I think the problem is right-wing really has no meaning any more. It has become a catch-all. Right-wing continues to be used as a description of nationalist or militarist organizations, regardless of the economic system advocated. Right-wing is really about the style of government, not the economic system. But at the same time, it is associated with “right of center” political organizations which support free market economics.

DHS describes right-wing to include those who hate particular religious, racial or ethnic groups. By that definition, the Black Panthers were a right-wing group. Certainly Calypso Louie’s Nation of Islam fits the DHS definition of right-wing group. DHS also says right-wing includes those who are antigovernment, including those who reject government authority entirely. That description fits Weather Underground to a tee. They must be a right-wing group as well. This is idiotarianism.

Like I said, right-wing has no meaning any more.

Germany under Hitler advocated German nationalism and had a program of genocide of unfavorable non-German nationals. It also happened to be socialist. It was generally described as right-wing.

The Soviet Union under Stalin advocated Russian nationalism and had a program of genocide of unfavorable non-Russian nationals. It also happened to be socialist. But it was never described as right-wing. Some described it as left-wing.

The difference is, at its core, Nazi Germany self-identified as ethnic nationalist movement, and the Soviet Union self-identified as an economic communist movement.

But how can a left to right continuum start at one end as an economic continuum and end as a ethnic identity continuum? It can’t. If communism is the left, then the Austrian school is the right. If Nazism is the right, then libertarianism is the left. The only answer is it is a matrix, not a continuum.

Today, in western liberal democracies, left-wing still has meaning, because it primarily describes economic policies. In the same in western liberal democracies, right of center conservatives are considered right of center because of free market economic policies, not nationalism.

We desperately need new scales and new terms. In western liberal democracies, individualists are generally right of center libertarians. Left of center people tend to group identify, which is a basis of corporatism, which is a feature of fascism, which is considered right wing. Many union workers oppose not only free trade but also open borders. Pat Buchanan advocates left-wing nationalist economic policies. Ron Gettelfinger advocates left-wing nationalist economic policies. As George Wallace would say, there is not a dimes worth of difference between them. But the press would naturally suggest Buchanan and Gettelfinger are at opposite ends of the political spectrum (which may indeed be a circle, as Charles has suggested).

The press will report those who say “Get the government out of my life (school, church, whatever)” are right wing, but those who say “Get the government out of my life (womb, bedroom, whatever)” are left wing.

Despite the decline of the nationalist politics of Thurmond, Wallace, and Helms, Pat Buchanan’s isolation from the Republican Party, and the rise of big spending compassionate conservationism, the Republican party today is still defined as right-wing, when it is to the left of John Kennedy.

The words have lost meaning. “Ideological Extremist” is a far more useful term than “Right Wing Extremest”.