Liberalism and the Right: A Response

In his article on Hoppean.org - which may be read here, and should be read before delving into this response - Michael Obrenovich, himself a good friend of mine, puts forth the claim that the political theory of Liberalism - particularly the kind expressed by thinkers such as Ludwig Von Mises, H. L. Mencken, and Lord Acton - is implicitly a right-wing form of thought. Several other major talking points, particularly revolving around the redefining of the political compass , are also made within the article - much to the chagrin of many more left-wing members of the libertarian movement on Twitter shortly after its publishing - with these points being rather unorthodox for even most Hoppeans. In order to begin understanding the content of the article, aptly titled 'Why Authentic Liberalism is Right-Wing', one should analyze each section on its own. Each section is also written in a similar form to a university lecture, further granting additional legitimacy to what Mr. Obrenovich puts forth as his argument. The first and longest of these sections - of which there are three in total - is by far the most important in the understanding of the rest of the article, with this section being dedicated to a topic which many may find to be wholly innocuous: understanding the concept of the political compass itself, and how it defines our understanding of political discourse in general.

In the first of the three sections of his essay - this section being titled 'The Political Compass Matters', itself a very clear and direct statement which encompasses the general overview and tone of this part of the article - Michael Obrenovich aptly begins it with the simple yet authoritative statement of "this is not a personal preference or some silly, attention-seeking assertion." This section itself is able to be divided into two subsections: 1.) the defining of the political compass, and 2.) the highlighting of the issues of said political compass. Indeed, it is because of how detailed that each subsection is - enough to even warrant their own expansion into being sections of their own if expanded upon any further - that all their points must be addressed in their own paragraphs.

Beginning with the first subsection, Michael Obrenovich primes the reader by making the statement that the political compass is "the most important tool at our disposal when trying to make sense of ourselves and our politicians", all while also making clear that, unlike what many individuals would like to believe, the concept of the political compass itself has a near-uncountable amount of variations. With this in mind, Mr. Obrenovich then shows his own preference - one which I myself agree with, due to the infographic's very simplified and easily-malleable nature - towards the chart utilized on politicalcompass.com, even going so far as to identifying the creator of the chart itself. It is what he does next, however - almost immediately after stating his preference for the chart, he then labels its labelings as "mislabeled" - that truly grabbed my own attention when assessing his essay for reviewing here: he goes far more in depth than nearly any other individual has in the dissident right on why such a chart is flawed in the second subsection of his article's first section.

Almost immediately in the second subsection of his analysis on the political compass in his article 'Why Authentic Liberalism is Right-Wing', Michael Obrenovich jumps headfirst into the real meat of this section by citing the French writer Marc Crapez's essay "De quand date le clivage gauche/droite en France?" - found in pages 70 to 72 of Revue française de science politique - regarding the ever-shifting and therefore unreliable nature of the political compass through using the example of the political history of the French Third Republic. After showing the various left-wing groups which dominated French politics during the time period, Mr. Obrenovich then makes a statement which left me craving for more information, stated best by his own words: "What is the opposite of Socialism? What is the opposite of positive liberty? Free markets, negative liberty and property rights, clearly. Now it is much easier to recognize the mistakes, is it not?". However, when reading deeper into the essay, a highly controversial opinion is then made explicitly clear, in which Mr. Obrenovich makes the claim that "nothing on the Right can be labeled as authoritarian" - a claim which caused quite the argument between himself and many other individuals on Twitter, including several Hoppeans. Though evidently those individuals who took a great deal of offense to this assertion did not take the time to both read and, more importantly, understand the preceding paragraph in his essay, wherein Mr. Obrenovich also makes several statements alluding to the concepts of Authoritarianism and Socialism being intrinsically tied to one another when dealing with the political compass. While somewhat agreeable, I myself subscribe to a different notion on the concept of what Authoritarianism entails - as shown in one of my previous articles, titled 'Natural Order in a Stateless Society', which may be read here - with my own reasoning having been discussed elsewhere. Finally, this subsection - the larger of the two for his essay's first section - ends with his displaying of a relabeled variation of the political compass, which comprises of four groups: 1.) Socially Conservative Authoritarian, 2.) Socially Liberal Authoritarian, 3.) Socially Liberal Libertarian, and 4.) Socially Conservative Libertarian. It is in the second section, however, where Mr. Obrenovich truly goes into detail about these labelings and his use of them.

Within the second of the three parts of his article 'Why Authentic Liberalism is Right-Wing', Michael Obrenovich properly sets aside space to not only explain the philosophical underpinnings of his new political compass - shown above, as presented by Mr. Obrenovich himself in the original article on Hoppean.org - but even explains where key political figures and America's three main political parties would fit within its framework. It is also during this section of his article that Mr. Obrenovich does commit one cardinal sin: he does not define what me means by the word 'Liberal'. Though I do not intend to put words in his mouth, I surmise that his own understanding of the term is similar to those of Ludwig Von Mises and H. L. Mencken, wherein its use is as a term being synonymous with the concepts of Laissez-Faire Economics, Decentralization, Localism, and above all a deep-seeded respect for Natural Rights. When taking this into account, the much-emphasized Authoritarian-Libertarian Divide within his political compass - one he describes as so absolute that both sides operate utterly independently from one another - with a similar divide also being seen between Social Conservatism and Social Liberalism, though unfortunately it seems that Mr. Obrenovich does not go deeply into this topic as well. Though other finer points are discussed within this section, these are so well-versed that it would be a moot point to simply regurgitate the information - after all, this is a review and response, not an attempt to outright copy the article in question. Finally, the last of the three sections is arrived upon by Michael Obrenovich in his article, in which he discussed the Conservative-Liberal Dichotomy with special attention on its relation to the Anglosphere.

 The third and final part of his article 'Why Authentic Liberalism is Right-Wing' - an article which I consider to be his magnum opus on both Hoppean.org as well as anywhere else online - Michael Obrenovich does not pull any punches whatsoever on discussing the nature of the Anglosphere's near-monopolistically driven Conservative-Liberal Dichotomy. This all begins when he delivers the gut punch to many conservatives in simply showing how their form of "Conservatism" is little more than a slightly more-defined variation of Whiggism, wherein it shares far more in common with Liberalism - a desire for small government and free market capitalism - than more continental forms of Conservatism - wherein only a love of traditional family values and religion is shared. While many a Neo-Reactionary would take this time to decry such a lack of difference as a serious flaw, however, Mr. Obrenovich instead uses this fact to better highlight why the Liberalism of the Anglosphere is not a left-wing ideal whatsoever, though this is not stated explicitly in the article and is instead conveyed in a more implicit manner. It is also at the end of this section wherein Mr. Obrenovich drops his final redpilling statement to his readers, in that he states the following: "Do not pay attention to words, rather, actions. Words are unreliable; actions will tell you everything you need to know about any given person." - an axiom which I view as nothing less than universal to any ideology.

In terms of my own takeaways from this well-written though unfortunately sometimes vague article written by Mr. Obrenovich, this piece of writing was influential to me when it was published and further helped cement my own understanding of political discourse substantially. However, I was able to take away a fair amount of information from its contents due to my own thinking being far more advanced in terms of pace regarding adopting a more Paleolibertarian and Neo-Reactionary line of thinking than most other individuals desiring to become more well-informed on the political discourse. With this in mind, I still do highly recommend this essay to be read in-full and even incorporated into the general understanding of political theory for any and all groups on both the Establishment Right and Dissident Right, as it is swiftly becoming apparent in even the first week of the Biden Administration that the so-called Cathedral is entirely unwilling to make good on its promises for "reconciliation" and is instead marshaling its considerable assets - both in the Government Bureaucracy, Mass Media, and even the Education Sector - to fight an ideological war against any and all dissident voices against its new post-progressive regime. It is only through simply rejecting the Left's own vocabulary and understanding of politics that the Right will be able to achieve any true and lasting victories, and it is always best to begin re-educating ourselves on the workings of politics by reprogramming our understanding of even the seemingly-innocent infographic of the political compass.

Overall, in terms of general readability, I would score this article - which once again may be found here for those who have read to this point and wish for a refresher - rather favorably if one is already somewhat familiar with the works of Classical Liberals whilst also scoring it very high in terms of engagement. However, its lack of concretely defining some concepts - particularly the term Liberalism - is unfortunately a serious weakness in the article which should be addressed at a later point should it be republished with edits. Regardless of this shortcoming, however, this is most definitively a must read for anyone interested in political discourse from the Right.