Talk Elections

The New Right takes its cues from Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Militarily aggressive, socially conservative (but not loud about it), and fiscally pragmatic. The New Right tends to not be concerned with deficit spending and isn't skittish about enacting new or expanded social welfare programs. Key interest is foreign policy, however, and the promotion of a 'New American Century.'

The Religious Right includes Mike Huckabee. Foreign policy tends to be pragmatic, with isolationists and interventionists lump together, and social conservatism is paramount. Typically fiscally in the center or to the right, but again, not one of their highest priorities. The number one priority for the religious right is social issues.

The Corporate Right was once the dominant faction of the Republican Party, but has largely been eclipsed since the rise of Reaganite conservatism as the dominant force in the party. Corporate Right leaders include Presidents Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush. The motto of this faction might be "What's good for general motors is good for America." Realist in foreign policy, socially moderate or liberal (with nearly no emphasis on social issues) and fiscally conservative. Should not be confused with the Libertarian Right, which is much different.

The Libertarian Right developed in the 1930s in opposition to the New Deal. Largely focused on economic issues, they go a step further than fiscal conservatism and actively seek to reduce the functions of government altogether. Socially libertarian (which is different than being socially progressive; i.e. let to each his or her own), fiscally to the right of the Corporate Right and isolationist or non-interventionist in foreign affairs. The Tea Party is the modern manifestation of the Libertarian Right, with leading figures such as Gary Johnson.

The Old Right descends from the anti-state politics of Thomas Jefferson. To the right of even the Libertarian Right, the Old Right combines social reaction (actively repealing socially progressive legislation) with economic reaction and foreign policy isolationism. Tough most of the Old Right are not openly racist, there are some quite interesting views within the movement on race, much of which are racist in origin. Leading figure is Pat Buchanan.

Were I in the Republican Party (a move that I have considered), I would fall in the Libertarian Right (although I doubt that the Tea Party (specifically its Palinesque figures) would fall there) and would be very sympathetic to the similar policies of the Old Right (which could be better symbolized by Paul maybe and entitled paleoconservatives/paleolibertarians).

I'd be in the Corporate Right. I'd also be sympathetic to the Libertarian Right, but I'm not fiscally conservative enough to classify my economic views as libertarian.

Old Right

Corporate right. Everyone knows I am still a Republican because I'm a corporate whore. :P

Libertarian Right, with a few teaspoons of Corporate Right and Old Right thrown in.

I'm probably a mixture of Libertarian Right, New Right, & Corporate Right.

Libertarian Right and Old Right, some sympathies to the Corporate Right.

To which faction belongs Romney? Corporate Right?

He has a bit of Corporate Right, but he leans New Right and even a bit of Religious Right, especially since the primaries.

Religious Right would probably be the best fit, though not being a Protestant puts me at odds with much of the Religious Right on occasion.

Republicans, is this pretty objective? Are these good categorizations for Republican factions?

Right in the middle of the Corporate Right. Nothing else comes close.

Either new right or corporate right, I don't fit especially well in any of these.  And Pat Buchanan is not a racist.

Where the Old, Libertarian, and Religious Right meet.

It's a good attempt. Some of the descriptions are not how people would describe themselves (ex. I don't think Eisenhower would choose to call himself "corporate").  I think there also needs to be a place for people who are conservative in the sense of traditionalist, but not movement conservatives, who focus on small business and localism, and social conservatism without much sectarian overtones - "Main Street Right", perhaps. There's some overlap with the Old Right, but these are people whose views are less strident than the descritpion suggests, and may be inheritors of Burke as much as Jefferson.
The thing to consider is, these are strands held in common as often as they are factions,  with the greatest number drawing on more than one and not identifying with any one exclusively.

The New Right is probably closest to me. If only because of foreign policy.

All of the above and yet at same time, none of them entirely. :P Perhaps the best for me would be a fiscally conservative, anti-populist New Rightist, if such is possible. I consider myself an inheritor of Burke and Hamilton, yet with the lessons of hindsight about the negative impacts of gov't going to far during various periods of the 20th century and today. But in spite of that, I do think there is a limited role for Gov't to play. At the same time, I hate the idea of the gov't actively deciding specific winners and losers in most instances so that is more Libertarian then a corporate rightist. I also think that while a strong federal gov't is necessary just like Hamilton and Burke did for the purposes of security and stability, but that it has also been taken too far in modern times and that there is a place for states rights as a means of preserving an important check on federal power.

As for the history, "The Corporate Right" would have moved towards or became the Libertarian right to an extent in the 1930's. Prior to that, they saw Gov't largely as a tool for their own benefit through stability, trade protection and currency regulation. When it was taken further than that, not for their benefit, but at their expense they began to embrace a more anti-gov't posture, one that just a few decades prior they would have scorned. Stability was a forgone conclusion with a century+ long established gov't system and laws, trade protection was starting to hurt them more then help and the Fed had been created. Their desires realized, they had no need to maintain an advocacy for stronger gov't. They would still support policies that benefit them, but would oppose anything that didn't. A nuance which continues to this day.

New Right is merely a combination of several of the others, most notably the Religious Right and the Corporate/Libertarian Right. In 2000's, the former really got the upper hand on the latter. However, the rise of the Tea Party, and the nomination of Mittens provides the possibly of restoring the blance between them atleast to the extent that such existed in the 1990's. Had the opposite occured, the risk would have been a decline of that fiscal conservative/libertarian quadrant's base or potential base to the point that reversal became impossible and Conservatism ended up being defined by Huckabee. Scary thought. :P

Edit: Yes, I do realize that Corporate Right, Libertarian Right and Fiscally Conservative aren't exactly the same thing. They do overlap considerably, espeically when talking about their base, which is usually middle, upper middle and upper class income levels and more highly educated people. The constant overtures to the Social Conservatism and let downs for these three groups since the 1990's, means that this demographic has been leaving for the Democrats. Without them in primaries, poorer, less educated populists will gain more influence in the primaries creating a self-fulling prophecy of socially conservative, big gov't populism.



I agree completely.

You're absolutely right.  I would consider myself somewhere in between New Right and Corporate Right.  I consider myself a fiscally and socially conservative, populist equivalent of Yankee Republican or Rockefeller Republican.

Government should be fiscally conservative, but with a recognition that government plays a role in providing basic services and maintaining a structure to defend and protect rights. The government has a duty to be accountable to the taxpayer, but not so short-sighted as to miss long-term investments that will benefit the same taxpayer.

Foreign policy should be guided by realpolitik, but with a recognition that there can be times when  higher ideals should be pursued. For example a genocide may need to be viewed beyond the bounds of realpolitik. The US is part of a global economy and foreign policy should reflect that.

Government social policy should lean to the conservative side, with a recognition that social mores are slow to change. The guiding principal is quality of life for a broad swath of the population and identifying when the state's interest requires that it should take a role. Pro-life and pro-green would be compatible in this view.

I wouldn't place the above comfortably in any of the five listed categories.

That more or less sums me up as well.

^This

If by "New Right" you mean Buckleyite "Fusionist," than yes, I am New Right.

Umm....aren't a good number of Religious Right types (especially younger ones, relatively speaking) solidly middle to upper middle class in both income and education levels?

I do agree that the poorer members of this demographic are more likely to be populist on issues like economics, trade, and the role of the federal government. But that's to be expected, no? (Think of the difference between a poor rural Southern Baptist from Texas and a wealthier counterpart from the Dallas or Houston suburbs). 

Somewhere between New Right, Corporate Right, and New Democrat (now since banished from the party).

Out of those listed probably the Libertarian Right, though I wouldn't describe my philosophy as such.

Not a Republican; but I fit in with both the Old Right and the Religious Right.

If I were a Republican, I'd be in the Religious Right, but it would be an awkward fit.

Libertarian Right is closest, but I don't have anarchist sympathies so it doesn't really apply.

I'm part of the Neoliberal Right, which is basically an updated version of the Old Right backbenchers. Unlike the Old Right, the Neoliberal Right is designed to quash the Great Society, rather than pander to its proponents and then hijack it for the Republican Party (Nixon/Ford).

Strongest political ally is New Democrats, and that's why the Democratic Party works feverishly to weed them out of the party, including the installation of our current dunderhead-in-chief, rather than Hillary.

2012 was such a long time ago

Corporate Right, I'd say.

Hopefully you do one of these for Democrats, too!

He did  (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=159423.0)

The Tea Party is the modern manifestation of the Libertarian Right, with leading figures such as Gary Johnson.

lolwat

Corporate Right with New Right foreign policy thrown in.

A mixture of Libertarian Right domestic policy and New Right foreign policy.

New Right

When I was a Republican, you could say I belonged to the New Right faction, considering how much I admired John McCain -and more or less in agreement with his policies.  In fact that I did not leave the GOP until after the Bush administration's incompetence in rebuilding Iraq (and dealing with the subsequent insurgency) in the wake of Saddam Hussein's fall was revealed for all to see.  

So you didn't like one Republican's policies but did like McCain's, switched parties, didn't vote for said Republican you liked (I assume) and are now planning to vote Hillary a full two years in advance regardless of who the GOP nominates?  Come on, something else had to have been at play.

I wouldn't put the Tea Party in Libertarian Right. Most of them tend to be extremely socially conservative.

Anyway, I'm a softer version of the Libertarian Right with some sympathies for the Corporate Right. I am sympathetic in the sense that I appreciate their moderation.

If I was a Republican, I would be in the Libertarian Right. Ranked in my favor:

1. Libertarian
2. Old
3. Corporate
4. New
5. Religious

Definitely the "Corporate Right," though I have never heard it called that.  I'm fairly socially liberal (though there are a few issues like gun control and the death penalty where I lean more conservative) and am fiscally moderate but pro-business.  I don't support slashing necessary spending or overly irresponsible tax cuts (not saying income taxes aren't too high; they are), but I believe in business friendly tax codes, regulations and economic environments.  That probably has a lot to do with my college major, LOL.

I'm guessing you guys don't register by party in Indiana?  I couldn't find any stats online.

Corporate Right

........

I didn't support John McCain because of his positions on the issues, which differed little from his principal rival (and anointed front-runner), George W. Bush.  It was his biography, his maverick reputation within the GOP, and the David vs. Goliath dynamic in the race that seized my imagination at the time. When I said (and admittedly it was poorly worded) that I was in agreement with his policies, I in fact was -being a moderately conservative Republican at the time.  That wasn't meant to suggest that that was the main reason why I supported him.

I remained a Republican even after I came to college -and voted accordingly. In fact, I didn't leave the party even in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq -which I opposed for reasons I have already stated ad nauseum in prior threads.  For despite my misgivings, I still wanted us to win not only the war, but also the peace -for which the success (or failure) of the Occupation was crucial.  When it was finally made clear to me in 2004 the utter incompetence of the Bush administration in this regard, I made my break with the GOP.  How could I not, considering how closely identified the party was with the administration?  I lost faith not only in the Bush administration, but also the GOP as being responsible stewards of our national security.  That was the original reason I eventually joined the Democratic Party. 

As time passed, I began questioning the assumptions underlying my conservatism.  Being in college, exposed to new and different ideas, philosophies, and ideologies (and people -let's face it, I was in Seattle.  I can't deny that my surroundings played a role) can do that.  So, one by one, the tethers that tied me to the GOP were cut.  I shifted to the left.  Being young, I went overboard in my rejection of the party.  So that by the time I came here, I was nearly as far to the left as TNF.  But as I got older and matured, working full-time and paying taxes, I moved more to the center-left.  Or more accurately, I got more pragmatic.  It's funny how having a real stake in the game can change your perspective from that of an idealistic college student to a full-fledged citizen and taxpayer.  You care more about how your money is spent, and less about high ideals. 
-------------

It has been quite a journey of self-discovery, but it is safe to assume that my fundamental shift to the left (however moderated by time) and my change of allegiance to the Democratic Party is final and irrevocable.   I have nothing in common with the GOP now.

Somewhere between the Libertarian Right and the New Right, though closer to the former and including some views that don't fit in with either group (such as about climate change, for instance).

Humanistic liberalism is far more "idealistic" than scientific Marxism. Anyone approaching the latter as some high ideal philosophy is doing it wrong.