We keep hearing "Conservatives" drone on that we need to tread softly on the electorate because although these "conservatives" believe in conservative policies they believe we need "stealth candidates" to get elected.  In other words they are are conservatives but prefer to run RINOS because anything else is radical 2010 not withstanding.

So, What is the definition of a a radical righty? Not strategy, not politics but core beliefs. What are the core beliefs of the radical right.

Radical means advocating for dramatic change in any form. The GOP is not going to put up a serious contender that would eliminate the Department of Education, abolish the IRS, or completely privatize social security.

QuoteSo, What is the definition of a a radical righty?

Of course the terms "right" and "left" are relative.  They have no fixed definitions.

If what you mean to say, in the context of American politics, is:  "What is the definition of a radical conservative," then Google the term "oxymoron."

On the other hand, the term "radical liberal" is essentially a redundancy. 

But you hear people described in the media as "radical conservatives" at least ten times more often than you hear the term "radical liberal."  And the only people you hear described as "liberal" at all are those at the extreme fringe of a group of people already FAR more liberal than the average American.  And there is a reason for that.

Boehner could tell us what the radical right is. He blasts in all the time. My guess is politicians of both parties think anyone wanting to trim govt  expansion is a member of the hated radical right.

The 'radical Right' would want government reduced to a smattering of Mom & Pop sized stores across the Country, with a few employees in each.  The States would run day-to-day operations of vital services, as determined by their voters.  DC would deal with trade and national defense, mainly.  The Electoral College system would remain firmly in-place, so population-centers don't overwhelmingly decide Presidential-elections. 

I am discounting the notion that the term radical necessarily means bad as often they are conflated it is too often used as a slur. The American Revolution was the most radical change in government in the history of European settlement in North America. Any sorry state of affairs requires radical change, as describes the change of policies after a liberal administration.

The radical right doesn't exist. It's simply a term, made up by liberals, in an attempt to link today's conservatives with the reactionaries and Birchers of the past.

Quote from: kit saginaw on December 16, 2013, 04:44:23 AM
The 'radical Right' would want government reduced...................The Electoral College system would remain firmly in-place, so population-centers don't overwhelmingly decide Presidential-elections.

You are calling our Founding Fathers "radical right".  What is wrong with the Electoral College the way that you present it?

Quote from: kit saginaw on December 16, 2013, 04:44:23 AM
The 'radical Right' would want government reduced to a smattering of Mom & Pop sized stores across the Country, with a few employees in each.  The States would run day-to-day operations of vital services, as determined by their voters.  DC would deal with trade and national defense, mainly.  The Electoral College system would remain firmly in-place, so corrupt, Democraptic controlled population-centers don't overwhelmingly decide Presidential-elections.

FIFY

Okay so the definition of the radical right are those that want limited government and want to do away with agencies that are destructive.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 16, 2013, 09:57:56 AM
Okay so the definition of the radical right are those that want limited government and want to do away with agencies that are destructive.

To a lib, that's like threatening his parents.
It's a cradle to grave issue with these incompetents. Independence,  selfsufficient and freedom scare the crap out of them.

When I hear the term, this is what I think.

It would describe those who don't want government intrusion into every area of their lives.  They would like to make choices for themselves, good or bad. 

They are people who support "traditional" marriage between a man and a woman, children born within a marriage, a level of religious values.  They support the concept of a more civil society, and not being expected to embrace what has been usually considered NOT normal. 

I think they would mostly like to live life without government looking at everything.

DaisyJane

Quote from: kit saginaw on December 16, 2013, 04:44:23 AM
The 'radical Right' would want government reduced to a smattering of Mom & Pop sized stores across the Country, with a few employees in each.  The States would run day-to-day operations of vital services, as determined by their voters.  DC would deal with trade and national defense, mainly.  The Electoral College system would remain firmly in-place, so population-centers don't overwhelmingly decide Presidential-elections.

But, but, but...we're a DEMOCRACY, and MAJORITY RULES!!!! 

Every underwater basket-weaving college major needs a job so basements can be sandblasted for re-use. Every slug too dim to comprehend that hard work never killed anyone will cower under federal auspices, mortally afraid to do any.

10th Amendment and subsidiary political subdivisions were the original intent in Michigan and everywhere else. We were supposed to know our representatives, and we were supposed to keep an eye on them and fight them if we opposed them. Friction was built right into our system, but things sure did work better at a township and county level then. Now it's reversed and everyone depends on OUR money being fed back to us by people we never see and cannot hang when their going gets good.

Quote from: mdgiles on December 16, 2013, 05:47:35 AM
The radical right doesn't exist. It's simply a term, made up by liberals, in an attempt to link today's conservatives with the reactionaries and Birchers of the past.

I couldn't agree more.

Conservatives, TEA Partiers, and even some Republicans, whether they understand the ways in which the Americans put an end to traditional government, align with the framers' evolving views of polity, from the classical whiggish views to a uniquely American view, or what we might call a romantic view.  No longer was government set in opposition to a homogeneous, changeless, hierarchical society, but rather it was an instrument of order established by a social compact, an agglomeration of people without title or nobility, of whom distinctions were various and unavoidable, constructing a society for their mutual benefit.

By the time they convened in Philadelphia, the Constitutional delegates had finally conceded to the idea that a nation in its natural state is composed of hostile interests, and that when these various interests put individuals in opposition to one another, the mutual benefit is inescapable.

These conservative, TEA Party concepts of individualism and the natural law are not radical.  They're not new.  But when conceded to by government, they're uniquely American.

The radicalism is the opposition to these American concepts of government.  The liberals are the radicals.

I don't think it good to be always playing partisan politics, or to have extreme views one way or the other.  Few choices in life are black or white. It is even the more so in politics, for it is not always a question of "right" or "left," but in choosing rightly and wisely. It's easy to be blinded by partisanship.  You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country. On the subject of politics, in particular, people have become so polemic and so partisan that there is no place for argument anymore. The opposing party has become "the enemy." One cannot even agree to disagree for there is no tolerance for opposing views. In his farewell address, George Washington (who is considered the father of our country) advised against political parties. The rest of our so-called "founding fathers" had no hesitation to choosing sides.