Rebadging the Liberals revised
FIVE PILLARS OF PEACE, FREEDOM AND PROSPERITY
The Liberal Party in NSW has been torn ever since the 1960s when the pinks and greens in the party called themselves moderates and branded their opponents as troglodytes. Now the pinks and greens dominate the party in all the states and they exert enough control at the federal level to stall good policies even when the conservative Coalition is in office for years on end.
There have been calls to redefine the aims of the party to regenerate genuine liberalism as envisaged by the founder, Robert Menzies. One of our problems is the near-universal use of the left-to-right spectrum to locate people and positions in political and ideological space.
As I have often observed, the term right-wing has no clear meaning and the usual rejoinder is ‘everyone knows what we mean’.
Yes and no. It tells us which party faction people belong to but the labels don’t indicate a coherent body of principles to guide their policies when they have the power to implement them. In the absence of clarity about the core values that are opposed to leftism, the left controls the narrative, and most people learn early in life that the ‘right’ is bad and wrong, especially the ‘far right’ that is evil incarnate.
So, what principles do we need to expound to offer a vigorous alternative to the feeble kind of liberalism that the party offers at present? Let’s consider five pillars of policy to promote peace freedom and prosperity
First, critical rationalism, expounded by Karl Popper. The attitude ‘you may be right and I may be wrong and with an effort we may be able to get nearer the truth’.
Second, in politics, the principles of classical or non-collectivist liberalism: a cluster of freedoms (speech, assembly, movement, religious belief, etc); equal opportunity under the rule of law; due process, protection of property rights; laws apply to individuals, not groups; and laws should not discriminate for or against people in any social, ethnic or religious group.
Third, good economics and the market order with free trade tempered by sensible regulations that don’t reward rent-seeking by special interests.
Fourth, a robust moral framework including honesty, compassion, civility, personal responsibility, community service, and enterprise.
Fifth, abundant, reliable, and cheap energy. This has to be recognised and defended because this pillar is seriously threatened by powerful forces that are driving policies to make electricity more expensive and less reliable, with catastrophic human and environmental impacts.
These principles would underpin a vigorous commercial civilisation with an equally vigorous civic culture, supporting human rights without legalism and bureaucracy. Health, education, and welfare could be provided by a mix of private, charitable and public services to maximise efficiency and minimise long-term welfare dependency.
Anywhere in the world where conditions are improving in a sustainable manner, one or more of the pillars are the active ingredients in the policy mix, which of course cannot be found anywhere in a pure form.
In the absence of a visible and clearly articulated ‘Radical Centre’ of classical liberalism, most people take on some version of leftist social democracy which has attractive slogans. So Big Government intervention achieved bipartisan support while left-liberalism morphed from the support of civil rights to become a vehicle of savage intolerance.
It remains to be seen whether enough Liberals care enough about peace, freedom and prosperity to embrace the five pillars of classical liberalism, and make the Liberal Party Great.
This paper first appeared in The Spectator in Australia on line.


A good piece.
Your statement about how incomprehensible the concept of "right wing" is accords with my own thinking on the topic. As I see it, "left wing" simply means "an ideology that the Professoriate/Bureaucracy are generally sympathetic towards" and "right wing" means the opposite. Hence, why we end up with epistemic obscenities like putting John Stuart Mill and Ayn Rand in the same category as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini (i.e. "right wing"), and why the extreme right is historically and philosophically just the little brother of radical leftism (i.e. same collectivism, same irrationalism, same roots in German Idealism, same totalitarian governance strategies).
"Right wing" just means "ideologies disliked by the majority of the intelligentsia."