[ahmeneeroe-v2]

de Gaulle would be considered insanely far right today. Many aspects of Bush (assuming GW here) would be considered not in line with America's far-right today.

Assume good intent. It helps you see the actually interesting point being made.

[rkomorn]

They wrote "Bush was right wing" (unless it was edited), so what's your point in saying "Many aspects of Bush (assuming GW here) would be considered not in line with America's far-right today." ?

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Nope no stealth edit, my bad.

My point still stands, "politics change and assessments of politicians change accordingly".

Bill Clinton's crime bill would be considered far right today.

Ronald Regean's amnesty bill would be considered far left today.

[southerntofu]

Even at the time Bill Clinton was already very much right-wing. When he was in power, he oversaw the destruction of public services and the introduction of neoliberalism. Is that not right-wing?

It's not just me saying this. Ask anyone who was politically active (as a leftist) in the 90s. I'm not sure what was the equivalent of the Democratic Socialists of America (center-left) at that time, but i'm sure there was an equivalent and Bill Clinton was much more right-wing. That's without mentioning actual left-wing parties (like communists, anarchists, black panthers etc).

[5upplied_demand]

> Even at the time Bill Clinton was already very much right-wing.

He raised taxes, lowered military spending, and pursued universal healthcare. Those are not, and have never been, right-wing stances in the US.

[southerntofu]

Not a single of those three things is either left-wing or right-wing. It depends on the actual implementation.

For example, universal health-care is only left-wing if it's a public service. Taking money out of the State's pockets to finance private healthcare and pharmaceutical for-profit corporations is very much a definition of right-wing policy.

[5upplied_demand]

Everything depends on actual implementation. In healthcare, for example, we already had a system where state money was sent to private healthcare and pharmaceutical companies corporations. The problem was that the poorest people still had trouble getting covered. This proposal would have broadened the scope of who can afford that by providing poorer folks with direct government subsidies for coverage. Nobody is calling subsidize childcare in Scandinavian countries a "right-wing policy" because private providers exist.

Lowering military spending by aggressively shrinking active duty troop levels and eliminating weapons programs is certainly left-wing. Raising income taxes on the highest earners and raising the corporate tax rate have always been associated with left-wing policies in the US.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

>Is that not right-wing?

I don't think many self-described "right-leaning" people would have called Clinton "right wing" in the 90s.

I 100% see your point and agree with you that he had major policies that I would call right wing today.

[southerntofu]

> de Gaulle would be considered insanely far right today

As much as it pains me to say this, because i myself consider de Gaulle to be a fascist in many regards, that's far from a majority opinion (disclaimer: i'm an anarchist).

I think de Gaulle was a classic right-wing authoritarian ruler. He had to take some social measures (which some may view as left-wing) because the workers at the end of WWII were very organized and had dozens of thousands of rifles, so such was the price of social peace.

He was right-wing because he was rather conservative, for private property/entrepreneurship and strongly anti-communist. Still, he had strong national planning for the economy, much State support for private industry (Elf, Areva, etc) and strong policing on the streets (see also, Service d'Action Civique for de Gaulle's fascist militias with long ties with historical nazism and secret services).

That being said, de Gaulle to my knowledge was not really known for racist fear-mongering or hate speech. The genocides he took part in (eg. against Algerian people) were very quiet and the official story line was that there was no story. That's in comparison with far-right people who already at the time, and still today, build an image of the ENEMY towards whom all hate and violence is necessary. See also Umberto Eco's Ur-fascism for characteristics of fascist regimes.

In that sense, and it really pains me to write this, but de Gaulle was much less far-right than today's Parti Socialiste, pretending to be left wing despite ruling with right-wing anti-social measures and inciting hatred towards french muslims and binationals.

[constantius]

While de Gaulle being far-right is not a majority opinion (except in some marginal circles), he would undoubtedly be considered far-right if he was governing today, which is what GP seems to have meant.

I think that, for most Western people today, far-right == bad to non-white people, independent of intention (as you demonstrated with your remark about the PS), so de Gaulle's approach to Algeria, whether he's loud about it or not, would qualify him as far-right already.

All this to say, the debate is based on differing definitions of far-right (for example you conflate fascism and far-right and use Eco, while GP and I seem to think it's about extremely authoritarian + capitalist), and has started from an ignorant comment by an idiot who considers Bush (someone who is responsible for the death of around a million Iraqis, the creation of actual torture camps, large-scale surveillance, etc.) not far-right because, I assume, he didn't say anything mean about African-Americans.

[throwaway132448]

Bad assumptions are just another form of stupidity.

[lm28469]

No one can assume good intent with such question, at best it's bait.

But then again people on this very forum will argue Sanders is a literal communist so we circle back to the sub 70iq problem

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Idk I see a bunch of great commentary in response. Noted that I should not assume good intent from you.