year Zero was 1955, when William F. Buckley Jr. started National Review, the small-circulation magazine whose aim, Buckley explained, was to “articulate a position on world affairs which a conservative candidate can adhere to without fear of intellectual embarrassment or political surrealism.” Buckley excommunicated the John Birch Society, anti-Semites and supporters of the hyperindividualist Ayn Rand, and his cohort fused the diverse schools of conservative thinking — traditionalist philosophers, militant anti-Communists, libertarian economists — into a coherent ideology, one that eventually came to dominate American politics.
• Why hasn’t the presence of organized mobs with backing in powerful places disturbed historians’ conclusion that the American right was dormant during this period? In fact, the “far right” was never that far from the American mainstream. The historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, writing in the journal Social History, points out that “scholars of American history are by and large in agreement that, in spite of a welter of fringe radical groups on the right in the United States between the wars, fascism never ‘took’ here.” And, unlike in Europe, fascists did not achieve governmental power. Nevertheless, Steigmann-Gall continues, “fascism had a very real presence in the U.S.A., comparable to that on continental Europe.” He cites no less mainstream an organization than the American Legion, whose “National Commander” Alvin Owsley proclaimed in 1922, “the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States.”
• The alien narrative continues today in the work of National Review writers like Andrew McCarthy (“How Obama Embraces Islam’s Sharia Agenda”) and Lisa Schiffren (who argued that Obama’s parents could be secret Communists because “for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or ’60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics”). And it found its most potent expression in Donald Trump’s stubborn insistence that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

DN (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

ok, so how would you summarize that so that it's more readable? historians have understimated is a WP:weasel word . we should be more discrete and concrete in our writing.

Just say "trump is radical right because he's populist" or "a majority of trump supporters are radical right" or whatever conclusions you think can be drawn from the citation. Tonymetz 💬 21:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It's Perlstein's opinion, so I'm not sure weasel applies in this instance. See where it says..."Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions". We aren't saying it in Wikivoice, and there are multiple opinions of this nature already in that section. Your suggested version, "trump is radical right because he's populist" isn't what Perlstein is saying here, so that would likely be an WP:OR violation. DN (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm just trying to move the decision forward. How would you summarize it? some historians overestimate is vague and hard to comprehend because it's effectively a double negative. Tonymetz 💬 21:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You haven't yet explained what sort of ambiguity you are claiming exists. From Perstein's article in NYT, he mentions some of the other historians that "overestimate" and or "underestimate"in his view...Listing them would seem to have the opposite effect of summarization. This is also the second shortest inclusion in that entire section of scholarly opinions. DN (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s unclear , vague and doesn’t contribute to the article. Why is it there? Tonymetz 💬 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been there in one form or another for years, and from what I can tell has never been called into question for lack of WEIGHT. Perlstein is considered a reputable source on conservative politics and the citation goes on to mention other notable sources that share this view. Here's a different publication that also touches on this.

• Writing in the New York Times in 2017, historian and journalist Rick Perlstein called Dr. Ribuffo foremost among a handful of historians to counter long-prevailing views in academia about the far right and its appeal. “Irascible, brilliant and deeply learned,” Perlstein wrote, “Ribuffo argued that America’s anti-liberal traditions were far more deeply rooted in the past, and far angrier than most historians would acknowledge, citing a long list of examples from ‘regional suspicions of various metropolitan centers and the snobs who lived there’ to ‘white racism institutionalized in slavery and segregation.’ ” WaPo 2019

You are entitled to your opinion, but personal incredulity is not a clear case for removal. In your edit summary you wrote "So Trumpism that got about 50% of the popular vote in 2 elections is Radical Right? What good is the concept then?" which does not point to contrary evidence, and in a way, corroborates what Perlstein is saying, that the radical right is more mainstream than many historians may have stated, in a section that is little more than notable opinions much like this one. DN (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

If the paragraph is claiming that Trumpism is synonymous with Radical Right, a lot more weight is needed . Is that what you are implying? That's a bold claim.

If the paragraph is claiming that Radical Right support for Trump is greater than otherwise claimed, move it to Trumpism . Why does it belong here?

Again, what about this paragraph helps distinguish and define Radical Right ? Why is it in "Populist Right". Take a break from wikisms and put yourself in the reader's shoes. Tonymetz 💬 20:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not saying it is synonymous, it is saying that some historians have argued that far right has more influence than what other historians have claimed. What reason do we have for relegating any citations about Trump to the Trumpism article? Here is a proposed version that may be closer the summary you are looking for.

• The political success of Donald Trump prompted Rick Perlstein to argue that historians have underestimated the far right's ability to influence modern American right-wing populist movements. and have overestimated the more libertarian influence of William F. Buckley's limited government, free trade, free market intellectual conservatism, and the neoconservative pro-immigration and optimistic outlook of Ronald Reagan. A handful of historians, including Leo P. Ribuffo, have shared similar views.

"Take a break from wikisms and put yourself in the reader's shoes"

Please try to avoid making personal comments like this. DN (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"overestimated the more libertarian influence of William F. Buckley's limited government, free trade, free market intellectual conservatism, and the neoconservative pro-immigration and optimistic outlook of Ronald Reagan" You have got to be kidding me. I do not live in the United States, but I have been reading about the country's politics for the last quarter-century. Who the heck argued that right-wing libertarianism and neoconservatism had mass appeal on the voting public? In decades of culture wars, when have the American voters rallied in support of free trade and free market policies? Per the main article on Protectionism in the United States, the main reasons for its relative popularity among voters is this: "A large majority of observational studies have found that voters' economic hardships influence their support of protectionism. This is corroborated by 2016 United States presidential election, in which Donald Trump was broadly supported in the Rust Belt.". Dimadick (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick According to RS I've seen, culture wars in the US began under the auspices of Buchanan and Gingrich. The ones arguing that libertarianism and neoconservatism had mass appeal were a lot of historians. Reagan seems to be a "go-to" example, as one of the most popular presidents in the country's history, but this is all off the top of my noggin, so I ask that you don't quote me on this. DN (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

i'm sorry about that I didn't mean offense. thanks for helping to work to improve clarity with the sample.

Why would you think that they opinion of a journalist, writing an op-ed for the New York Times challenging academic consensus, has weight for inclusion in this article? TFD (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

They removed an entire section that had been in the article for over a year. I'm not the one who changed it. Perlstein is also a historian, for your information. DN (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't have a degree in history (he has a BA in journalism) and has never published in academic journals AFAIK. Basically, he's a journalist who writes books about history, which doesn't make him an expert.

Including non-experts can create problems with weight because by definition their opinions have no weight. And often, as in this case, they are not shared with experts. TFD (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)