I know Lemmy isn’t normally the best place to search for this, but are there any high-quality right-wing explainers, or modern books, or media outlets?
I myself am ultra-left (quite literally communist, to the dictionary sense of the word), but I’d like to quit the bubble that inevitably forms around and look at good arguments of the opposing side, if there are any.
Is there anything in there beyond temporarily embarrassed millionaires and fears that trans people will destroy humanity? Is there rational analysis, something closer to academic research, behind modern ideas of laissez-faire capitalism and/or political conservatism?
I’ve tried outlets like PragerU, but they are so basic they seem to target a very uncritical audience.
I’d like to see the world in the eyes of an enlightened right-winger, and see where they possibly fail (or if suddenly they have valid arguments).
deleted by creator
OP, this guy has given you an honest answer that is actually good material.
Seconding these recommendations.
Love the name
Wow, thank you for such a detailed response!
I’ll check out the sources you’ve given.
Thomas Sowell is an american pseudo intelectual…
A lot of his analysis doesn’t hold any water if reviewed in context of the world.
He is essentially doing the bidding for the regime which I guess what “conservatives” do but he is disingenius IMHO sort of Ben Shapiro type of lapdog telling working peasants sucks to suck, git gud.
deleted by creator
iirc Friedman changed his mind about the welfare state later in life
And they also try to prove why the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and every lesser species of it undermines liberty.
Proving totalitarianism undermines liberty seems pretty trivial to me. An attempt to prove that communism must necessarily be totalitarian would be much more interesting.
deleted by creator
Frankly, anything explicitly marketed to American conservatives these days is mostly ragebait for stupid people and I doubt you’ll find any of it the least bit convincing. As other have mentioned, Thomas Sowell is a great place to start if you want something serious but modern and clearly written. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose or Capitalism and Freedom are both widely recommended classics. If you managed to read Marx without dying of boredom you should also be able to get through Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action or Socialism.
Describes PragerU. I follow their YouTube and Instagram accounts and it’s almost exclusively bad faith arguments or rage bait.
99% of the comments buy into it as well. I wonder if they’re quick to clean up (read:remove) dissenting voices or if it is actually an echo chamber.
Are you punishing yourself for something?
Haha. Just want to better understand how the other side sees the world.
Just to have bias confirmed that these clowns are inteletually bankdupt bootlickers?
Wish they’d prove me wrong! So far… they haven’t.
inteletually bankdupt
Sounds about right, misspellings and all.
I only saw a YouTuber make fun of their “Christopher Columbus did nothing wrong video” (not the actual title).
Their argumentation is terribly weak.
Thomas Sowell is a great place to start
My man was churning out ragebait before ragebait was cool.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose or Capitalism and Freedom are both widely recommended classics.
Mr. Pencil Man, the guy who was convinced a command economy couldn’t churn out writing implements because they had too many parts.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.
Is one of my favorite Friedmanisms. My guy simply could not conceive of a central authority doing anything right (unless that thing was standing up military juntas in formerly democratic Latin American and Middle Eastern states).
If you managed to read Marx without dying of boredom you should also be able to get through Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action or Socialism.
He’s got some bangers.
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.
Fair enough, don’t start with that article! Pinning his guy’s mistakes on the other guy is not a great look. I should have specified that his books on economics are where someone should look first, not his tabloid opinion columns. Friedman’s point about pencils was not that a command economy would be unable to produce them but rather that the free market produces them spontaneously, at low cost and in great quantity, of good quality and variety, with everyone along the way acting voluntarily and better off for having participated in the process. I don’t think an offhand comment about sand is really the best representative of his work. I think the quote from Children and Rights might actually belong to Murray Rothbard, but either way I disagree with whoever wrote it and think it’s a perfect example of someone following a generally good principle off a cliff.
I haven’t seen anything about children that insane since I saw that libertarian article pleading the case that we should be allowed to buy and sell children on the free market.
Thanks! Marx is sometimes tough indeed, but readable :D
deleted by creator
That’s funny, I see large corporations as being similar to a planned economy, but bringing the same problems. Corruption is widespread and gets worse the more layers of middle management there are. Economies of scale are what save them. Internal goods and services are mispriced and misallocated because political considerations replace the price mechanism. Man, I really hated that part of my life.
If youre being honest, then youre going to need to look at historical material like Locke & Hobbes to get a foundation.
Modern conserativism… aggitation… can bw traced through Gingrich in the House in the early 90s, I cant think of the book off the top of my head but theres a pretty decent record of how he did manipulative things with unmanned cspan cameras at the time.
This. Perhaps even some “Wealth of Nations” and similar.
Adam Smith is less right-wing than the cargo-cultists think.
True, but it is in part a philosophical basis that OP seems to want to understand, so I felt it was relevant.
deleted by creator
Thank you!
Gingrich’s “Contract With America” book was such word salad. Every other page contradicted the others.
It partly depends on whether you want to understand pre-9/11 “reasonable” conservatism or the more recent Tea Party and Trump conservative populism.
Ayn Rand expresses the fairy tale version of romantic, rugged individualism, which is pretty important to understanding modern right-wing politics, especially in North America. I think the main idea conservatives take from her work, directly or indirectly, is that progress is driven by individual work and achievement, and that any kind of forced wealth re-distribution (through social programs, for example) is effectively theft, and therefore immoral.
The modern populist right-wing movement was originally driven and disseminated by right-wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. So, listening to right-wing talk radio or podcasts is also a good window into the modern movement. It puts on full display the resentment felt by modern right-wingers.
If you would rather not experience right-wing media directly, but would rather read rational analysis about it, then one good choice is David Frumm. He is an old school Reagan/Bush conservative, and has lived through the transition of the Repubs to populism. He is very critical of Trumpism, like most people, but he comes from the perspective of a reasonable and well-informed conservative insider.
Fareed Zakaria has a new book called Age of Revolutions, which views modern conservative populism as a very significant political re-alignment with similarities to various revolutions of the past, both successful and unsuccessful. Fareed talks about the conditions that lead to populism. In that sense, he treats Trump’s popularity as a symptom and outcome of specific underlying societal problems.
Thank you! I’d like to understand both, really, though my first concern is about modern, “Trump” conservatism.
Others have weighed in on the academic, but a lot of the American conservative braintrust is (literally) in think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, John Birch Society, etc. These organizations vary from “pretty right wing” Heritage to “nearly literally fascist” John Birch Society, and they put out a LOT of papers and material they use to…I’ll generously say “inform” the public discourse.
There’s an episode of Behind the Bastards touching on the subject - “How Conservatism Won”. Not a right-wing resource at all, obviously, but that’s where a lot of the money goes indeed.
Yep it’s a great one. Knowledge Fight talks about JBS all the time as well
Thanks! Will check them out. Useful to get closer to sources everyday conseratives lean to
Have you already read through Plan 2025? It’s kinda the latest huge report from the Heritage Foundation, and I’d say it does a pretty good job of outlining modern right-wing ideology. It can definitely be a hard read though, some of the things they want are really stomach churning to me.
Planned to go take a read, didn’t do it yet
deleted by creator
Thanks! Yes, I see how this might be infuriating Took a glance over Project 2025, it’s not just wrong and dystopian, it’s literally self-contradictory, sometimes in the same paragraphs.
Like when they say that free competition generally reduces costs of healthcare, but then the literal next paragraph saying government should allow prices to soar to “foster innovation” - like, make up your mind! And then proceeding to say that insurance ends up in a lot of “unnecessary” appointments and that healthcare should be everyone’s own financial responsibility.
And a lot of similar examples of self-contradictory and dystopian stuff carefully covered in positive wording.
Here’s an audio copy of Murray Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State. Murray is basically the father of “right wing” libertarianism (insofar as right v left is individualism v collectivism, not “right=racism is good,”) he seems to fit the description you seek. Not saying you’ll agree or love him, but he isn’t some “lets kill the gays” nonsense.
Also try Milton Friedman, and Lysander Spooner. They’re more “anarchism” or “libertarianism” as well, from that same individualist, rather than collectivist, standpoint.
I’m not here to love these people, I’m here to hear them out :D Thanks!
Please dont have sex with milton, ok?
Foundations of geopolitics by Aleksander Dugan. This is the basis of modern European, conservative actions and the Russian playbook for the last 30 years.
The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America https://a.co/d/5pCJwnr
This would probably be better for an american reader. Theyre not gonna get the cultural underpinnings of ‘Foundations’ without reading an analysis and I dont think this is what OP is looking for. Foundations is Russian international relations theory.
You mean Dugin? Heard of him a lot lately.
Yup that’s him. A Russian ultra nationalist who essentially wrote a game plan for Russia to dismantle the liberal world order of the west, and was/is highly popular in russian political and military leadership. Many of his suggestions are part of russian doctrine today (like the notion that Ukraine has no cultural identity or value and should be taken over). Quite eye opening.
Thanks!
an enlightened right-winger
If they still exist they aren’t putting themselves in the (probably literal) crosshairs of the conservative/christianist goofballs.
It’s been actual decades since the right wing was anything approaching sane. The left is following suit lately too.
Ahh yes, a classic “both sides” argument.
Please, explain how the left has gone crazy with their ideology, because leftists don’t have much political power to actually mess anything up with, unlike conservatives.
This is not a right wing resource, but if you’re interested in learning about the arguments and historical evolution of ideas that underpin economic liberalism/neoliberalism, I highly recommend Geoff Mann’s Disassembly required : a field guide to actually existing capitalism. It’s concise, relatively short, and treats the ‘other’ side like rational actors (which is important for understanding, I think).
Ofc this would only help understand people who are quite well informed.
Thank you!
If I recall from the Alt-Right Playbook’s Origins of Conservatism video, some of the early founders of conservative thought you might want to read include:
- Edmund Burke
- Thomas Hobbes
- Joseph DeMaistre
Thanks!
All of that guys videos are extremely well sourced. You can find a lot of good links in the descriptions of his videos.
I find the Austrian School of Economics really interesting.
Particularly books written by American economist Murray Rothbard, who talks about free markets, government (particularly government intervention) and inflation.
There’s a very short book you can read called "What has Government Done to Our Money?”
Thanks!
I’m not sure of you’ll find the academic research you are looking for, at least out of the US, since the modern Conservative movement seems to have eschewed academia as filled with Liberals.
I haven’t read this book yet, but I’d recommend Hillbilly Elegy, a memoir about JD Vance’s life in Appalachia, It came out in 2016, and I recall folks thinking that it was a good read, even if they didn’t agree with Vance’s politics, and partially explained Trump’s appeal to rural voters whose lifestyle bears no resemblance at all to Trump. The book has to be somewhat compelling, since Ron Howard made a movie out of it. And Vance parlayed it into a Senate seat, after all.
Interesting! Thank you
Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia is a solid philosophical foundation for a lot of right wing thought. If you want to engage further you can follow up with Michael Otsuka’s critique in Self-Ownership and Equality: A Lockean Reconciliation.
Nozick provides an underpinning for what many think of as traditional conservative American values, without basing it in Christianity.
Then of course there’s the Chicago school of economics (Friedman et al), which is just a somewhat naive and more it less completely discredited take on how the economy works. It’s fundamental for understanding American politics the previous half century, but their ideas are not really worth interacting with unless you’re particularly interested in economics. It’s not like the idiot politicians who push it in front of them understand the theories either.
Thsee theories is not far right; there’s no salvaging the far right, and their ideological basis is mostly just bigotry. You could read Ayn Rand to try to understand which hole these idiots crawled from. Or better, don’t waste your time.
I see! Actually, I think I should touch Ayn Rand at some point to get more popular sentiment - in modern times, her books, particularly Atlas Shrugged, seem to be the Bible of common liberals.
Yeah, you’re probably right it’s worth reading if you want to understand the American right. I just don’t think Atlas Shrugged is anywhere near as interesting as Anarchy, State and Utopia from a history of ideas perspective, but that might not be the relevant dimension. :)
I don’t know if you like podcasts, but Know Your Enemy is a take on the right from two leftists who used to be conservatives who approach it from an intellectual POV.
I linked to the political magazine that helps support them since it gives some rundowns of their topics that might give you some of the sources that can be read instead of listening to their podcast, if you’d prefer.
Sounds like a great find! Thank you
I will have to preface this with the fact that I have not read any of his books, but former British politician Rory Stewart is one of the people that comes to my mind when reading your description. I don’t think that he comes to the right policy positions, of course, but whenever I listen to him he does seem to at least have a degree of empathy for all people. He seems to at least generally see the problem even if I think that his solution wouldn’t work. He has an effective way with words in interviews and his writing is generally very well reviewed too.
He isn’t really right wing though, he is from a different Tory faction which failed to tap into much of any power in the past few governments. Politics on the Edge gave good insight into his time as an MP and his roles during the period, but he didn’t justify or go into much detail about what being on the right (centre right for him, really) truly means.
I’m not sure that makes him not right wing, surely that just means he wasn’t the kind of right wing that succeeded in the political landscape of the UK in the past 20ish years? His voting record is generally in favour of less regulation (outside of a few issues), lower taxes, military intervention, isolation from the EU. He’s pro-environmentalist, but that hasn’t always been an exclusively left-wing thing. Similarly, anarchists and Marxist-Leninists are both left wing, even if they wouldn’t necessarily get along well in a single political party together
There are many left-wing people who were for leaving the EU, so I wouldn’t use that as a measuring stick of left/right.
His voting record is something he has covered; a lot of these votes which make him seem particularly bad (I’m not a big fan of his, despite having read The Place In Between - before I knew who he was - and Politics on the Edge) but from times when people were whipped or ‘encouraged’ to vote a particular way. We found out what happened when he did go against the whip, with even Nicholas Soames feeling that wrath.
Edit: my first sentence in my previous post can be misinterpreted. My meaning is that he isn’t very (strongly) right wing, not that he isn’t right wing at all, as he clearly is centre-right at his most ‘left’.
Fair enough. The whip is a reasonable point to bring up, though I would suggest that if it bothered him that much he wouldn’t have stayed in the party for ten years. After all, he had switched parties beforehand. I get where you’re coming from though.
Might be useful when taking popular side of it, thanks!