[WS:] Marv is right. Right wing and left wing populism share left certain discontent with the status quo, but this is where the similarities end. The right's frame of collective is fundamentally different from that of the left in at lest two critical aspects, specifically: diagnostic framing (defining what the problem is), and prognostic (defining solutions to the problem). However, there might be some similarities in motivational framing (proving rationale for engaging in collective action.)
The right's diagnostic framing is fundamentally opposed to the left diagnostic framing - as it identifies as "the problem" what the left identifies as "moving in the right direction" - from equal rights to minorities to government wealth redistributive policies and everything in between. Likewise, the right's prognostic framing is also opposite to that of the left as it ask its followers int the opposite direction to that proposed by the left - from hardline law and order and vigilantism to curb the "dangerous elements" in society (i.e. the minorities) to laissaz faire economic policy and small government.
The only aspect of framing where left and right may share some similarities is motivational framing, e.g. an appeal to ideologically driven cadre of activists, recruitment of fringe elements of society, and urgency that something has to be done now to prevent a catastrophe (aka fear mongering.)
That similarities in motivational framing may explain why radical leftists can easily cross the line to the radical right - these are the people focused on "acting now" and thus gravitate toward social arenas where "acting now" is most likely at the moment - the radical left in the 1960s and the radical right now. The rationale for "acting now" i.e. obsessive preoccupation with throwing a monkey wrench into the system can be revised to adhere to the social milieu i.e. value systems shared by potential followers.
Wojtek
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>wrote:
>
> On 2010-03-15, at 5:34 PM, ken hanly wrote:
>
> > Lots of former leftwingers such as Trotskyists have become right
> wingers. Why is it impossible to go the other way.
> =======================
> It isn't, and individuals have moved to the far left from the other side.
> Many, especially those in the armed forces, did so in the final stage of
> revolutions as the disintegration of the old order became apparent.
>
> But this is not how new parties are built in the normal course of events. A
> new right wing third party in the US would recruit primarily from the
> Republicans; a left wing third party would be primarily composed of
> ex-Democrats, whose political trajectory would be similar to the one traced
> previously by most on this list. No right winger would propose building a
> new party by concentrated organizing in liberal milieus, and the suggestion
> that the tea partiers are a fertile recruiting ground for a new left wing
> party is equally far-fetched.
>
> This confusion on the left arises from the assumption that tea party anger
> against Wall Street bankers, Beltway politicians and "elitist" intellectuals
> is somehow anticapitalist in nature. It isn't. It is traditional right-wing
> populism tinged with white racism directed against Big Capital in the name
> of Small Capital, its utopia is libertarian rather than socialist, and its
> direction would be further to the right rather than to the left in any
> deepening crisis, with very rare exceptions.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>