A careful analysis of the causes of ascension of the left-wing, fascist and populist dictators who base their power on the socialist and anti-western rhetoric, proves that one of these causes has to do with a lack of clear right-wing (neoliberal, neoconservative or libertarian) concepts of country development. Take a look at what happened in Argentina, Venezuela, Russia, France, Brazil – those are under left-wing governments now. Now look at USA, Chile, and Singapore – here, even if the leftists win at all, their victories are fruitless and have no drastic consequences.
What is it, apart from free market, high standards of living and multiculturalism, that USA, Chile and Singapore have in common? Simple: it is their vigorous, constantly renewed right-wing doctrine and national strategy. A lengthy discussion of the American rightist tradition is not necessary here; it’s sufficient to remind the reader that USA is a birthplace of modern capitalism. The Chilean model, founded long before Allende and established by Pinochet’s government, is in great shape because capitalism in Chile is “alive”, constantly rejuvenated and intellectually honest. If we look at the economical and political concepts that were proposed by various political groups while modern Chilean statehood was only in its infancy, we’ll see how high the level of “ideological competition” in this area was. This competitiveness has led to establishing a stable social model of Chilean capitalism. The foundation of the Singapore’s development strategy, as conceived by Lee Kuan Yew, a distinguished statesman, and his team, consisted of the open market, competitiveness and integration into the world. The success of this strategy is immediately obvious.
Naturally any country lacking an active right-wing tradition, it will gradually lean to the left. Obama’s reelection in the USA and Michelle Bachelet’s victory in Chile are but examples of leftist ideas reemerging in the absence of true right-wing values such as individual rights, free market and limited government. Nevertheless, USA and Chile remain beacons of the right-wing concept; USA is the pillar of the world, and Chile — of the Latin America.
Now let’s take a look at such countries as Argentina, Venezuela, Russia, France and Brazil. They also have a similar, if opposite, common factor: they lack political and social justification for capitalism and civil liberties. Moral aspect of capitalism and individual rights is either absent in their respective cultures, or was uprooted from it by severe socio-cultural actions of leftists. The main problem of the right-wingers – be they neo-conservatives, libertarians or right-wing liberals – is that they rarely engage in active propaganda. Our priorities are business, politics and ensuring the civil liberties and the freedom of choice. Sadly, this is not enough; the leftists know it and make good use of our weakness. Back in the 1920s an Italian communist and distinguished sociologist Antonio Gramsci and his colleagues conceived the concept of “a transformation of a cultural dominance into economical one”. To put it simply: if you want to control the economy, you must first create an attractive ideology.
Take a good look at the mechanics of the leftist governments rising to power: you’ll see they use one of the two principal methods. The first is violence, as in the Russian and the Cuban revolutions and the Peruvian putsch. The second is more subtle: the informational and cultural infiltration. Take Hugo Chavez. At first he leads a military coup. The coup is defeated and Chavez sentenced to spend time in prison. Two years later he is granted amnesty. None of this gets any attention from the right-wing and business circles; they do not believe any of this is important, God knows why. Then in 1998 Chavez, who spent his time and Cuban money by brainwashing the public, rises to power and Venezuela plummets from a nearly First World country to an African level. By the time of Chavez’s death Venezuela is a failed state.
The use of force is rarely efficient in the modern world. Thus, the leftists shift their efforts to the art of propaganda and cultural hegemony. They can’t explain how they are going to achieve “prosperity for all” and “the rising of the literacy rates from 60% to 100%” in five years. They don’t need to – that’s what’s great about populist programs: their goal is the success in the minds, not in reality. Doubling the standard of living within 5 years is impossible except by a miracle. The left-wing populists know this; that’s why they have ready-to-use slogans with which they silence all those “awkward” questions – “lack of patriotism”, “working for USA “, “lack of faith in the people” and so on. Their foremost step everywhere, without any exceptions, is gaining control over the press and creating the public opinion necessary to complete their projects. In this article I could not begin to recount all the names of the left-wing, fascist and populist dictators whose first action in the office was destroying the freedom of speech; let’s name but a few. Velasco Alvarado (Peru) exiled editors and journalists of the right-wing press from the country. Cristina Kirchner (current Argentinean president) and her husband Nestor destroyed the Argentinean independent law system and then used his own puppet courts to close any opposing media. One of the first actions of Vladimir Putin as president was the destruction of the largest Russian independent media holding “Media-MOST” and exiling its founder, Vladimir Gusinsky. Hugo Chavez eliminated all independent mass media in Venezuela; his Bolivian comrade Evo Morales had done the same.
The right-wing politicians, on the other hand, never make a move against the freedom of speech and never attempt to close mass media by a court order. We stand for individual liberties, free market, independent courts of law and limited governments. We refuse to use illegal methods. All this grants us the right – or rather the privilege – to claim honesty as our political forté. The price we pay again and again is losing everything we’ve worked for because people normally prefer to hear only beautiful and tempting catchwords. Leftist demagogues throw around slogans tailored to the mentally impaired and we are forced to flee the country. When was the last time you saw leftists fleeing the country after a right-wing politician had taken office? I myself have witnessed two serious and questionable instances of the leftist presidents being removed from their offices and swapped for the rightist “crisis managers”. The first was in Honduras in 2009 and the second I Paraguay in 2012. There were no repressions against the leftist media, nor yet any trials harassing the political opponents. On the contrary: the left-wing media were still independent, that Honduran acting president Micheletti’s nephew was executed as an example, that the Communists were not leaving the country. The rightist do not take away your freedoms of speech and conscience.
Too many of us think that the “real work” is more important than the coverage of this work in the press. This is completely wrong. If you look at this from a political, cultural and social points of view, it’s plain to see that the promotion of your successes is as important as your success itself. I beg the readers’ indulgence for another detour into the realm of South-American politics. The Chilean ex-president Sebastian Pinera, the first Chilean right-wing president since Pinochet, is without a doubt one of the most successful leaders in the whole region. While he was in the office, the world was thrown into a global economical crisis, powerful earthquake partially destroyed several cities and killed a great number of Chileans and, in 2010, Chilean miners were buried alive due to a mining incident. These were tough times. Nevertheless, the Chilean economy was on the rise, the standards of living were as high as ever, the Chilean industry was partially computerized and the banks was undergoing a liberalization. The infrastructure was working perfectly, the miners were saved and the earthquake’s aftermath was dealt with. And still Pinera is not very popular. Why? Because he is a businessman and not a populist. He didn’t invest in PR and didn’t spend time preaching on the moral and philosophical justification of capitalism. The result? The people have elected not Evelyn Matthei, who promised to continue Pinera’s policy, but Michelle Bachelet, who ran for presidency for the second time and was famous for her achieving zero results during her term. The difference between Matthei and Bachelet is that Bachelet thrives on PR and leftist rhetorics, while Matthei clashes with her own party when it tries to prevent her from raising important and tough social questions.
It is a grave mistake to refuse to popularize and explain your ideas, to refuse to create a “right-wing Enlightenment” in opposition to such activity from the left. The left, who wish only to take away, to divide, to steal – and who have the audacity to call it “social security”. Every businessman knows the value of advertising. Every entrepreneur finances his adverts, every businessman tries to tell the consumer about his product’s merits. But when this principle is applied to the social structures, to the social environment in which we all live our life, this businessman loses all sense of priorities. Imagine, if you will, a brilliant student who pays no attention to the outer world and spends his time with his nose in his books. He is evicted from his home, he lives on the street, his college is threatened, his friends have transferred to other colleges, and he studies and studies, until one day he is stopped by security and told that there is no college here anymore. And he may have been a great student – and yet he lost his time, money and health. Why is that? To you the answer is clear: he should have been more socially aware, should have participated in his college’s life. So why do the businessmen refuse to act appropriately and prefer instead to flee Venezuela, Bolivia, Russia and France? How is this rational?
Maybe it’s better to fund the right-wing media, to back the structures promoting capitalistic model and educating your young in the spirit of the open market and individual liberties? Ignoring the socio-cultural sphere and saving time and money by not communicating with the people brought about all the colossal losses after Chavez’s nationalization, Holland’s insane tax policy and Putin’s criminal actions. Was it worth it? In Venezuela before Chavez and in France before Holland the businessmen were able to influence the development of their countries. The Russian “oligarchs” were all-powerful in the 2000s. Was saving the time and money by not creating the “right-wing stratum” worth losing their companies? I don’t think so. Witnessing every new populist coup, I think to myself “This time they will see, this time they will act” – and every time I’m disappointed. These distinctive men, men who have created corporations and business empires, are helpless before the almighty populism-spewing windbags. Ladies and gentlemen, if you can’t or don’t want to confront the leftist cultural hegemony, maybe it’s time to seek help from those who can and will?
Kitty Sanders, 2014