This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Lyons, Matthew N. (2022). "The U.S. Far Right's Politics of Gender". In Carian, Emily K.; DiBranco, Alex; Ebin, Chelsea (eds.). Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right. Abingdon, England: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003164722. ISBN 978-1-0005-7622-1.

Didnt see any citation that confirms inclusion for Radical right...DN (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And they are not mentioned in the sources used for the article, so I will remove them. TFD (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples and The Four Deuces: The Dixiecrats are called "far-right" in this Washington Post article: Manipulating elections is a conservative tradition by historian John S. Huntington.

Not sure if that is enough for them to be included as radical right or not? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that meets the criteria of seeking to make fundamental changes. Basically, they resisted change. TFD (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that the Dixiecrats fit the definition. They were white supremacists, making them similar to the radical right. But they seemed to favor New Deal policies. They did not use anti-government rhetoric, and their policies did not revolve around anti-communism. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ahh okay, that's makes sense! Thanks for the quick reply. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor removed a mention in the lead that some in the U.S. radical right lean toward white supremacy with the comment, "Where is the "reliable source" reference for the "white supremacy" thingy then? Racial supremacy makes not left or right. Many far-leftists (BLM) are black nationalists, as are far-rightists (ADOS). White nationalists too (Richard Spencer became far-left over the years, and David Duke far-right."[1]

The reliable source used to support the statement is footnote number 1 (Potok). The discussion of the connection appears on pp. 54, 56-57).[2]

I don't understand the claim that Richard Spencer became far left over the years. He's still a leader of the alt-right.

In an earlier comment, the editor said, "Racial supremacy doesn't make one radical left or right. Richard Spencer and Louis Farrakhan are both centrists."[3] But the groups they lead are considered far right in reliable sources.

Racism exists across the political spectrum. But it's only the extreme right that incorporates it into its ideology. TFD (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Darknipples about the trump populism paragraph can you help explain the conclusion? I find it hard to read, and its conclusions vague. Tonymetz 💬 19:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "explain the conclusion". Rick Perlstein argues that historians have underestimated the influence and power on the modern American political right by radical right movements, namely Trumpism, which "is an authoritarian political movement...incorporating ideologies such as right-wing populism, national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and neo-fascism." Poli-Sci Professor, Joseph Lowndes, also speaks to this relation in 2021 article in the Washington Post. DN (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is the paragraph trying to say? It mentions underestimating & overestimating and it is hard to read. What would you say it says? Tonymetz 💬 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Perlstein's opinion is that the radical right was under-estimated in terms of influence over conservative politics, while the status quo of "traditional" conservatism, for lack of a better description, was over-estimated. Perhaps if I quote some of the article that might help? (italics mine)

• Year Zero was 1955, when William F. Buckley Jr. started National Review, the small-circulation magazine whose aim, Buckley explained, was to “articulate a position on world affairs which a conservative candidate can adhere to without fear of intellectual embarrassment or political surrealism.” Buckley excommunicated the John Birch Society, anti-Semites and supporters of the hyperindividualist Ayn Rand, and his cohort fused the diverse schools of conservative thinking — traditionalist philosophers, militant anti-Communists, libertarian economists — into a coherent ideology, one that eventually came to dominate American politics.
• Why hasn’t the presence of organized mobs with backing in powerful places disturbed historians’ conclusion that the American right was dormant during this period? In fact, the “far right” was never that far from the American mainstream. The historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, writing in the journal Social History, points out that “scholars of American history are by and large in agreement that, in spite of a welter of fringe radical groups on the right in the United States between the wars, fascism never ‘took’ here.” And, unlike in Europe, fascists did not achieve governmental power. Nevertheless, Steigmann-Gall continues, “fascism had a very real presence in the U.S.A., comparable to that on continental Europe.” He cites no less mainstream an organization than the American Legion, whose “National Commander” Alvin Owsley proclaimed in 1922, “the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States.”
• The alien narrative continues today in the work of National Review writers like Andrew McCarthy (“How Obama Embraces Islam’s Sharia Agenda”) and Lisa Schiffren (who argued that Obama’s parents could be secret Communists because “for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or ’60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics”). And it found its most potent expression in Donald Trump’s stubborn insistence that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

DN (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so how would you summarize that so that it's more readable? historians have understimated is a WP:weasel word . we should be more discrete and concrete in our writing.

Just say "trump is radical right because he's populist" or "a majority of trump supporters are radical right" or whatever conclusions you think can be drawn from the citation. Tonymetz 💬 21:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Perlstein's opinion, so I'm not sure weasel applies in this instance. See where it says..."Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions". We aren't saying it in Wikivoice, and there are multiple opinions of this nature already in that section. Your suggested version, "trump is radical right because he's populist" isn't what Perlstein is saying here, so that would likely be an WP:OR violation. DN (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to move the decision forward. How would you summarize it? some historians overestimate is vague and hard to comprehend because it's effectively a double negative. Tonymetz 💬 21:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think that they opinion of a journalist, writing an op-ed for the New York Times challenging academic consensus, has weight for inclusion in this article? TFD (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]