As the 2016 election looms, I have been spending a lot of time thinking about what I believe politically. In the past I have described myself as a right-libertarian and I think that still holds. But it's also true that I disagree with a lot of people on the right about a great many things. That being said, I am nowhere near being on the left. I have huge problems with the way the political left is in America and globally and compared to my disagreements with the left my disagreements with the right seem rather trivial.
Still, there is a lot on the right that I just don't agree with. I haven't really found a "home" so to speak. Even with the factions I agree with most, there are beliefs and policies that I can't support. I've looked long and hard to find a home on the right, even looking at some pretty obscure political theories, but in every case I have found something I fundamentally disagree with. I'm going to go through most of these groups, describe what the believe and why I disagree with them. Finally, most of this will be from an American perspective. And keep in mind that these categories are defined by me and may not match up with what everyone else thinks. And of course, there is going to be a lot of overlap in beliefs and not every member of every group thinks the same way, so a criticism of some should not be read as a criticism of all.
Social Conservatives/Evangelical Christians:
Come on, you don't need me to explain who these guys are. They are the ones that are against gay marriage, abortion and many other things based on religious reasons. Think Mike Hucakbee or Ben Carson. Out of anyone on the right I probably disagree with them the most. Unfortunately they seem to have the most power and nobody can get elected without pandering to them on the right.
Why do I disagree with them? Largely because I am not all that religious. I'm one of those rare people on the right that just doesn't care one way or the other about religion, at least not the Christian relgion. I don't hate Christians, like so many people on the left do, but as far as I am concerned "because God said so" isn't much of an argument for me. I also don't like how they inject religion into every issue, and in the past, Evangelicals were very pro-censorship for art, television, games and movies they didn't like. That alone puts me very far away from their political beliefs.
And the worst part is that they make the rest of us on the right look bad. Let's take the example of gay marriage, a battle the right has recently lost. The Evangelical right pretty much made the "because God said so" argument alone even though there
are secular arguments against gay marriage. Granted, I don't know if any of them can counter the argument that people should do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, but they did exist. And as always, just because I am stating them doesn't mean I am arguing for them. Here's a short list:
-We shouldn't allow gay marriage because we have never done so in the entire course of human history.
-We should figure out if gay marriage has any long term negative effects over the course of a couple of generations before we decide to do it universally.
-Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Let religious people do what they want and gays do what they want, all of them free from government interference.
-It's probably a bad idea, but no matter what happens we should respect democracy and go with what the people choose. Put it up for a vote.
Are they great arguments? Who knows, because they got lost in the noise between the religious right and the left. And that's the way it goes on so many issues the religious right. They just drown out anyone on the right that disagrees with them or has alternate solutions.
Traditionalists:
Basically social conservatives without the religious justifications. Instead of "because God said so" it's "because it's worked in the past". In the gay marriage example they would be the ones saying we shouldn't do it because it has never been done, or even the "let's take it slow" example. Since they are so hard to separate them from the Evangelicals I don't think most people think they exist, but I have seen a few people online that claim to be Traditionalists without being religious.
Honestly, I tend to agree with them in principle, but not in practice. I feel change for the sake of change is stupid and is basically chaos, which is why I have a huge problem with the left side of the political spectrum. And I do think that traditional gender roles do have a larger place in the world then any leftist would admit.
But I do think that sometimes change should be necessary. For the gender roles example, I think that most people will and do fit into the traditional roles. Those that don't though, shouldn't be punished for it. If people want to be gay, let them. If they want to be a girl that wears pants or a man that wears dresses, then fine. And with the rate of technological and cultural evolution, the old ways will simply not work all of the time. Change is often necessary and we should do so when it makes sense. I think traditionalist like to think that it never makes sense to change and that's where I disagree with them.
Fiscal Conservatives:
These are the people that want to cut government spending at all costs. They oppose spending, socialism and pretty much any government spending that isn't 100% necessary for the functions of the government. This was the Tea Party's shtick when they first came out and fiscal conservatives are still a major faction today. Basically whenever you hear a candidate calling for cuts they are pandering to the fiscal conservatives.
Of course the government wastes an obscene amount of money and I wish they were more efficient but I think the fiscal conservatives go to far most of the time. Though I hate the welfare state and am on the record as disagreeing with the expansion of social programs the left seems bound and determined to inflect on us I think there are good government programs as well. I'm not for a total gutting of the social programs our government provides and I think research and development is a decent way to spend tax money, as long as it is efficient and scientifically valuable.
I do like many government programs. I'm all for social security and medicare, if the government could just figure out a way to keep them fiscally solvent. I'm also not against all regulation. Yes, there is way to much of it right now, but the alternative, letting people do whatever they want, even if it hurts people, isn't something I agree with. Hell, I'd say that most useful regulation has more to do with ensuring competence instead of punishing those who would take advantage of people. Basically, I agree that our government is out of control, but I don't think we need to go as far as the fiscal conservatives want to go.
War Hawks:
They want war, surveillance and spending on the military. Currently they are the ones pushing for intervention in Syria, more sanctions against Russia and ripping up the agreements with Cuba and Iran. To be fair to the right, there are quite a few of these people on the left as well. I'd consider both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to be essentially war hawks on occasion, especially when it came to the intervention in Libya.
I do completely agree that we should spend more on the military. After all, our soldiers are underpaid and we need to create new tech to counter Chinese and Russian advantages. But at the same time we are wasting huge amounts of money on sub-optional programs like the F-35 and the littoral combat ship. War Hawks often don't go with what works but with what works for their constituents. That's no way to run a military.
And right now, further war is the last thing we need. We are still dealing with the consequences of our last interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. We don't need to be picking a fight in Syria, Iran, Cuba and, most of all, Russia. Indeed, my biggest disagreement with the war hawks is their obsession with Russia. If Russia wants to have adventure campaigns that will ripple their military in Syria and Ukraine, why should we stop them? And I consider Russian values a lot more palatable then the ones being espoused in Europe right now. We do have to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda but I think anything besides that is really stupid right now.
I am, of course, opposed to the NSA, CIA and FBI surveillance programs and have detailed why again and again, so I don't see the need to repeat myself. Needless to say though, it's a major disagreement I have with war hawks.
I do have to say that I despise pacifism and think that in many cases, war is the answer. I still don't have a problem with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in principle, even though the execution for both was atrocious. You just have to be smart about it and right now the war hawks don't strike me as thinking things through. A war with Iran or, God forbid, Russia is
not what we need right now.
Libertarians:
Think Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker for people in the Republican party and Gary Johnson for people outside of it. These are the people that want less government, less war and less regulation. In many ways they resemble liberals, but have very different reasons for coming to their conclusions. For example both the left and libertarians are against the police state but for the left it's because of race and race alone while the libertarians are more concerned with liberty in general, regardless of race.
I'd like to call myself a libertarian. I really would. I'm mostly for letting people do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. But even though I agree with about 95% of their positions, the 5% I disagree with irks me so much that I just can't go along with them. And I don't think their economic theories work. Going to the gold standard? Never happen and even if it did, it wouldn't work. A lot of their economic positions are close enough to the fiscal conservatives, so see above if you want to see where I disagree there. Economics isn't the only thing I disagree with.
Take one example. Most libertarians agree that we need criminal justice reform in this country. I agree wholeheartedly. But in the libertarian conversation there are so many people that just have a pathological hatred of police, and would hate them no matter what. To the point that there rhetoric is indistinguishable from black lives matter, a group that I consider responsible for the deaths of police officers. And it makes no sense whatsoever. You can be in favor of police reform without hating everyone that wears a badge. I want the war on drugs to end, asset forfeiture to be illegal and mandatory bodycams as well, but you don't need to hate cops to have that position. Indeed, many cops would
agree with those positions. I'm someone who has a lot of friends and family that either currently work in the criminal justice system or have in the past and to hear them described as monsters pisses me off. Indeed, I think for the more extreme among the libertarians, "police reform" is code for "let's round up all the cops and shoot them" and as long as those people make up a sizable faction of libertarians I don't want anything to do with them.
Another thing is their pacifism. Although I disagree with the war hawks and think that America needs to leave things alone for awhile, I don't think that pacifism is the answer either. So many libertarians just want to bury their heads in the sand and think something like ISIS will solve itself. It won't. Though our current efforts are a joke, it's better then just putting our fingers in our ears and pretending it will go away on its own.
Nationalists:
Put America first. Enforce immigration laws, make America "America" again. Stop letting countries like China get away with murder when it comes to trade. Protect our trade, our culture and out borders. Donald Trump is probably the closest we have to a nationalist candidate, though he is more correctly labeled a populist. My criticisms of nationalism might not apply to Trump directly, though it may count for many of his supporters.
Once again, I agree with a lot of what the nationalists are saying. International politics is a zero sum game and I don't have a problem with anyone saying that we should look out for our interests ahead of anyone else's. And our current immigration policies and border security is a joke. We really should be deporting more people that are here illegally.
So why am I not a nationalist? For one thing, the Nazis and Imperial Japan ensures that anyone that espouses nationalist ideas will be labeled as a fascist at best and a racist at worse. That's universal for anyone on the right though, but in the case of the nationalists the left might have a point for once.
All to often, the nationalists are less about protecting Americans and more about protecting certain types of Americans. Unlike the left, I won't say that it's just white people against everyone else, because anyone can be racist and there are plenty non-white nationalists that the criticisms could be applied to, some of whom are even African Americans or Hispanics. However, there is a large contingent of nationalists that really do hate Hispanics, and I just don't. I like Hispanics. I don't mind people speaking Spanish, and I think there is a huge difference between someone who is here illegally then someone who took the time to come here legally. Sure that's not most nationalists, but there are enough out there to tar the whole group. That's not fair, but nothing in politics is.
I might as well put this here, but I am not going to counter-argue against the
really far right groups that are explicitly racist instead of implicitly. No need to give them any attention, and I don't really agree with them on anything anyways.
Neo-Reaction(NRx):
Neo-Reaction is an obscure and relatively new right wing movement that really doesn't have much in the way of support nationally, but I did come across it while looking for a group to belong to. For an explanation for their beliefs read Scott Alexanders description of them
here. The fact that a left-libertarian had to write the most concise summery of their viewpoints isn't a good sign. Their beliefs are often too dense even for me and their best writers tend to ramble, so the post on Slate Star Codex is the best place to start if you want to learn more about them
Essentially neo-reaction states that the progressives have been in control for far too long and have ruined everything. That's not controversial at all in my mind and if that was the end of their political philosophy I would be all aboard. If anyone is to blame for the current problems we are having I'd say that it is the left. And I agree that many of the sacred cows NRx is obsessed with slaying really do need to be slaughtered, metaphorically of course.
But their solution for these problems are, quite frankly, insane. They want to go back to monarchy. Maybe not in so many words but they think the best political solution is either a king or a dictator. There is something to be said about letting one guy deal with everything to avoid the coordination problems that modern society has, but this really only ends one way. And that's North Korea. Not a place I want to live but no one can argue that they aren't essentially what kind of leadership NRx wants.
Still, this reaction (no pun intended) is still preliminary and I haven't read too much else about them.
Why am I still on the right?
Because I despise the left? I really don't agree with them on much and when I do it is for totally different reasons. I'll use the criminal justice example again, I agree with the left that reform is needed. But they say it's because racism and I say it's because liberty. Same solution, totally different argument.
And I agree with almost all of these factions on the right about some things. The only real exception is the religious right and that has more to do with how they argue and less with what they believe. I also think that a right-libertarian is an accurate description of my beliefs, even if I bristle at the definition.
I also think that all of these factions have the potential to be right on any given issue. That's true even on the left. Even a hard core communist would be opposed to destroying Earth, for example, even though I shudder to think of what argument they would use.
And as I grow older my views can and will change. I used to be a hardcore war hawk until Barack Obama was elected and then I grew much more libertarian. I'm currently drifting away from libertarian thought and becoming less skeptical of nationalism, traditionalism and even neo-reaction. I don't think I will ever drift that far into those politician camps but anything is possible, and as times change it may become true that they will have better arguments then anyone else. Same thing with any of the other factions.
I just don't ever see myself on the left though.
