From an otherwise noble, but also utopian idea, the urge for equal group rights gave rise to phenomena such as reverse racism and the ill-conceived "cancel culture". Ivaylo Noizi Tsvetkov on the differences between left and right-wing liberalism.
A whole new host of "gravediggers" of liberalism rose from their tiny molehills, blinked at the daylight, winged by joyful optimism, and are de facto speaking about the "telos" of liberalism. Since they hardly know what it is - "telos" is the ultimate goal/end result of something in ancient Greek thought.
But okay, I heard that no one was required to be educated anymore. Especially on the issue that there are left and right liberalisms in this world, and that - let's bet - the entire Trump administration and the billionaires who are already Michurin-likely to be enamored with it have made every penny to the last cent precisely thanks to right-wing liberalism in the American and global economy.
Therefore, when we talk about "conservatism" and "the end of left-wing populism" (unless we are talking about quasi-neo-authoritarianism like the one creeping into Fico's Slovakia), it is not fully understood that we are actually talking about right-wing liberalism.
Let's talk about left and right liberalism
Yes, there is no political, socio-cultural, and above all economic doctrine in its pure form that can be given as an example without critical analysis. Yes, "the people" did not understand ideologies, but only a full refrigerator and vacations in Greece, but at least our statesmen should understand, no matter how much they are stuck in various greasy fights and urgent monetization of power. In this sense, right-wing liberalism (in brand new clothes, called or not "Trumpist", only with the necessary ratio) seems to be "the new white". It is no coincidence that social democracy of the former Scandinavian type never sprouted on our soil: For it, a long-cultivated leftist idea of solidarity is needed, which is not possible in our country. We also need Protestant ethics, and a hundred other things that we will talk about another time.
Ergo, a good concept would be to take advantage of the stubborn individualism of "the people", and this is done through reasonable right-wing measures and, God willing, more education and awareness that after all, you do not live this life alone, but within the framework of society. This was roughly the idea of Ivan Kostov, who despite his weaknesses was a good statesman and without whom we would really be something like Transnistria or Belarus now.
And that the European project is partly becoming a victim of the left-wing type of liberalism - that's clear. Especially in its cultural version, according to which broad masses of normally thinking people were unnecessarily incited and misled, that there would be 32 genders and other nonsense, I can't count. So the topic of the distinction between left and right-wing liberalism for a sociocultural anthropologist like me is like having a birthday - which I usually don't, since I was born on February 29.
The Great Left Exaggeration
Left-wing liberalism in the Western First World has done some truly amazing stupid things in the last fifteen years or so without any thought for the natural rightward pushback and, de facto, for the future. Among them, the woke culture stands out like a festering pimple on the nose, which more or less tried to turn into a cultural police. From an otherwise noble, but inherently utopian idea that can be traced back to the Western European Enlightenment and specifically politically to the bourgeois revolutions, the urge for equal group rights, diversity and inclusiveness also gave rise to phenomena such as reverse racism, retroactive madness and the ill-conceived "cancel culture" towards those who disagree/are uninitiated/are slower in thought. The latter became particularly toxic because it lightly shattered the vase of historical context - a sign of stupidity and an obvious violent agenda - and began to "punish" retroactively.
I have said it before, but the Great Left Exaggeration and the return to a somewhat statist economy have de facto abandoned the notorious laissez-faire - the free entrepreneurial market. And this is precisely the place to recall that Right Liberalism (from the proto-adepts like Rousseau and Voltaire, all the way to Milton Friedman, and even Raif bin Muhammad Badawi) is what made the Western world the First. I hasten to calm passions: this is far from the simplistic worldview of those who believe that with Trump their hour has come. Right Liberalism, just a quick example, would not even think of saddled international trade with additional tariffs as an authoritarian political argument for power (which in the end will not happen). And even less would it think of trolling market freedoms so mercilessly, while in fact continuing to practice them. Mark my word, the first to intervene will be precisely those tech billionaires who lined up like at a wedding on the groom's side at the inauguration. Ergo, the funny question to the sudden neoconservatives, including in our country, should be the one that the freshly awarded "Grammy" Kendrick asked Drake: "Why you trollin' like a b***h, ain't you tired?"
Where will Bulgarian politics turn?
I also have a Kantian question: How is it possible, while we quite understandably reduce the criticism of pure reason to certain simplified views and recommendations to the less educated, to make a screaming turn on both outer tires towards something according to which neo-authoritarianism, which cunningly poses as democracy, becomes not just acceptable, but a kind of "way forward"? Do we want Belarus, gentlemen officers?
Apart from the deceptive hopes that there will be a plentiful breakfast in the new Trump circumstances, in scientific and socio-cultural terms, the new onslaught towards conservatism somewhat resembles a simple betrayal. A betrayal of principles that, especially in our country, crookedly left (or mostly crookedly right, rather) led us to the relatively best Bulgarian life in our recent history, albeit somehow on crutches.
And now we are in a situation in which Bulgarian politics as a whole has itself led to a mass rejection of it - from non-voting to the annoying and inevitable whining on television about sponsored politics, which has long since become background noise. The latter - without special preparation and deeper layers - is just blah-blah from people who are too clear about whose lev they are signing for. Even the great schemer Ostap Bender said that he was not fighting for the state regional committee ruble, i.e. there were 400 relatively honest ways to steal from the new privateers.
But now, and most importantly, I have a lot of questions: will the new government, dominated by GERB (for purely hygienic reasons, it is difficult for me to mention UDF), return to relatively healthy right-wing liberalism, especially in the part with state spending and possible deregulation? Will it, assembled with so many compromises, last until the moment when we enter the eurozone? Does it really understand that the left-wing Lib-Dem is leaving? Will it stoop like Zhivkov internationally, including over the wound of "North Macedonia", or will it raise its head and defend the true national interest? Will it really be strictly Euro-Atlantic, or will it make concessions to the latest communists, who were actually mostly businessmen? Is the Stones' album "Let It Bleed" a mockery of the Beatles' last album - "Let It Be"?
In order for liberalism to regain its position...
I don't know the answers. I only know that the only chance for right-wing liberalism to regain its position is by retreating from the "militant" doctrine of its left-wing distant brother - i.e., returning to the evolutionary path, patiently explaining its advantages, and forgetting about the revolutionary one so far. While, inevitably, listening to what and how MadDonald will do.
Contrary to my innate philosophical skepticism of the Epictetian order, I see a way forward. Because Euro-Atlanticism, no matter what we call it - right-liberal or conservative - will try like a very careful sapper to defuse the Putin bomb, even if it is at the expense of the attacked Ukraine. Justice in international politics, by the way, if it ever existed at all, died in recent European history during the post-Napoleonic Congress of Vienna in 1815. Whether a new kind of Realpolitik will be born is difficult to guess, but the new thing in this case is that there are already several more players like China and India, because of whom we will live in a multipolar world.
It seems to me that the more widespread horizontal nuclear mutual deterrence is, the better. See you in 2065 and then wonder about the meta end of pure reason. Do you want it? This is an honest Kantian question, after all.
***
This comment expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial office and the State Gazette as a whole.