Why is the Right so much better at organizing?

[spiltteeth]

Why is the Right so much better at organizing than the left in first world nations? Is it because they appeal to the emotions? Here in the USA republicans are great at mobilizing people -the tea party, protests, crashing town hall meetings etc.
Any thoughts?

[Led Zeppelin]

Having a shitload of money helps.

[Kukulofori]

They're not, really. They have the tea parties, sure, but we have the RNC protests. We win.

It's just a lot of what we do doesn't get reported by the media.

[FreeFocus]

The "First World" pretty much starts off, by default, being on the right. It takes significant effort to turn leftward, and in some states (US, Canada, Australia, etc), cultural and sociological realities aren't conducive to leftist agitation. In other words, there are two types of people: those who have a stake in right-wing policies and imperialism (and that's not just the bourgeoisie - it includes the labor aristocracy and frankly, significant chunks of the so-called "middle class" who can be "upwardly-mobile") or those who are conditioned into thinking capitalism is a good thing and the rest of that propaganda. The latter can be won over, but I don't think they constitute a majority in a place like the US. Obviously they number in the millions, many millions in fact, but not the majority IMO.

Nonetheless, the history of the First World is tailor-made to place it firmly within the grasp of the right. They can organize more easily because, well, the conditions are on their side, the historical reality is on their side, etc.

It wasn't always like this. We had momentum in the 1960s and 1970s, but reformism once again undercut revolution.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Not as many factions and separations. They don't come together under the ideals of the right (or each rightist concept individually), they come together under the ideals of destroying the left. This is why they are great at attacking the left's solutions and yet they rarely bare a solidified alternative. Besides, especially in America where even Obama (the "socialist") is right wing, authoritarian on the political compass (as all of our presidents), we are in their playing field. Capitalism also allows for massive funding of the right, who typically protects big corporations. We on the left (and not Obama's left... true left) need to realize that we don't have a forum for our voice yet ("what we do doesn't get reported by the media"). The Right reigns from the elite and down upon the populace. The Left needs to get down off of their ivory tower and unite against the right, as the right has done successfully for years... The Conservative Right has done a successful PR job as seeming "grassroots" while protecting major corporations. Maybe the Left's lack of success remains that we expect workers to naturally discover the left as logical, and we are already here ready for combat. We need to become insurgent and spread the word among the people, because the right already has the media, the money, and the government. Rugged campaigning, just as Zapatistas have done to garner support and tolerance for their libertarian socialist views.

[communard resolution]

Because we keep splitting into hundreds of groups and have always been prone to doing so. This way, we pose no threat to the bourgeoisie at all.

Yesterday I had the misfortune of encountrering 2 members of the International Bolshevik Tendency. Apparently, they broke away from the Spartakists - a group whose aim it is to disrupt and destroy all other left groups - because they deemed them to be no longer pure enough.

I have no time for such people.

[ls]

Because they can unite easily and are opportunists, most of them don't have any sense of definite demands, they can happily go along with reform/racial revolution/whatever else when it suits them then simply drop the act when not.

Of course they are favoured in most places, as the state is often in bed with them in some way, even if acting as the loyal opposition which simply keeps them 'in check' instead of marginalising them.

[Led Zeppelin]

It isn't hard to find unity when you have billionaires backing you and pumping millions of dollars in your "movement" on a daily basis.

All those "campaigns" mentioned in the OP, from the tea-parties to the most recent healthcare town-meeting mobs, are funded directly and indirectly by the wealthiest people in the country, i.e., by the right-wing of the bourgeoisie class.

You can't ascribe this phenomenon to politics, discipline, being less sectarian than the left, etc. etc.

It is literally about the money. Follow (http://www.freedomworks.org/) the (http://www.americansforprosperity.org/national-site) paper (http://townhall.com/) trail (http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/index.html) and see where it leads to.

[ls]

Well, the BNP in the UK for instance hardly has billionaires backing them, it's thanks to them picking up from the discontent of people left by the main parties after years of destroying the few foundations left over from previous crap governments, that many people simply vote BNP as a protest vote. Of course, the government spends loads of money on 'anti-fascism' actually helping the BNP rise.

The organising of the far-right in other European countries too is thanks to so many different things, it can't just be put forward that money is the main factor, in fact if there was one I would say that discontent with the way things are pushes it more.

Also, American comrades have been saying that Obama has certainly got the racists crawling out of the woodwork, which appears to be another factor recently.

I'm not saying money doesn't help, it definitely is a huge factor. But it's by no means the only important factor in determining why the right, at various periods are more successful than us at organising.

[Led Zeppelin]

At the base it is money, i.e., ownership over the means of production. Everything else emanates from this. This is Marxism 101.

Expropriate the bourgeoisie and see how fast the sectarianism creeps in.

[ls]

At the base it is money, i.e., ownership over the means of production. Everything else emanates from this. This is Marxism 101.

Expropriate the bourgeoisie and see how fast the sectarianism creeps in.

Actually ownership of land/property is an interesting thing to consider. Without that, their base is largely taken away and organising must be done clandestinely in hard-to-reach places. The left does work pretty hard to get places that the right use shut down though, so I think that's a legitimate thing that gets attacked. In that respect, you have a good point.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Because we keep splitting into hundreds of groups and have always been prone to doing so. This way, we pose no threat to the bourgeoisie at all.

Sectarianism is the problem of leftists.
Sectarianism is not the problem facing the possibility of world proletarian revolution.

The communist movement is not weak because it is small and fractured; It is small and fractured because the class is weak.


Yesterday I had the misfortune of encountrering 2 members of the International Bolshevik Tendency. Apparently, they broke away from the Spartakists - a group whose aim it is to disrupt and destroy all other left groups - because they deemed them to be no longer pure enough.

I have no time for such people.

Could you be any more inane?

[Raúl Duke]

I don't think the Right is that "united" per se.

The different sections of the elite support different agenda, some support the Democrats, others the Republicans. The Right, as its known, also is made up of different shades of libertarians, christian fundies, different shades of conservatives...they don't always agree. I agree with Led that one of the reasons why the Right seems "better organized" may have to do with the money.

[JohannGE]

Not so much "money" per se, more a tendency to unquestioningly support anything that they think will enable them to keep hold of it.

[Killfacer]

Why is the Right so much better at organizing than the left in first world nations? Is it because they appeal to the emotions? Here in the USA republicans are great at mobilizing people -the tea party, protests, crashing town hall meetings etc.
Any thoughts?

The democracts got in so the mainstream right aren't much better than the mainstream (hmmm) left.

[Sarah Palin]

You can pretty much do anything when money is not a worry.
Also, they really aren't as organized as they seem. The people who oppose healthcare "reform" in the states are about 17% of the population (probably more, if you count the children who have been indoctrinated). It's likely that 100% of the minority will turn out to kick and scream, because there are so few of them. I don't know if you've read the memo that Conservatives for Patients' Rights distributed, but it had one phrase that really stands out: "Pack the town hall and make yourselves seem like the majority."

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Having a shitload of money helps.

This, and propaganda on TV 24/7

Also, people on the right are probably a bit more simple minded and just rally around things that they all hate. But maybe I'm just assuming there. :cool:

[redasheville]

The right, generally, has a much narrower social base than the left. Plus tons of money.

Also, the left (in the US at least) has been battered down for the past three decades under the pressures of neo-liberalism and the dominance of conservative ideas among the majority of Americans. Social movements are in retreat, the labor movement is disoriented etc. and these are not optimal conditions for the left to organize. Hopefully, given that the Republican party is pretty much discredited and that the economic crisis is grinding on, new struggles shall begin to appear and revitalize the left in this country.

[Plagueround]

Also, I would not make the mistake of thinking the tea parties and such are evidence of a united front of right wingers. They're just getting more media attention. When the right manages to shut down entires cities and or countries with their unrest, then perhaps they'll have something. Until then this is just a loud death rattle.

[JimmyJazz]

I think it's inherent in the nature of the Left and Right that the Right has an easier time uniting and the Left has a hard time dealing with factionalism. Some percentage of the population agrees that progress is a good thing, but the question is, progress in what direction? But if you're against progress, period, then it's much easier to unite.

Progressives are always looking for a "program" to agree on. Conservatives know what to rally around: the status quo.

So we can endlessly flagellate ourselves for our "factionalism", and to some extent it's a good thing to do so, but at some point I think a mature person has to accept that there is no possibility whatsoever of uniting everyone who is in favor of change around a single program, much less a single program and tactic. The best thing we can do to fight factionalism is to make a mutual agreement that we will reserve our strongest and harshest criticisms for conservatives, and our most respectful and polite criticisms for each other. But there is no way to create perfect agreement amongst ourselves or to resolve all our criticisms of each other, so just forget about that.

[LeninKobaMao]

Because they are backed up by big corporations obviously.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Why is the Right so much better at organizing than the left in first world nations? Is it because they appeal to the emotions? Here in the USA republicans are great at mobilizing people -the tea party, protests, crashing town hall meetings etc.
Any thoughts?

Probably because they get more media attention, they seem to be more in the "mainstream" of politics, I'd say the left were just as good. But i've never heard rightists fight amongst themselves as much as leftists do. :(

[Mälli]

Commfobia has a lot to do with it i think.

[communard resolution]

The communist movement is not weak because it is small and fractured; It is small and fractured because the class is weak.

I have no idea what the second sentence is supposed to mean, but it sounds great.



Could you be any more inane?Thank you for your insightful comment - I feel enlightened.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

One of the main problems lies not so much with the right, but with the left: we are so poor at organising since we are, in many cases, more intent on attacking one another (sectarianism) than we are in organising a fight-back.

I have tried to explain part of the reason why this is so here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

[Organic Revolution]

I think a large part of the fialure of left organizing is an insistence on hyper-intellectuallism, whereas the right doesn't have this same obsession, making it easier for regular folks (Working Class) to create a common bond with these organizers.

[JimmyJazz]

One of the main problems lies not so much with the right, but with the left: we are so poor at organising since we are, in many cases, more intent on attacking one another (sectarianism) than we are in organising a fight-back.

I lol'd.

[RadioRaheem84]

Because they are backed up by big corporations obviously



the right is not backed up by huge corporations. At least not the grassroots right wing crowds I saw in the small towns and suburbs. Sometimes I admire their strength at organizing and getting pissed off at the corruption in government and big business, even though they're mad for all the wrong reasons.

[kharacter]

the right is not backed up by huge corporations. At least not the grassroots right wing crowds I saw in the small towns and suburbs. Sometimes I admire their strength at organizing and getting pissed off at the corruption in government and big business, even though they're mad for all the wrong reasons.
I could never admire them knowing how ignorant and selfish they are. Back in my insane period, before getting more educated politically, my only ideological basis in the midst of my obsessions was that right-wingers were vile. It was the only thing that I knew was truth, even among psychotic delusions. Not to sound aggressive to you, I don't lose respect for a leftist because they see right-wingers with something other than hate.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I have no idea what the second sentence is supposed to mean, but it sounds great.

I think it is a fairly straight forward notion (Though maybe I haven't expressed it in exactly the write way).


Thank you for your insightful comment - I feel enlightened.

I actually sat down and tried to write a proper response originally. However, I realised that 'I have no time for [you] people'.

[The Red Next Door]

Because everybody on the left don't have the same thoughts, and we attack each other for either being moderate or too radical. We attack each other because some don't want to go too far and some do and when we disagree on things like get rid of the capitalist system or combining the two system, which in my opinion as a social democract will work well, because we just can't have just one system, that why America is so fuck up and that why the soviets became so fuck up because both nations rely on one system instead of having a mixture. On to the topic on hand the politicians on the left seem to be cowardly on working on certain issue and people don't ever want to listen to each other.

[communard resolution]

However, I realised that 'I have no time for [you] people'.

Could you be any more inane?

[communard resolution]

I think a large part of the fialure of left organizing is an insistence on hyper-intellectuallism, whereas the right doesn't have this same obsession, making it easier for regular folks (Working Class) to create a common bond with these organizers.

Yes, the way right-wing politics are presented appeals to emotions more, which is what most people tend to respond to. It's hard to captivate someone's intellect if you cannot captivate their emotions first.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The right is so good at organizing due to it's massive support by the bourgeois and the corporations.

[BabylonHoruv]

I think a large part of the fialure of left organizing is an insistence on hyper-intellectuallism, whereas the right doesn't have this same obsession, making it easier for regular folks (Working Class) to create a common bond with these organizers.


I'd agree here. The fact we are still using words like Bourgeoisie and Proletariat being one sign of it.

[nikolaou]

because the bourgeois are less fractured, but most importantly, because the right have the support of the bourgeois, they have popular support, both from the people and from the leaders.

and when i am talking about left and right, i mean the right uncludes conservatives and "Social Democrats" and all bourgeois parties.

the left refers too Radical left parties, i.e Communists, Anarchists, et al.

if you went to cuba, i guarantee you you could organize a parade of left groups alot easier then a parade of fascists and american supporters

even though both would not be welcomed, this is a example.


however the most important thing is that the right has alot more support from all facets of first world society, they are better funded and better equipped, and they tugg on people's heart strings with stuff like nationalism for 9/11 and supporting the troops.

meanwhile, traditional support for revolutionary proletarian groups comes from working class people, and in these times the working class's concious is near record lows.

[nikolaou]

i wish you could go into the jungles dressed up like fidel with 40-50 comrades and come out leader of your country.

would make stuff alot easier.

[MarxSchmarx]

Yes, the way right-wing politics are presented appeals to emotions more, which is what most people tend to respond to. It's hard to captivate someone's intellect if you cannot captivate their emotions first. Sadly, that's just the beginning. See, the right understands what is at stake, and that what is needed is, a will to impose their world view on everyone else. Anything and everything must be mustered to this goal. The ends justify the means.

The left, well, has two problems, not entirely independent. On the "mainstream" left in part because the stand for things like truth and fairness, they tend to be WIMPS when it comes to defending their views. This is true in virtually every country with the mainstream leftist political party, except in a few places like Latin America and places where the old leninists are the mainstream left.

For the serious left, the problem is that many of us just don't think strategically. A lot of the intellectual effort is pored into documenting and analyzing the injustices of capitalism and deciphering ancient scripture. Part of it is understandable. The daily struggles and the sheer brutality of capitalism commands our immediate attention. All of this is valuable, but as marx himself said, you know, interpreting the world and changing it and all that.

The serious left also suffers from a broader view, probably inherited from our Christian ancestors and Teutonic/protestant past, that the truth will set us free and that if only people knew the truth of capitalist injustice, they'd be riled up. The thing is, truth is only part of the whole propaganda campaign. There is a reason we still have certain things like the Internationale and the red flag with us - man cannot live on analysis and critiques alone.

Now, obviously this is an unfair generalization, but in many respects the right wing thrives on filling the void of popular discontent the left does not fill. And of course the immense resources it has at its disposal are key. But the left cannot simply say cede because our bank accounts are outmatched. Sure, the going will be tough whilst the capitalists own the airwaves and can hire goons at will. But nobody ever said this would be easy.

[spiltteeth]

Sadly, that's just the beginning. See, the right understands what is at stake, and that what is needed is, a will to impose their world view on everyone else. Anything and everything must be mustered to this goal. The ends justify the means.

The left, well, has two problems, not entirely independent. On the "mainstream" left in part because the stand for things like truth and fairness, they tend to be WIMPS when it comes to defending their views. This is true in virtually every country with the mainstream leftist political party, except in a few places like Latin America and places where the old leninists are the mainstream left.

For the serious left, the problem is that many of us just don't think strategically. A lot of the intellectual effort is pored into documenting and analyzing the injustices of capitalism and deciphering ancient scripture. Part of it is understandable. The daily struggles and the sheer brutality of capitalism commands our immediate attention. All of this is valuable, but as marx himself said, you know, interpreting the world and changing it and all that.

The serious left also suffers from a broader view, probably inherited from our Christian ancestors and Teutonic/protestant past, that the truth will set us free and that if only people knew the truth of capitalist injustice, they'd be riled up. The thing is, truth is only part of the whole propaganda campaign. There is a reason we still have certain things like the Internationale and the red flag with us - man cannot live on analysis and critiques alone.

Now, obviously this is an unfair generalization, but in many respects the right wing thrives on filling the void of popular discontent the left does not fill. And of course the immense resources it has at its disposal are key. But the left cannot simply say cede because our bank accounts are outmatched. Sure, the going will be tough whilst the capitalists own the airwaves and can hire goons at will. But nobody ever said this would be easy.


Thanks, this is interesting. You know William Burroughs had alot of ideas on how to discredit the right, but they were dirty; like when J.G.Ballard went to the republican convention passing out what looked like an authentic article “Clearing Reagan of all child molestation charges” so that Reagan was then associated with pedestry etc.
But at what point do we start using the Rights unethical propaganda techniques against them?

Plus creating a channel on http://worldtv.com/ (http://worldtv.com/) would be good. All someone would have to do is web cast themselves reading articles by Hedges, Chomsky, those posted here etc

[Forward Union]

Why is the Right so much better at organizing

Because they own everything

[Jimmie Higgins]

Having a shitload of money helps.Yeah, the biggest most visible student club at UC Berkeley is the Young Republican Club. They even have a monthly glossy full-color right-wing student magazine. In the early part of the decade when the right was much more forthright about it's tactics because it felt it had the momentum and popular support, I read an article about how the Berkeley Young Republicans are solely funded by a Texas millionaire who wants a big Republican presence on UC Berkeley because it would be an ideological coup considering the radical histroy on that campus (which really no longer exists anyway).

But money is only part of it - I mean the Ayn Randers and Birch Society people will always be better funded. The second part is that liberal activism has gone from the grassroots to the NGO model. So activism is done through (poorly) paid young idiots (no offense, It's great they want to do something, but they are being used as tools) who don't have to organize with churches or radicals because they just hire the social forces they need. This has deprived activists of the democratic process and learning from mistakes since they are kind of alienated from the activism they are doing (collecting money or signatures or pushing lobbyist strategies). So instead of radicalizing, these young activists just drop-out and get burnt-out. Mehanwhile the right learn how to evangelize and talk to people and protest local government and so on - they teach their activists leadership, whereas the liberals teach their activists how to follow orders and collect signatures.

Also the Democratic party has no interest in real grassroots movements because these movements will not stay put and would begin to demand more than just gay marriage or limited health insurance plans or limited rights.

Also, the left is weak. I won't go into that as there are pleanty of debates on that.

[MarxSchmarx]

Thanks, this is interesting. You know William Burroughs had alot of ideas on how to discredit the right, but they were dirty; like when J.G.Ballard went to the republican convention passing out what looked like an authentic article “Clearing Reagan of all child molestation charges” so that Reagan was then associated with pedestry etc.
But at what point do we start using the Rights unethical propaganda techniques against them?


Unlike the right, we don't have to lie to expose the other side's evil. We need to understand that even partial truths can fit into broader narratives. The trick is finding the issues that people get pissed off about.

For example, don't just talk about corporate executive living large while they're workers get paid crumbs. Help folks visualize it by talking about personal jets and how rightwing male politicians frequent gay prostitutes. Make it seem like most of them are the pathetic repressed puritans they are. And go after their personal lives. If someone is a womanizer, call them out on it. If they have friends that are morally dubious, bring up the character issue. For all its faults, authoritarian leftists like Stalin understood this point very well. I think demonizing the otherside as less than human is only dangerous if your movement has serious political clout.

[*Red*Alert]

I think we have to establish what part of the Right we are talking about. For instance, there is the Republican/Democrat establishment and then the far Right (National Socialist, Fascist, KKK, Christian Fundi's, etc.)

The established status quo of Republican and Democrat benefit for corporate support, and so organising is very easy for establishment parties, they can afford to organise by holding events, advertising, hiring the best full-time organisers and PR people, as well as gain almost exclusive access to the national media.

The far Right aren't as organised as they seem, and it differs widely from each group. For instance, they are split into dozens of groups like W.A.R, National Alliance, National Socialist Movement, etc. and generally only attract those who have a Nazi fetish or are genuinely racist and incompatible with a free society.

In the UK, the BNP is an enigma to me. They are picking up discontented working class votes from Labour and the Conservatives, but also run several large call centres and warehouses for leaflets and merchandise, which suggest they are receiving funding and have some professional organisers to get areas up and running. The organisation is far superior to anything I've saw on the Left in the UK or Ireland, even Sinn Fein which is in a comparable position (slightly above it electorally) to the BNP, is not as well financed or organised as the BNP, despite the establishment suggesting that its the "best funded party in the UK or Ireland".

So, to me the conclusion is that a certain amount of their funding is coming from unknown contributors who have a serious interest in supporting fascism. Individual donations couldn't fund such extensive organisations and merchandising.

[spiltteeth]

Unlike the right, we don't have to lie to expose the other side's evil. We need to understand that even partial truths can fit into broader narratives. The trick is finding the issues that people get pissed off about.

For example, don't just talk about corporate executive living large while they're workers get paid crumbs. Help folks visualize it by talking about personal jets and how rightwing male politicians frequent gay prostitutes. Make it seem like most of them are the pathetic repressed puritans they are. And go after their personal lives. If someone is a womanizer, call them out on it. If they have friends that are morally dubious, bring up the character issue. For all its faults, authoritarian leftists like Stalin understood this point very well. I think demonizing the otherside as less than human is only dangerous if your movement has serious political clout.


Thats an interesting point, but you know in Achieving Our Country : Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by Richard Rorty (http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Rorty/e/B000APFKF0/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1) he makes the point that the Leftists today focus on all the negative terrible stuff while the old american Left acknowledged all that stuff but also created a positive vision the unified people to a positve dream of the future.

[anticap]

Working-class folks know that they're being fucked over, but they don't necessarily know how, or by whom. It isn't readily apparent to them that their bosses are their enemies. Indeed, while they might not like their boss, they tend to consider him a benevolent figure, who, in his entrepreneurial wisdom, makes it possible for them to earn a living and feed their families (it helps that this perception is reinforced by capitalist propaganda). What is readily apparent to them is that the State does at least some of the fucking; this is the angle played by the Right.

Of course, the State is primarily the instrument of the Right; but it's also marginally democratic, which means that the Left is able to manipulate it slightly, at the expense of the Right. The Right is able to demonize these manipulations because they [the manipulations] are proactive and thus easily spun as "meddlesome"; whereas those aspects of the State that the Right favors (those that protect elite privilege; e.g., the military, police, etc.) are seen by most people as necessary and beneficial to all -- eternal foundations of any government, rather than proactive annoyances. So the Left can't get away (as easily) with the same tactic of demonizing the State as an instrument of the Right, because the Left is seen as the "big government" side, always meddling in the lives of hard-working folks.

Thus, the Right has a monolithic bogeyman to blame for all the troubles of the working class, and this seems perfectly plausible on the surface -- and indeed, it's perfectly accurate, only for very, very different reasons. Everybody loves to hate the government: "Those bastards! Taxing my check, telling me I can't smoke in the pub," etc. What they don't see is that their problems stem from the way the Right wields the State against them.

Meanwhile, on the Left, we've got two broad factions attempting to make them see just that: Marxists trying to unfuck working-class heads and explain that the State is actually an instrument used by the Right to hold them down, and that if they organize, then they just might be able to reverse that situation; and anarchists trying to explain that seizing the State won't be a panacea, so they should work to simultaneously circumvent it and smash it. And each of these broad factions is divided into a thousand smaller ones, all full of sincere Leftists who believe that they know best how to kick working-class asses into gear.

[MarxSchmarx]

Thats an interesting point, but you know in Achieving Our Country : Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by Richard Rorty (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Rorty/e/B000APFKF0/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1) he makes the point that the Leftists today focus on all the negative terrible stuff while the old american Left acknowledged all that stuff but also created a positive vision the unified people to a positve dream of the future.I agree with Rorty's point. There has to be BOTH vehement and effective criticism and compelling and hopeful vision. Thusfar the American left has lacked both, although you are correct that the latter of the two limitations is in even worse shape than the former. Indeed, for all their faults, I give people like Michael Albert considerable credit for recognizing this problem of the lack of an insipiration vision.

Of course, the State is primarily the instrument of the Right; but it's also marginally democratic, which means that the Left is able to manipulate it slightly, at the expense of the Right. The Right is able to demonize these manipulations because they [the manipulations] are proactive and thus easily spun as "meddlesome"; whereas those aspects of the State that the Right favors (those that protect elite privilege; e.g., the military, police, etc.) are seen by most people as necessary and beneficial to all -- eternal foundations of any government, rather than proactive annoyances. So the Left can't get away (as easily) with the same tactic of demonizing the State as an instrument of the Right, because the Left is seen as the "big government" side, always meddling in the lives of hard-working folks.

Thus, the Right has a monolithic bogeyman to blame for all the troubles of the working class, and this seems perfectly plausible on the surface -- and indeed, it's perfectly accurate, only for very, very different reasons. Everybody loves to hate the government: "Those bastards! Taxing my check, telling me I can't smoke in the pub," etc. What they don't see is that their problems stem from the way the Right wields the State against them.Precisely. Many people are not fundamentally anti-authoritarian. I don't think those who complain about excessive state intervention disagree with the right of the powerful/the competent/the genetically endowed aristocracy to rule. Rather, they view what little "democratizing" there is in the state as a hinderance to such hierarchical and authoritarian dictatorship.

Thus the real right wing boogeyman is not the state. Rather, it is the residual egalitarian impulse and the democratic spirit that operates within our understanding of the state. In short, what we once called "our better selves."