How to Ethicize Conservatives & Liberals in a Neo-Liberal World in Early 2020

It seems there is an adverse challenge after the rise of populists that we may ever expect any cohesion, in a more certain manner among the left, the centre and the right. While the Right (far, centre, moderate) fosters disillusionment of obscurantist notions and considerations over their nation-state’s histories and legacies, the Left immaturely is unfettered and unclear enough to put a cork into the mouth of those, who advocate it. The Liberals are bruised, and certainly, they feel quite alone in India, the US and Europe for a while now.

But, is it necessary to see this spiral in existence forever? I do not think so. Through this article, I would like to propose that both the conservative and liberal spheres of political thoughts can coexist without adhering moral obscurities and unreasonable fronts of ideological purity. Here are the basic postulates:

  1. That is the 21st century, irrespective of austerity, lack of education and awareness, where it is high time, we have a big opportunity to drive political interests based on a society that thrives on proper (not just common) knowledge and ethical autonomy to our political systems, ideological upfronts (whether real or pseudo) and the moral capital of our legal institutions;
  2. The idea of political sovereignty can be refurbished and improved by changing the capillaries and plasma of the tissues of political organs that drive that nation-state, which can be achieved by accepting that purity as a conception in politics, economics and sociality cannot be the functionary stimulus to political legitimation;
  3. The ever-lasted notions of Marxism and Capitalism as a polar dichotomy must transit completely: both of them have lasted since the 1800s and this dichotomous affinity among the ideologues from both the sides in terms of their dissonance towards either of them has started depleting hastily since the culmination of the United Nations in 1945. Such ends can be reached by revising the political and legal capital of public legitimacy, by reinstitutionalizing the historical and pragmatic orientations of our cultural, ethnographic and personal heritage;
  4. An economic approach beyond and refurbishing neoliberal capitalist economic theory can strengthen globalization, and fix the issues of the neoliberal capitalist economics, so as to target the people as the instrumentalized form and powerhouse of economic development and growth;
  5. Populism is transient, but it reflects the spiral of binary politics, and so does the ill-effects of morality as an imposition (and as a notion) on the public conscience and the public sub-conscious that remains in existence. I propose that we should focus on the ethical autonomy of public thought. This would enhance the political residues in both the conservatives and the liberals;

Why Morality is a Flaw when It Rules Political Conscience

Understanding morality is not that complex. The conception begins from the idea that from our legal, jurisprudential, literary and economic foundations to those of our thought process, lifestyle and civics — morality rules. Philosophers argue morality is subjective; yet it is shimmering that we as individuals twist and reconcile the collective expectation of morality as a socio-individualistic sculpture, and this certainly seems to be quite vague, because:

  1. First, some imagery has been created in case of liberal politicians that moral conduct and considerations in the neoliberal thought is always untouchable and uneyed — towards two basic ideas: secularism and constitutionalism;
  2. Second, the conservative political imagery focuses more or less on the static and persistent side of moral conduct and fairness as opposed to utopian thoughts;
  3. The Far-left and Far-Right are inconsistent towards establishing a proper harmonization of political morality, so I wish to ignore their imageries completely;

These observations may vary among polities, and that is real to happen. However, many of the nuances still seem in these lines, at least in the foreground of the political imagery created for both liberal and conservative values. The flaw begins with treating morality as the capital because when we treat morality as a “qualitative quantity” for the purpose of merely assessing the relevance and purpose of our institutions, the international legal systems and the political ecosystem, people run riot. This is also a big problem with the Western Political School of Liberalism because treating humiliation and contempt as the bi-products of spectatorship towards moral policing and deciding who is as pure enough, does not work out. And there are countless examples that prove it: from Ronald Reagan to Indira Gandhi, and even in the case of the drift in the UK Politics among the Tories and the Labor politicians on the policy of Brexit.

Morality thus should be a friend of our institutions. Unlike a protectionist agenda to inspire people unusually so as to control their political nerves, morality should be dynamic, with the people, the public officials and the political organizations themselves are also well-prepared anyways to face any unexpected political and real tremor. Any art can be better, subjective, but peaceful enough to let any dissent, tremor or explosion be acknowledged. It would certainly alleviate a lot of political and individual stress among institutions, leaders and people.

No Heed to the Economic Left-Right Dichotomy

It is widely known that Communism and its sisters and children political schools (and their bi-products in practice) around the world have mixed reactions. The worse of them have been the Soviets, while Norway and Sweden (among the Scandinavian) prove ideologues wrong. I should include Jacinda Ardern’s New Zealand too anyways. Spain, Canada and Brazil sought blows to the Left (far, centre and moderate) in 2019, and there is a straightforward message that reflects from their electoral mandates. But, what about the Capitalists? In political thinking, pro-capitalists are not always from the political right. They might be Liberals (or centrists. democrats, moderates, greens) or from the Right (centre, far, moderate, ultra) who are advocates of a free market economy, and foster the idea that neoliberal economics works. But even they have been given a shock in these 2–3 years. The best examples to refer are Ukraine, Chile, Slovakia & Argentina. Let us understand the nuances carefully:

  1. The message is about a remnant moral capital that is sought in the state institutions, among the people. The conservative outlook seems to be voiced, but the leverage still is influenced by the populists, which weakens conservatism anyways;
  2. Economic development can be deterministic, and it is easy to treat it with digital stats, and embracing the moral capital of a probabilistic and scientific part of economic development. Indigenous interests, the need of a global balance & the rise of the ‘underdog’ Asian, ME & African economies while at the same time foster globalization, do challenge the notional illusion of cosmopolitanism, and globalization to the limit that economic austerity and anxiety are imperative issues;
  3. Utopian and obscurantist outlooks of economic development, whether from any political wing or loci would not be easily accepted by the people, even if their observation to acknowledge a political outlook on economic development and welfare is mirrored as much with glam or shimmer. A real policy requires persistent and open solutions;
  4. Ideological purity is neither a panacea nor a pandora box when it comes to economic policymaking. History proves that nation-states and their political regents, successors adopt policies in the form of a mixed assertion. It simply means, for example, public healthcare and universal health income while is a necessity for the people, honest and democratized privatization is beneficial with an outlook to prevent monopoly among big and relatively medium and small-sized industries;

Populism’s Transience and Teachings since 2011 for the Next Decade

Populism is indeed a communication and confrontation strategy that challenges the Left & the Right, and at the same time — is a strict teacher to conservative and liberal politics. The rise of populism was inevitable, unexpected in some cases, and has damaged the West-sponsored ‘liberal international order’ already.

  • It is certainly true that incrementalism in our institutions would deplete the moral capital of the institutions and public trust. However, Populism shows signs of the disconnection that the public have with the institutions;
  • Moreover, at the same time, the institutions by purpose are not existent as a technical imposition on the people. The institutions exist because their moral foundations enabled generations to prosper and stabilize public security, safety and sovereignty. It is important that we do not ignore the stabilizing importance of political and legal constructivism, which happened among failed democratic and harmonious polities in the last centuries;
  • The notion that international law would be defeated (like it trembled in the 20th century) and crushed is a myth and deserves no debate but a discussion. Even if China (for example) is persistent to expand, and the progressive advocacy of the Western alliance nations is sort of dented due to internal populism, it would not play a big role anyway. The basic reason is that diplomatic standoffs are not required to be the dictates of a direct democracy that rejects the fertilizing nature of some indirect democracy in a constitutional polity;
  • The international order has become multipolar and has sent the ethnocentrist liberal dictates of the West to a backlash. It may seem beneficial for Russia, Iran, China, Syria, Pakistan and even the DPRK, but the quotient of resistance will still persist among mediating and self-proclaimed neutral nation-states like India, Japan, UK, New Zealand, some African countries & even some of the European states;
  • Populism can be prevented and alleviated if the reactionary and hysteric political left (it does not include the moderate left) triggers its utopian imagery that has sunk its credibility among the people;
  • At the same time, the far-right must be alleviated by a grown and open approach of the Conservatives to win the trust of the people. Both the sides must target on the anti of their supporters to harmonize the superposition of political advocacy, and make the globalized, social media-obsessed and the cyber-led public realize that the principles of instrumentalism and proceduralism are not undue impositions on their concerns but the coherent and buoyant aspects of our social, legal and political life;
  • The fashion of identity, economic and humiliation politics has to cry out and die. It is high time we as a general public own our issues, be responsible enough to educate ourselves, do avoid ethnocentric biases in our lives, commerce, foreign policy, geopolitical resumptions & our sovereign concerns.
  • Sovereignty must shift from being just a recognition, institutive ethic and physic of the existence and operability of a state to a more identity-observant & susceptible, resilient, human-focused (rather than historicity or agenda-focused) & objectively rotatory and evolutionary concept, where every nation-state can direct the plane of its own interests cohabited and collateral to its rotatory and susceptible role as a more responsible (& more perfect) asset to the international community. In fact, it would drive us as knowledge-driven sovereigns, rather than glued polities, which would anyways assist us to resolve complex issues through our own diplomatic art;
  • Populism is anti-morality by outcomes unevenly and proves that we must not shrink ourselves to be extremely protectionist and regressive as Conservatives, and never submerge into the dreamy ocean of utopian welfare as liberals;
  • Multiculturalism is not in denial: it has been dissented due to the utopian obscurantism of globalist politics. Globalist politics, however, when is dragged off into the pessimistic shadows of obscurantism, then, a more concerned and clearer approach can focus more on a collaborative international stratification of our global problems;
  • Scientific humanism must not be reflected by some political imagery that heckles on mass hysteria. That is something obviously inconsistent with the purposive relevance of the concept as a non-political ideology;
  • In the Cold War era, in the UN, while the West was pro-civil and political rights, the Soviet was pro-economic and social rights. This positional imbalance matters and is still relevant today if we have to understand how to let populism be swiftly transient. The anthropocentric and ethnocentric backdrop of an international human right must be eliminated anyways. At the same time, the concerned reservations that exist following a precedent of the permeable regard and appreciation of international human rights law among nation-states must be achieved by a liberalized and ethically autonomous consensus build among favouring and adversarial nation-states. Such a consensus must not be based on morality as obscurity, but ethics as responsibility among all the stakeholders, to ensure that the soft power quotient of nations’ foreign policies affect diplomatic stands significantly;

Founder and CEO, Internationalism™ | Founder & Chairperson, ISAIL | AI-Law Futurist | YouTuber | Researcher | Poet

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store