What is ‘the right’?
While Hitchens ticks most of the boxes with his definition, his view on state power is contentious.
The worship of ashes, or the preservation of fire? The ties that bind us, or the lack of trust in the people to think long termly and act rationally? The concrete reality, or abstract perceptions?
Across the centuries, the etymology of what is ‘right wing conservatism’ receives a new definitive fingerprint by all who come across it and attempt to wrestle the concealed truth from this phrase, shining a light into a room covered in darkness for centuries. Evidentially, this treatment has also been inflicted on Marxism, Liberalism, and Capitalism, and any other -ism hiding in the forest of ideology.
Recently on Twitter, Peter Hitchens has taken a feather dust to sweep away the ambiguity. He defines the right as:
“Socially, morally and culturally conservative, relying on the human conscience rather than the power of the state to create peace and order. In favour of limited government subject to law, and the greatest possible extent of private life and action.”
While Hitchens ticks most of the boxes, his view on state power is contentious. The right is not against oiling the wheels of government directive; the question is who, what, and why. In fact, Hitchens’ definition sounds closer to Classical Liberalism, eradicating the state from most if not all portions of society in hopes that ‘human conscience’ would correct itself.
The triumph of neoliberalism since the 1980s has proven this to be folly. One reason being a key fundamental building block of physics: nothing can exist in a vacuum. There will always be a state that will control the police, the military, the civil service, and the legislative arms of power. This state may be big or small (comparatively speaking) but it will exist with people who have their own interests.
The second key reason is that, in our experiment of ‘relying on the human conscience’, we have discovered that man is still an animal. Perhaps the bedrock of any true right-wing movement is first the acceptance that human nature is real, attractive, and unstoppable.
When the collective edifice of a civilisation is eroded away, humans become gullible, individualistic, and corrupted. Is it any surprise that divorce rates immediately rose when no-fault laws were enacted? Or the sexual revolution taking off as soon as the use of contraception became widespread along with the legalisation of abortion? So, on the contrary, the right-wing conservatism land requires a very strong, active, and involved state to tame the wicked, primal urges of man. We can’t leave libertarian free market principles to run riot.
The state needs to implement the correct incentives and enforce the necessary taboos in order to turn man’s nature towards fruitful, productive, and happy outcomes. It is not a longing for the past, but an acceptance that there are universal laws that spell consequences if broken (and we have the receipts from our forefathers to prove it).
An accurate, dictionary definition of ‘right-wing’ can only apply to the time in which it was written, and the word ‘conservatism’ is forever useless. Just ask a member of the Soviet Politburo whether he is happy ‘conserving’ the Marxist-Leninist order, however inefficient and collapsible.
More strikingly, today’s definition of ‘right-wing’ runs something along the lines of: ‘A reactionary and quasi counter-revolutionary movement mobilised with the express intent of burning down the crooked, authoritarian, and anti-human order that has ruled over the 21st Century.
‘In its place will be a system of order, justice, and truth; a system whereby those under its wings will be permitted and encouraged to live fulfilling and productive lives, aiming their souls towards a higher purpose under the liberty that a cultural homogenous and stable economic framework provide.
‘Beauty, strength, wisdom, and competence are prioritised in all facets of society, nursing the present, caring for the future, and honouring the past.’
While all definitions are abstract by design, this concept certainly comes closer for what a ‘right-wing’ land would resemble.