> The right is against any sort of intentional accounting for diversity

I think there's a fundamentally different understanding of "The system must account for diverse cultures, languages, and socioeconomic conditions" between a righty and a lefty.

As a righty, I read "diverse cultures" not as "A diverse culture or multiple", but as "many different varieties of homogeneous cultures".

If someone identifies with Thai culture, he should move to Thailand. And if someone from Thailand wants to be English, he should move to England. But if an Englishman moves to Thailand and starts demanding fish n chips and cathedrals to be built, he should GTFO.

If everyone starts bringing their own culture with them to where ever they move, you end up with a single heterogeneous culture all over the world. Nothing but McDonalds, BurgerKing, KFC, Costco and Cola everywhere.

Want to go on a trip to experience India's many languages? Too bad, everyone speaks English everywhere. Want to join an African nomadic tribe for a few years? Keep dreaming, they've all had to settle down due to not being allowed to cross private properties and are now wasting their time browsing reddit on Chinese smartphones. Little Colombian boy dreams of settling down in the idyllic German Alps? Hope he expected to be woken up by the local Imam calling for prayer throughout the valley. Little Bulgarian girl seeks the very modest and simple lifestyle and clear purpose Islam in Saudi Arabia was once able to offer her? Lucky her, she's now expected to work like everywhere else in the world and even the oppressive burquas were banned in 2035.

> against environmental regulation

Not quite. We're against excessive regulations requiring huge teams of lawyers to be in compliance with. MegaCorpX has no problem having legal teams of a few hundred people, but the local 20 person workshop will have to shutdown.

We also think that most such regulations should be kept regional. Small county wants to ban all cars to stop partical pollution? Go ahead. It would be much easier for local businesses to comply with the limited and more easily changeable local regulations. But if you're a giant global corp seeking to outcompete the small local competition, good look adjusting to all the different regulations all over the world.

Then there's the odd trend of blaming every significant weather event on climate change. These people cant predict whether its going to rain in 3 days or not, but want to tell us that the recent hailstorm was definitively caused by Iowan cows farting last year.

And lastly and most importantly, we're kinda convinced that the concept of "climate change" is a "hoax" used to shutdown the industrial basis of our countries and ship it overseas, where the corporations can make use of basically slave labour for even higher profit margins and then simply ship the products back to us.

Does the climate get warmer? Sure. Should we do something about it? Sure. The only solution is shutting down the local steelworks and importing cheap Chinese steel instead? F-- off.

> and against any sort of regulation to ensure equity

Absolutely. We care about equitable opportunities and are repulsed by equal outcome. Everyone should have a chance to obtain the same qualifications and education. Even better: Multiple chances to start over again and again whenever they want and change their professions whenever they dont enjoy their old ones anymore.

But if women dont want to be garbage collectors, stop trying to push them into that profession. Not enough male editors? Who cares? Not enough female board members? Too bad, stop trying to make it happen. All Hispanics suddenly want to become crockett teachers? None of the government's business.

> the modern right falls short when it comes to women’s healthcare and reproductive rights.

I think the left is largely misguided in their believes what the modern right wants.

The non-religious right mostly is appalled by how fashionable it has become to murder helpless humans. The religious extremists on the other hand would ban condoms if they could. But there are quite few of them.

90% of the right has 0 problems with abortions before the nervous system is fully functional AND the women seeking an abortion receive proper consultation before that decision. There's always the option to give up the baby for adoption and we think that should be preferred if it wont significantly inconvenience the woman otherwise. But that's a decision that should be up to her, after being told about all the options.

So why are Republican Congress Members currently pushing for legislation making abortion "illegal"?

The MAGA right is currently choosing replacement candidates for every GOP stooge they think is payed off by Big<Industry>, the MIC, everyone they think is a warmonger, corrupt or otherwise morally compromised.

And some big and wealthy names have joined that team and have promised to fund those candidates with whatever it takes to win.

The anti-abortion legislation the GOP is currently pushing is a constitutional amendment. They know very well it will never get the necessary 67% majority in the Senate to push it through. The GOP Congress Members are just virtue signalling, fearing to end up on the list of people the MAGA right wants to see gone.

It wont work. Everyone supporting that anti-abortion bill gets extra attention.