"State of nature".

The Irish-born writer and politician Edmund Burke (1729-97) is said by many to be the prophet of the modern ideology of the right. In 1790, Burke wrote Reflections on the Revolution in France. It was a scathing criticism of "mob rule," and a call to return to the traditional structure of society. For Burke, society worked best when the ruling elites ruled and everybody else obeyed them.

Edmund Burke was drawing on the earlier ideas of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). In his famous book, Leviathan, Hobbes described humans in a "State of Nature" relentlessly pursuing survival at the expense of others. In Nature each has an unlimited right to satisfy desires, just as we recognize the right of the lion to kill and eat the gazelle, or the spider the fly.

However, Hobbes recognized that humans are also rational, thinking beings and they can see that a war that pits all against all is probably going to end badly for just about everyone. So, humans give up some of their rights and enter into a "social contract." Political order is, therefore, an artificial state that is essential to human survival.

Righties tend to favour:

* Maintaining the current social, political, and moral order;

* Social and economic inequalities;

* Power and sovereignty in the hands of some higher authority;

* Nationalism and patriotism;

* The traditional family as the basic structure of society;

* Equal status for beliefs, sentiments, and reason;

* Religion is an important cement to hold society together;

* The importance of private ownership of goods and property;

* Punishment as an effective means of deterring crime;

* Government is best when it governs least;

* Obedience to authority;

* Individuals taking responsibility for their own welfare.

There are no sharp dividing lines between political ideologies; one blends into another seamlessly. So, you can have people belonging to opposing political parties who believe in essentially the same things. In Canada, for example, it's tough to see any difference in ideology between a right-wing Liberal and a left-wing Conservative.

Commentators have remarked that the only real difference is that one is in power and the other isn't.

RIGHT OF CENTRE

Many politicians are Fond of describing themselves as "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal." By using this phrase they are claiming to be careful stewards of the public purse, while also supporting social programs and social activism.

Political scientists love labels, and one of the ones they use to describe this right-of-centre ideology is "communitarian conservatism."

By this they suggest someone who believes that:

* Government must, first and foremost, ensure the health of the community;

* Private enterprise should be left alone to generate wealth;

* A competitive, market economy generates efficiency;

* The community should only interfere with business if it starts to be troublesome to others;

* Institutions and traditions that have served the community in the past should be preserved;

* There is a spiritual component to human existence;

* The natural environment needs to be conserved;

* Family and the local community are the primary centres of social organization;

* People have a duty to serve their country, and an obligation to help fellow citizens;

* The law must be maintained and social order upheld;

* Self-reliance is an important quality;

* Individual privacy has to be protected;

* Government works best in partnership with people.

Currently, the Liberal Party in Canada is closest to this ideology. The newly formed Conservative Party is a bit farther to the right.

THE RIGHT

The right takes some of its direction today from the theories of Leo Strauss (1899-1973). A German-born Jew, Mr. Strauss escaped the horrors of Hitler's Nazis in the 1930s. He believed that Nazism was made possible by the collapse of morality brought on by the liberal democracy of Germany in the 1920s. Without a rigid moral code imposed by religion, Germany slumped into vice, depravity, and decadence.

Leo Strauss settled in the United States and taught political theory at the University of Chicago. His work is founded on the belief that the classical theorists--Plato, Hobbes, etc.--got it right. The problems these great thinkers tackled are eternal, and haven't been changed by the modernization of society.

Among the political right there is a belief that the history of western civilization has led to the triumph of the inferior, the rabble. The only thing the masses are interested in, goes the theory, is self-gratification, consumption, personal comfort, and idleness--life as entertainment.

Time to put a bit of stick about, say the Straussians, so they turn to religion as an essential part of their political ideology. Jim Lobe, writing in AlterNet in 2003 commented that, "Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control. At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it." Strauss's followers also believe that society is in a perpetual state of war of good against evil, and that this requires actions that most people don't have the stomach for. They also say that truth and justice are myths, but that it's not a good idea to let the masses in on this insight--it might frighten them. There are other things that the masses will not be happy to learn about.

Followers of Leo Strauss are not big fans of equality. They say, in their reading of the ancient philosophers, that there is only one natural right --the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. Their argument is that just because some complex ideas are beyond the grasp of the average person doesn't mean they aren't valid. Intellectual elites who can work easily with difficult concepts ought to be leaders. This goes way back to Plato's belief that "philosopher kings," trained to the highest degree in intellectual pursuits, made the best leaders.

Straussianism is a very, very complicated set of ideas. It's made more difficult to penetrate by the writing style of Leo Strauss and some of his followers. This is deliberate; an attempt to ensure that only really, really smart people should have access to their views.

University of Regina political scientist Shadia Drury is an expert on Professor Strauss. She says that, "Straussians believe there are two truths. One for those who can handle the dark reality, and Pablum for the others." Professor Drury has written that, "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat ... he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured."

Professor Drury also describes the ideas of Leo Strauss as the bedrock of the political right in the United States today.

The right, again keeping in mind the blending of beliefs as you move along the political spectrum, tends to support:

* Economic activity free from regulation by government;

* The private delivery of services (health care, for example);

* For those who can't afford needed services, charities (with some public funding) can fill in;

* Decentralization of government to the greatest degree possible;

* A ban on abortion and restrictions on gay rights;

* Integration of religion into the political process;

* Preservation of the tradtional class structure;

* Reduction or even elimination of welfare on the grounds that it fosters dependence;

* Direct democracy (the use of referendums and plebiscites to decide public policy);

* The reduction of the size and scope of government to the barest minimum;

* Obedience to authority;

* Harsh penalties for criminals, including use of the death penalty.

The Republican Party in the United States, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, is very much an exponent of right-wing ideology. Several of the most senior people in Mr. Bush's administration are former students of Leo Strauss.

THE FAR RIGHT

Somewhat surprisingly, the far right and the far left have quite a lot in common. Both are intolerant. Both have a fondness for violence in support of their ideology. Both prefer tyranny to democracy. Both lean towards militarism. Both glorify obedience to the state, usually in the form of a populist leader, as the solution to problems. Both encourage fear in the masses and then exploit that as the means of achieving power: "Support us and we will protect you from X, Y, or Z."

The most common expression of the far right is fascism, although there is a great deal of debate among scholars about the true nature of this "ism."

At its basic level, fascism has little ideology other than taking and holding power. Its means of doing this is exploitation of ethnic and national identities.

Fascist leaders promise to secure the nation against its external enemies or threats from internal minorities. The strong nationalistic spirit comes from the belief that their notion and its values are the best in the world, and that all other cultures and their values are inferior in comparison.

Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. The reasoning here is that the masses are not capable of governing themselves--they need to follow the direction of a strong leader who will act in their best interests. Foreign policy is dedicated to expansion and conquest.

The intellectual foundations of fascism come from the late 19th century and were a reaction to liberalism. The first fascist government was that of Benito Mussolini in Italy in 1922. The Italian fascists were dedicated to modernization, industrial growth, and a culture of exalting youth. This was a revolutionary government that rejected conservatism in favour of rapid change.

Capitalists, landowners, and the church supported Mussolini because he offered protection from the common external enemy--the communism that appeared to be spreading from Russia. Italian fascism protected the privileges of the monarchy and aristocracy and firmly believed in the right of elites to govern.

Mussolini's fascists had many imitators in Europe and Latin America in the 1930s. Francisco Franco seized power in Spain after a brutal civil war (1936-39) and remained in charge as a fascist dictator until his death in 1975.

In Germany, Adolf Hitler took fascist ideas and blended them with his own theories of racial superiority. His National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) tried to overcome class conflict by creating a new Volksgemeinschaft (people's community) built around a concept of racial purity. A popular culture of Nazi books, movies, and artwork that celebrated the ideal of the so-called new man and new woman supported this effort. This was an attempt to transform German society in order to overcome perceived sources of national weakness. Hitler tried to exterminate those he saw as inferior beings.

Nazism and fascism are not the same thing although they have a lot in common. Both are anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-communist, and anti-socialist. In the past, both movements sought alliances with traditional conservatives but did not share most conservative ideologies. For example, nazism and fascism do not go along with limited government involvement in society and the economy; both movements glorify violence and terror.

The biggest distinction between nazism and fascism is that nazism is essentially a racist doctrine. The underpinnings of this go back to the late 19th century when there was a lot of philosophical musing going on about racial differences. Based on the theory of evolution put forward by Charles Darwin, a lot of people believed there was a hierarchy notion that all people are equal was rejected; the advance of civilization was seen as the struggle for "survival of the fittest." Of course, the Nazis decided that their own Aryan race was the pinnacle of humanity. Therefore, in their minds, non-Aryans had to be killed.

Fortunately, Hitler and his followers lost the war they started.

However, stubborn pockets of fascism and nazism remain active all over the world, including in Canada. These groups try to make themselves look respectable on the outside but their goal is to exploit fears and prejudices. Jorg Haider's Freedom Party in Austria and Jean-Marie le Pen's National Front in France have won significant popular support with their racist and anti-immigrant platforms.

NEO-SCHMEO

Just to confuse the already confused even more, it has become fashionable to tag the prefix "Neo" onto some political labels. When reference is made to neo-liberals, the talk is of someone who follows the liberalism of the 19th century. This is nothing like the centrist liberalism of today. A neo-liberal of the 21st century is well to the right of centre.

Neo-conservatism describes the right-wing ideology that grew out of the Cold War. It is mostly identified with the politics of Margaret Thatcher (prime minister of Britain 1979-90) and Ronald Reagan (president of the U.S. 1981-89). It is much the same as garden-variety conservatism but with a more active foreign policy.

THE DOCTRINE OF FREEDOM

Libertarians are people who call for the absolute minimum of control by society on the actions of individuals. The doctrine stresses the right to self-ownership and, by extension, the right to private ownership of material resources and property. Advocates oppose any form of taxation and favour a laissez-faire economic system. They assert that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; if has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom.

Here's how libertarian Charles Murray illustrates his beliefs in What It Means to Be a Libertarian (1997): "A person who is making an honest living and minding his own business isn't hurting me. He isn't forcing me to do anything. I as an individual don't have the right to force him to do anything. A hundred of his neighbours acting as a mob don't have that right. The government shouldn't have that right either ..."

(The leader of Canada's Libertarian Party, Jean-Serge Brisson, refuses to wear a seat belt as a matter of principle. In November 2000, he served some time in jail for breaking the seat-belt law. "Can a government decide, for me, how best to protect myself?" he asks.)

Conservatives tend to agree with libertarians on much (but not all) of their economic platform, while liberals generally agree with libertarians on much (but not all) of their social platform.