How Influential is the Right?

 These are my thoughts in response to a misread question. As they don't pertain to the question actually asked, I won't copy it here. But I felt these observations worth preserving.

First we have to decide what we mean by "influence."

As a term, I'm sure you know, the concept of the political "right" originates in revolutionary France, where in the National Assembly, supporters of the king sat to the right and supporters of the revolution sat to the left.

Suffice it to say, those on the right proved to be less influential than might have benefitted France in the long run. One could look at the history of modern revolutions and come to the conclusion that the right loses all influence once revolution is seriously on the table.

Of course, this is mere consistency of terms. Almost by definition, the left is the revolutionary side. Thus, revolutions occur when the right loses most or all of its influence. By that reckoning, the right enjoys influence most of the time.

Which raises a conundrum. If the right is identified with those political forces which discourage or prevent revolution, what the hell is going on when the ostensible right is calling for something like a revolution?

I should probably note that a revolution need not be bloody. Technological and sexual revolutions are no less projects of "leftist" sentiment than the various wars of independence.

So, what is this? Left is fashion and right is convention? Maybe. But if the right wants to return to a forgotten convention, is that any less revolutionary than striking out for a hitherto unknown convention?

And how does the left maintain its identity as revolutionary while suppressing what it describes as "insurrection"? 

I can only assume that, however things go down, the left will claim, as it always does, responsibility for the positive outcomes and blame the right for any negative results.