The post-WWII political order seems to be stuck in a political rut, unfortunately, where discourse is dominated by "Liberal" commentators and "Conservative" ones. In the 20th Century, one, perhaps, could be forgiven for believing that there were differences between those of the centre-left and those of the centre-right. However, fast forward to the 21st Century, and the advent of mass social media has exposed the fact that, more often than not, the most significant differences between liberals and conservatives are in temperament, tone, and political party colour, whilst in practice they are moving along the same road. A typical case of the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Unfortunately, the locally ideological discourse and perceptions are highly influenced by Anglosphere politics, thanks to over a century of British Colonial influence that has not yet left the minds of the Maltese. Therefore, when one tries to speak in political terms which are alien to Anglosphere politics, they become, sadly, alien to local political discussions. In short, people are more familiar with the concepts of Left and Right in the UK and the USA than in Italy or other parts of Continental Europe. Therefore, defining political ideologies locally, free from the Anglophonic view, can be challenging.
Defining Liberalism, however, is not that difficult, as Liberalism itself has become the default political order of the West, emphasising individualism, civil liberties and free-market economics. Conservatism is a bit trickier to define; on the other hand, it is labelled as a reactionary ideology at odds with Liberalism. In fact, Conservatism is the continuation of Liberalism, at a slower pace perhaps, but never halting the march of revolution or even countering it.
In the economic sphere, there is hardly any difference between Liberals and Conservatives in their favoured system, as both are essentially subservient to the Free-Market Capitalist model. This is not to say that free markets are bad in and of themselves. The Neoliberal economic order and the exaltation of economic growth above all else are purely materialistic and individualistic visions of the world. It is to be expected from Liberalism to support such a system, but Conservatism, even though it does, ought not to. In truth, what can Conservatism conserve if it supports ignoble bourgeois materialism that prioritises self-interest and economic gain over communal, spiritual, and national values? Indeed, a truly right-wing nationalist ideal would be critical of the ultra-rich multinationals who, in truth, make the entire global market their home, have no national consciousness, and are often responsible for the closure of small local businesses due to aggressive competition.
This is not to say that a model, such as the Marxist one, should replace the current order of things as might be mistakenly understood by some readers. Marxist historical materialism is just as flawed, if not more so, than the capitalist system defended by liberals and conservatives alike. It misses the ethical and spiritual dimension of human development, which religion fulfils. It is also divisive as it pits class against class, bringing about chaos, hate and jealousy within a society, undermining national unity and genuine Christian progress.
Freedom and liberty are talking points of both liberals and conservatives. However, the tendency when speaking about liberty is more 'freedom from' than 'freedom for.' For liberals, it is freedom from the "oppression of patriarchy" or "religious confessionalism", for conservatives, freedom from "regulations" or "state burdens". Consciously or not, they both speak of freedoms that often converge and/or result from one another. But what should an alternative view of the concept of 'freedom' look like, divorced from the neoliberal significance imposed upon the term? True liberty is not individualist liberty; rather, it ought to be a self-realisation and ethical fulfilment through identification with a national will and struggle. In the past, a society held a communitarian moral will, which provided hegemony and social cohesion, even in times of hardship. Today, neoliberalism and materialism have replaced that with an atomised society, where sacrifice is frowned upon, duties neglected, and self-gratification exalted.
For us of the political right, who profess both Christianity and Nationalism as religious and political creeds, there needs to be a self-realisation that, although Liberalism is a political adversary, status-quo Conservatism does not really conserve anything and is an extension of Liberalism. Secularism does not foster national identity, nor does ultra-capitalism nor social hedonism. A truly right wing ideal must all-out reject Liberalism in its economic and social forms and focus on orienting society to the good of the nation, its people, its identity, its history and towards authentic Christian progress and moral and cultural enhancement, something which conservatives generally promise in words but fail to do so in action due to compromises with liberals and overall lack of will.
Conservatives will bow to the will of Liberalism because they will say that, since the laws enacted by Liberalism are in accordance with electoral practice, they must be respected and accepted as true. But what is 'truth' in a Liberal society if not only what the greater number of votes say? How many "Conservative" parties in the West have repealed abortion laws or liberal drug laws, for example? Liberalism tolerates all societal experiments with folded hands, even ones aimed at destroying the very Nation State that the Liberal order exists in.
Ultimately, the purpose of a genuine right-wing movement should be to champion an ideal: the enduring will and destiny of the nation matter more than partisan or class victories. If the nation loses its cohesion and purpose, we not only undermine our ancestors' legacy but also betray future generations. This reunites the argument around the necessity for a coherent, purposeful right-wing alternative.