http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0129.html

johncwright

I was asked an interesting question by a friend: is there truly such a thing as ‘Right-Wing’ totalitarianism? My answer was a qualified ‘no.’

fpb

"Are there any such thing as right-wing tyrannies"?

6. The Need for Honest Definition

Why does the question provoke me to ponder it? To me, in the normal course of things, mere terminology is never worth thinking about, unless it is inaccurate or misleading.

Scientific thinking, clear thinking, requires that terms be clearly defined. The usefulness of definition is increased if it provides some insight. For example, when a definition groups together objects that have some property in common, if the property is not one that is obvious, using such a definition allows one to emphasize or illuminate a truth that is not obvious. Contrariwise, if a definition emphasizes a non-essential, or groups things together by a property they do not all share, the definition is a distraction: it actually impedes clear thinking.

I was asked an interesting question by a friend: is there truly such a thing as ‘Right-Wing’ totalitarianism? My answer was a qualified ‘no.’

My friend was not inclined to pursue the matter. Rather than burden him, I decided to write this long essay.

Unfortunately (like far too many discussions), this was really a dispute about semantics. The qualification for my answer was this: it depends how we define the term.

‘Right’ if it means anything, to means classical liberal Bill-of-Rights type thinking: individualism, rule of law, separation of powers, free trade, free market, Rights-of-Man, limited government.

These people are sometimes called “conservatives” in America because these represent the founding principles of our republic, which have been under steady erosion since the time of Woodrow Wilson. “Social Conservatives” (mostly Christians) and supporters of the Military, and of Business make an alliance of convenience with the “Right” and so are also (in America) also called “Right.” The reason for this alliance is that the hearth and home, the military, and business are threatened by the same socialist and semi-socialist factions and movements as threaten the “conservative”. However, the core values of the Founding Fathers form a common ground all these several allies have in common.

Under that definition, the answer is a no-brainer. Totalitarianism is the diametric opposite of limited government. A limited government recognizes a private sphere, a private sector, where the government has no right to intrude and no power to reach. A totalitarian government recognizes no limits: it controls the entire economy, the entire life, the entire mind and soul, of its subjects. Totalitarianism is collectivist; limited government is individualist. These again are diametrically opposed. Hence, to speak of an individualist collectivism or a totalitarian limited government is to speak paradox.

But my definition is not the consensus definition. It the not the way the majority uses the term. ‘Right’, as it is used these days, means classical liberalism plus Nazism. It means all those things I listed (Bill-of-Rights type thinking: individualism, rule of law, separation of powers, free trade, free market, Rights-of-Man, limited government) In other words, it is a meaningless definition.

Now, why should anyone define a term to include classical liberal ideals (individual liberty, limited government, rule of law, separation of powers, etc.) with Nazism? Answer: to denigrate classical liberal ideals. It is merely a trick of rhetoric. The socialists, who are collectivist totalitarians, cannot criticize classical liberalism on any rational grounds, so they conflate it with Nazism, and criticize classical liberal ideas on the grounds that they are, or that they lead to, Nazis practices.

It would be like defining ‘mammals’ to mean ‘warmblooded organisms with hairy skin who give birth live to their young PLUS snakes and black widow spiders.’ That way, if you cannot criticize mammals for anything, you can always claim that they are coldblooded legless creatures with poisonous fangs who eat their mates and do not care for their young.

But when the partisan of mammals objects that mammals do not have these properties, since mammals are not snakes and not black widow spiders, you can give a number of unconvincing responses; I suppose you can reply that the animal spectrum bends in a hoop, so that extreme warmbloodedness and extreme coldbloodedness meet in the extremes. Or you could merely insult the man speaking up for mammals.

If the Left did not have the word Nazi as a swearword to toss against the conservative Right, half their arguments would be silenced.

The real question, then, is which definition actually reflects reality? Here, for what they are worth, are my thoughts on the matter: