Any left government finds itself enjoying full integration and full acceptance, both in terms of relations with foreign leaders and in terms of the "good press". If the lefts make up a team, the same cannot be said of the various center-right. But it is false that the right cannot talk to each other because they are "nationalist". All to be shown is that relations between the various peoples are better articulated in a framework of "political internationalism" rather than in a framework of primacy of national and local democracies. Being conservative does not imply any "nationalism" in the worst sense, it just needs an important job to build cultural bridges between the different national center-right…
The left has many flaws, but objectively it must be recognized a considerable strategic capacity in the constitution and consolidation of "successful" political relations able, in many cases, to make a difference and even to compensate the actual results of the vote when it not favorable.
International relations and “marketing” are an important part of this strategy. They ensure that any left-wing government finds itself enjoying full insertion and full acceptance in the international forum, both in terms of relations with foreign leaders and in terms of "good press".
Instead, despite the center-right governing the majority of Western countries, in practice it is as if every government and every center-right political force were systematically in a condition of "pariah" on the international scene, ending up subject to any kind of attack and delegitimization.
After all, on the left there is always a rush to make his name and to "pamper" the successful progressive leader of the moment and, in the end, it doesn't matter whether he is a moderate or a radical: he will always find pages and pages of praise in any newspaper. of the Western world – together with a "providential" demonization of his opponent.
If the lefts team up, the same does not happen on the other side.
The best pastime in the moderate, center-right and right-wing world is always to distance yourself from the main foreign leaderships – to make it clear that you are not certain of "liberal" and "imperialists" like Reagan and Thatcher, who We are certainly not "warmongers" like Bush or "crazy" like Trump, "adventurers" like Boris Johnson, "puppeteers" like Merkel, "selfish" like Rutte or Kurz, "clowns" like Berlusconi or "xenophobic" like Salvini.
We can bet that in the US presidential elections in November Biden will present himself, in fact, as a "world candidate", while Trump will not receive any form of sympathy, support or endorsement from the center-right circles of other countries.
And the fact is that, on a smaller scale, the same would happen in any other election in the world, even regardless of political cut or leadership style. Who is it that, outside their respective national borders, in the last elections really cheered a Boris Johnson? Or for an Angela Merkel? Or for a François Fillon? Or for our Silvio?
Someone will certainly say that the fact that the center-right present themselves in no particular order, in the face of the broad alliance of world progressivism, is an intrinsic outcome of the two different political philosophies. While the left promote "universal brotherhood", the right are "nationalist" and therefore cannot speak to each other.
This, however, is a big misunderstanding.
In fact, it is all to be shown that relations between the various peoples are better articulated in a framework of "political internationalism" rather than in a framework of primacy of national and local democracies.
The feeling is that the second scenario is precisely where the relations between the different nations are articulated in a healthier, less conflictual way and marked by a framework of equal and horizontal relations.
"Internationalism", on the one hand, on the one hand translates into a continuous strategy of political interference that often limits and conditions the internal policy choices of the various countries, on the other it means the establishment, in various forms, of dynamics of dispossession and redistribution between territories, necessarily conflicting and such as to favor the de-responsibility of the political classes, moral hazard and hoarding dynamics.
After all, conservative ideas undoubtedly look more "inside", at "local" dynamics and interests, but they do so on the basis of universal values and principles.
Take care of your "garden" well, ensure the livability and practicability of time in your country, keep taxes low and an attractive business location for businesses, have a budget balanced enough not to have to depend on foreign loans or aid, give value to the preservation of social and national cohesion, guaranteeing the right of national and local communities to democratically determine the fundamental political and institutional choices without external interference. These are all "right-wing" values and principles of government to be made available to one's own country, without this causing any prejudice to other nations – indeed with the hope that these same guidelines will also be affirmed among our neighbors and the as much as possible in the world.
It is not a program "in favor of one country and to the detriment of others", but an economic, social and civil conception that can, if applied, work and bring benefits everywhere – at least in the West.
After all, just as, going down to the individual level, the overall wealth of society increases as many individuals manage to work well, prosper and succeed without this happening at the expense of others, in the same way a complex world benefits from the fact that more Countries are well governed and set out on economic development paths.
In this sense, being conservative does not imply any "nationalism" in the worst sense. It is rather, if we like, a “Think global, act local” . It is the courage and the will to "do well" starting from your city, your region, your country – and in doing so also contributing to making wider contexts go well.
Starting from these considerations, it is understood that there is nothing “intrinsic” in the lack of communication, solidarity and empathy between the various center-right; it is only a matter of the inability to understand the strategic value that a framework of relations and systematic mutual legitimation would have like the one that has been zealously constructed on the left.
What is needed is to realize how, although one can shy away from "globalism" as an ideology, it is very difficult for a government or a political force to survive without a high "reputation" on the international level, without the "right relationships and friendships" ". We must be able to be "conservative and cosmopolitan". For this, important work is needed to build cultural bridges between the different national center-right, even when animated by different ideological connotations – because basically on the left it is not that all these picky distinctions are made.
It is a job that concerns not only political leaders, but also journalists and intellectuals. It is necessary to know and make known the various liberal, moderate and conservative experiences, recognizing but also respecting their differences. We need to try to build a new solidarity that combines respect for the right of peoples to self-govern with the awareness of the profound level of interdependence between the destinies of Western economies and democracies.
The post Right without isolating yourself. The reasons for a conservatism capable of “teaming up” appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/a-destra-senza-isolarsi-le-ragioni-di-un-conservatorismo-capace-di-fare-squadra/ on Wed, 30 Sep 2020 03:51:00 +0000.