Tim asks what it is to be right-wing. He points out some familiar weaknesses with the question - how in different countries people mean different things by it; how it might express a number of positions along different dimensions not all of which any individual might share. I, though, want to highlight a different sort of problem with the question.
Now there is something about this vision of the question "What is it to be right-wing?" that may not immediately strike you. It is this: the vision of society concerned is absolute, objective, always-and-everywhere. Someone with this picture might readily concede that what it was to be "right-wing" might differ between countries, but only because the average or typical person in countries differed - in country A most people might be social-democrat-inclined whilst in country B most were Christian-democrat-inclined, so that a person lying to the right of the average country A person (and hence "right wing" in country A terms) might lie to the left of the average country B person (and hence be "left wing" in country B terms). This, I think, is most people's picture of why what it is to be "right wing" differs between countries.
But this picture contains a notion that traditional British Conservatism denied: namely that the proper vision of society can ignore its history and culture. The traditional British Conservative would not accept that she was working towards a society that conformed with a picture - that her politics was teleological. The pursuit of utopian ideals was antithetical to Conservatism.
Now it is tempting to draw a Tory/Whig distinction here, amongst Conservatives. And certainly the Whig is more inclined to believe in progress than the Tory and also more inclined to have visions of particular ideal institutions. (Indeed, some American nineteenth century Whigs went so far as to believe that their carriage of a particular political vision justified a positive encouragement to inter-racial marriage, so that the political gift given to the Anglo-Saxon people could be exported to other races.) But in its Conservative variant, Whiggery remains fairly (politically) relativistic. Let us employ a modern variant. A Conservative Whig might well believe in a state religion. But what religion? Must the believer in state religion hold that every society should be Anglican (or some other Protestant Christian episcopalian denomination)? Surely not! For our Anglican state religion is a reflection of our history and culture. Indeed, it is not even obvious that Anglicanism will be the correct state religion for Britain, for much longer.
Again, must a Conservative believe that every country should use a constitutional monarchy? What about a country that has a perfectly serviceable Presidential system that has been in place for some time and has not experienced any obvious failures? I am a fan of first-past-the-post, but if another country already had AV and the constitution had adapted to make it work, must I believe they should change?
The British Conservative recognises the costs of change, and importance of placing policy within the context of the history and culture of each country. That means that the right constitution or specific policy in the UK, starting from where we are today, might not match the best constitution or policy for Germany. The British Conservative also recognises that the political culture and political class, given time and peace and moderate prosperity, can adapt to absorb and tame even an initially inadequate culture (provided it is not too seriously flawed), and make it effective.
A consequence is that the form of policy (and even of constitution) that a Conservative will recommend will vary between countries and even at different times within the same country. And that is not merely a matter of reaching the same goal from different starting points - a robust enough Conservative will deny that she has any goal, as such, that she is trying to reach. She starts from where she is, and tries to improve things. She doesn't need a vision of the perfect society in order to do that.
Now, I confess to quite a high personal degree of progressive utopian inclination. I am arrogant enough to suppose that my constitutional prescriptions would represent a distinct improvement for many countries, and have fairly specific notions of what any good constitution should involve. But for all my personal foibles (if such they are), I recognise the force in the Conservative critique. I like a common law legal system - but do I wish to impose one on Germany? No. I prefer a strict interpretation and enforcement of laws and regulations - but do I wish to impose that on Italy? No. I have stated countless times in life that I am happy for the French and Germans and Italians and Spanish to do things their way, if we British can be left to do things ours. (This is also connected to the British Conservative suspicion concerning universal jurisdiction. I believe that our laws should apply in our territory. I don't expect British laws to apply in America, and I resent it when Americans believe that their laws should apply in Britain.)
So that may well mean that a Conservative has relatively few always-and-everywhere political goals (beyond obvious ones such as the preservation of life and limb and property, the pursuit of justice and peace and prosperity, the protection of virtue, and so on). That might well leave her at a loss how to answer a question such as "What is Right-Wing?" She can tell you what she believes ought to be done now, starting from here, but she may simply lack any list (beyond the most mundane and uncontroversial) of absolute values or preferred policies that she holds to be universal in scope.
